Sitting of 10 April 1989

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

    London Electricity Board
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the London electricity board; and what issues were discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the London electricity board regularly and discuss a range of issues of mutual concern.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but the Minister must be aware that over many years hon. Members have conducted a campaign with the electricity board, aimed at achieving a more humane and consultative policy to be followed before disconnection of electricity supply. Will the Minister assure the House that, once the industry is privatised, and other organisations are running domestic supplies to consumers, a policy of proper consultation before disconnection of supply will be followed?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, Sir. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he is looking. When the industry is privatised under the terms of the Bill that we shall be discussing later, special provisions of the kind that he requests will be put in place, and conditions will be attached to licences given to public electricity suppliers.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of London electricity board, in addition to the important point made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), will he discuss the need to ensure that all lights in London streets, particularly main roads, are on whenever it is necessary? Is my hon. Friend aware that the lighting in the area of the Target roundabout has gone off or failed many times in the past three or four years, despite my repeated requests that it be kept on?
    Mr. Spicer: I was not aware of the Target roundabout problem, but I take my hon. Friend's assurance that there is a problem there. There has been some concern about street lighting connections in the LEB area, but that problem has greatly improved in recent months. Under privatisation, local authorities will be able to contract elsewhere when they wish to do so.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assumptions he made as regards availability of pumped storage and capacity in his evidence to the Energy Select Committee in arriving at the conclusion that a Severn barrage could amount to 14 TWH/year of electricity.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The assumptions derived from the previous published study by the Severn tidal power group. These are being updated in the current study, which will be published in a few months' time.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. How confident is he of the accuracy of the predictions on which the study is based? Will he ensure that not only the conclusions of the study, but the scientific data on which they are based, will be published?
    Mr. Morrison: As I said, the assumptions derive from the previous study. Another study is taking place and the figures produced in the interim report— it is only an interim report— on the Hinckly inquiry were a little more than the figures that I gave. which were 14 TWH per annum. That is interim, and I shall certainly publish what my hon. Friend has asked for.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the effect of privatisation of the electricity industry on the production of electricity from all other energy sources.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: We have framed our privatisation proposals to encourage competitive generation from all sources.
    Mr. Cran: Does not recent experience show that the use of fossil fuels in the production of electricity is susceptible not only to interruptions of supply but to variations of price? That being so, should not the non-fossil fuel obligations be used to the maximum after the Electricity Bill is enacted, and reviewed constantly thereafter?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree that there have been disruptions in the supply of coal as a result of strikes and variations in the price of oil. That is why we have ensured, through the. non-fossil fuel obligation, that a variety of sources of energy will be available, with resulting security for the consumer. We have particularly ensured that renewable sources of energy will be given a special place within the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is privatisation a consideration in the mind of the Central Electricity Generating Board in pursuing its planning application for dry storage at Heysham? Does it think that that is cheaper than reprocessing? Will the Minister personally intervene? We want the material in west Cumberland, where it can be reprocessed by British Nuclear Fuels plc. Is the Minister aware that the people of the Heysham area object and that we in west Cumberland want the material?
    Mr. Spicer: I am not inside the CEGB's mind. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is applying for dry storage at Heysham. He is right to say— perhaps we shall be discussing this in greater detail later in the week— that

    557
    there are advantages attached to the processing which is proposed at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant in terms of the recovery of uranium and the development of plutonium. However, there must be an application and an inquiry before we can go ahead on that basis.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that British Nuclear Fuels plc is working hard to take full advantage of the opportunities for nuclear power generation under the terms of the Electricity Bill? Will he join me in congratulating both the management and the unions on the agreement recently struck, which will further the exploitation of BNF's new investment programme at the Springfield works in my constituency?
    Mr. Spicer: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those congratulations. I hope that British Nuclear Fuels plc will continue to be successful.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Jack), and his answer to it, constitute the most astonishing question and response that one can imagine from a supposedly market-oriented Government? Is the Minister able to confirm that the advice that he is receiving from the merchant banks that are advising him on privatisation is that the private investment community does not want to know about nuclear power and will not pay genuine money for it? Whereas it might be possible to sell the family silver, the Government cannot even give away the family plutonium.
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir. I do not accept that for one moment. When it comes to the establishment of the contracts for the future of the nuclear industry, we shall ensure that they allow for investment incentives and ensure that the consumer has a good deal. There is no question of it being an unattractive proposition financially to sell the industry, especially in the context of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

    Wave Energy
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further funding he proposes to provide for the next stage of research into Dr. Stephen Salter's wave energy project.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: There are no current plans for additional funding for this project.
    Mr. Macdonald: Nevertheless, will the Minister undertake to ask the technology support group at Harwell to reconsider the feasibility of Dr. Salter's project? With the benefit of hindsight, does the Minister agree that it was a mistake for the Government to cut off funding for wave energy projects in 1982? Surely Britain should be taking the lead in wave energy development and not allowing countries such as Norway to gain export orders on the back of British know-how.
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will know that Dr. Salter has been in correspondence and has had meetings with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is specifically responsible for such matters within the Department. He will realise that since 1983, about £446,000 has been spent on Dr. Salter's project. I do not
    558
    believe that there is currently a specific application. Were there to be one, that would be considered in the light of all the other competing priorities.

    British Nuclear Fuels
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the board of directors of British Nuclear Fuels; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman and other board members to discuss a wide range of matters.
    Mr. Cambell-Savours: When the Minister next meets the chairman and the board, will he put to them that they should take a particular interest in the development of nuclear fission as outlined in the articles by Fleischmann, Pons and others, including Jones in America, and ensure that every effort is made to make resources available for further development of the process? If necessary, moneys should be diverted from the Culham, Oxford laboratories, which are currently undertaking work and which have a substantial sum at their disposal, into a new area of work that may herald a new energy source for the future.
    Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chairman and the board. I am sure that they will take a close interest in the experiments and will monitor the results, but British Nuclear Fuels is responsible for reprocessing rather than for initial generation.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the additional charges by BNFL to the Scottish electricity boards over the past few years amount to £250 million for the extra costs of reprocessing fuel and the breaking of the Chapelcross contract? What is the Minister's estimate of the impact of these huge additional charges on Scottish electricity bills this year and in future years?
    Mr. Spicer: It is certainly the case, and the Government's policy, that British Nuclear Fuels should charge an appropriate cost-related price for its service and that the consumer will ultimately have to pay for those proper costs. Under our proposals, particularly our privatisation proposals in the Electricity Bill, those costs will be much more transparent than in the past, when they have often been disguised.

    British Coal
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; arid what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Minister discussed with the chairman of British Coal the deep anxiety of Leicestershire's stalwart, skilled coal miners at the steady loss of jobs for miners in the county and the east midlands? Has the hon. Gentleman considered, either with the chairman of British Coal or alone, the Government's

    559
    promise even before the last general election to build a coal-fired power station at West Burton, thereby creating 3,000 jobs for coal miners in the area? Is it right to say that nothing has happened? If so, why?
    Mr. Spicer: It is not right to say that nothing has happened. The CEGB has filed an application. It must get the approval or disapproval of the planning authorities. As I understand it, discussions are going on between the two appropriate planning authorities—the district council and the county council. I understand also that the one outstanding issue looks as though it will be resolved. If it is, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine whether he wants to hold a public inquiry. The process of applying for that power station is well advanced. Until my right hon. Friend can proceed with his consideration of the application, I must hold his position in reserve.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of British Coal the need to extend the perception of the conquences of developing coal import dependency, not least through increased coal prices? Would the hon. Gentleman care to express his support for the retention of British Coal's science laboratories at Wath upon Dearne, an area which has suffered severe contraction, where economic need is dire and where this establishment is needed as a signpost for technological development?
    Mr. Spicer: British Coal is increasingly aware of the need to be competitive against imports and also of our view that it will be able to compete against imports if the present procedures for improving productivity are maintained.
    The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice that he wanted information about the laboratories to which he referred. This is a matter for British Coal, but my understanding, in the short time available to find out about this matter, is that there is no problem about the laboratories' future. If my understanding is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of British Coal, did he reassure him that on his visit to Russia he would say that we no longer wanted Russian coal in Nottinghamshire and that, it was no more welcome than that from South Africa?
    Mr. Spicer: I do not think that any imports are welcome. The question before the Government is whether to allow imports in the interest——
    Mr. Blair: What?
    Mr. Spicer: I said that no imports would be welcomed by the Government. The question before the Government is whether to allow imports in the interest of bringing prices down, especially prices of electricity to the consumer. We have made it clear that we will allow coal imports. We have also said that with £2 million a day being given in investment to the coal industry, we have done a tremendous amount— more than any other Government — to improve the productivity of the coal industry. If productivity increases at the present rate, British Coal should be able to beat off imports.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced his intention that the coal industry
    560
    should be privatised after the next general election. Can my hon. Friend give a timetable against which the discussions and deliberations will take place, which will lead to decisions about the shape of that privatisation and, in particular, the need for competition in it?
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir. We have said that it is a matter that we want to put to the British people at the next general election and we do not wish to prejudge their decision. We shall have to make decisions about details in precisely the same way as we did with electricity. We shall make a commitment to privatise coal at the next general election. but the shape and content of that privatisation will have to wait until after the election.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: At the next discussions with the chairman of British Coal, will the Minister take the opportunity to raise with him the question of the British Coal engineering workshops? The rundown in manpower and the dilution of skills in the workshops is having an effect on the efficiency and, especially, the safety of the industry. Are there any plans to take out the engineering workshops before any proposals are made to privatise the industry?
    Mr. Spicer: The future of the workshops is a matter for British Coal. However, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the chairman's attention.
    Mr. Gow: Did the chairman of British Coal confirm to my hon. Friend at their last meeting that there was growing interest and support among miners for the proposal to privatise the industry? Did the chairman report that miners, notably in the Bolsover constituency, were looking forward to becoming owners of the mines?
    Mr. Spicer: That point was not discussed in those terms with the chairman of British Coal by my right hon. Friend or myself. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that it is most probable that the employees of British Coal will be as enthusiastic about becoming owners of that industry as the employees of all the other industries that have been privatised.
    Mr. Skinner rose
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, all right.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, when I was going through my reselection procedures in the past few weeks, not one miner or representative mentioned. ownership or privatisation? They were more concerned that I, along with my colleagues, should make it plain that the Government should stop the chicanery of backing those private Bills which will allow the import of more coal through the Humber ports. If the Government do that, they will be able to stop some of the imports that the Minister wants to stop.
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether he won his reselection, but the implication is that he did. Presumably, he meets different people from those whom I meet, or perhaps people tell him different things. I can assure him that there is every sign that, when we privatise the industry, it will have a great deal of support among those who work in it.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend care to say whether he discussed with the chairman, British Coal's appalling

    561
    record in polluting the beaches of north-east England and the rather benign statement that British Coal cannot do anything about it? Does he agree that British Coal must learn to clean up its act?
    Mr. Spicer: I am very much aware of that problem and that British Coal is under increasing pressure to do something about pollution in that part of England. I shall write to my hon. Friend with details, but I understand that there are specific plans on that question which should be coming to fruition.
    Mr. Barron: When the Minister and the Secretary of State met the chairman of British Coal, did they discuss the implications of the imports of coal that are likely to come through the Humber ports, the threat to the midlands coalfields posed by the Bills for the Humber ports and the report recently received from members of the Standing Committee that one Bill went through by the Chairman's casting vote? They said that the implications for the coal industry are horrendous and that the Government should take action to protect our indigenous coal industry. When shall we receive a statement from the Government that they are not going to let the wool be pulled over their eyes by cheap subsidised coal but are going to take some action to protect the coal miners in the midlands?
    Mr. Spicer: When one is a member of a Government who are still spending £2 million a day of taxpayers' money on the coal industry, one has to be a little careful on the question of subsidy. That is precisely what we are being at the moment— to counteract the undoubted threat of imports, which we recognise and for which we have allowed, by continuing with the process of improving the productivity of British coal. We have good coal and a good industry which should be able to compete against imports, and that is the way we believe it will be in the future.

    Pressurised Water Reactors
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about technical problems and cost over-runs experienced in the construction and operation of the pressurised water reactors managed by the Brazilian utility Electrobras and about related transmission problems; and what assessment he has made of their implications for the robustness of the case for adopting a programme of generally similar reactors in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I am aware that Electrobras does have some problems with its PWR programme. The CEGB is confident that PWRs built in this country will operate satisfactorily.
    Mr. Dalyell: If only because those who want to prevent significant flooding in the Amazonian rain forest have a duty to say where the electricity and power will come from if not from dams, may I ask the Minister if we are in a position to help Brazil and to co-operate with the nuclear power programme between Sao Paulo and Rio? On the question of transmission, has any assessment been made of the difficulties in superconductivity of transmitting energy over a distance of 2,000 miles?
    Mr. Morrison: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this matter. When I went to Rio de Janeiro I met the president of Electrobras, and during that
    562
    meeting we discussed many matters and I suggested that it might be helpful if, when he was next in London, he found the opportunity to talk to our electricity division and to the energy efficiency office. In his second point about transmission, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the key element— that the vast distances involved in Brazil, as compared with those in this country, for example, mean that there are inevitably difficulties of a different order.
    Mr. Moss: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the faulty equipment referred to in the question about the Brazilian utility is French? Does not that endorse the CEGB'S preference for Westinghouse American technology rather than French technology?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Brazil and other countries should look very carefully indeed at the sort of technology and experience that we have been able to develop here, in conjunction with other countries.

    Redundant Miners
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 5, if he will now indicate what measures he will take to resolve the problems created by the restart scheme for redundant miners; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I am now able to confirm that it is our intention to introduce an amending order to modify the redundant mineworkers payments scheme such that receipt of benefits under the scheme will no longer be conditional upon the beneficiary making himself available for work.
    Mr. Skinner: I think that the next question must be when will that amendment be brought before the House to ensure that officers at unemployment and social security departments throughout the British coalfields are instructed to stop the harassment that has been taking place? Will the Minister also guarantee that, in the amending legislation, provision will be made for those miners who have lost money— in some cases more than £l,000— to be paid back retrospectively?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, Sir. We intend to take powers to recompense those former mineworkers who have lost RMPS benefits due to changes in the availability for work procedures. The hon. Gentleman was ungenerous enough not to admit it, but employment offices have been careful in the way in which they have dealt with the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.
    Mr. Beith: I welcome the Minister's decision and the efforts that Energy Ministers have put into securing the decision. Will he recognise, however, that the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment between them have made an absolute mess of the scheme and have caused a great deal of anxiety to men who were told, when they left the industry, that they were doing it a favour by taking retirement when they did and that they were helping to restructure the coal industry? Does he agree that, this decision, though overdue, is welcome?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The miners were made aware at the time— in the pamphlet issued by British Coal— that availability for work would be one of

    563
    the criteria by which they would continue to qualify for RMPS payments. That was always clear; it was never in any doubt. We are amending the rules in the light of the stricter rules accompanying restart. That is all. There was never any question but that they would have to be available for work.
    Mr. Eadie: We should be extremely churlish if we did not welcome the Minister's statement. Is he aware that we are glad that he has told us that any proposed legislation will be retrospective? However, will he accept that when the miners parliamentary group met the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Employment, we were given an understanding that there would be a sort of ca' canny and no harassment of miners who were involved in what was really a Government error? In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement today, will he assure the House that he will instruct the Departments involved that there should be no more harassment of redundant mineworkers? I heard of two cases this weekend that are an absolute disgrace.
    Mr. Spicer: I should very much like to hear from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about the two cases. There is every intention that such cases should be treated as lightly as possible and that the miners to whom he is referring should not be harassed, to use the hon. Gentleman's word— I do not think that "harassment" is exactly the right word to use. However, if there are any cases with which he has problems, I shall be happy to hear from him.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that whatever the technicalities of the documentation, many miners, especially elderly miners, genuinely believed that they would not be required to re-offer themselves for work and therefore there will be the warmest welcome from hon. Members of all parties for what he has announced? We hope that legislation will be introduced as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right in that there was the perception among some miners that they would not have to be available for work and that they had received some kind of retirement payment. However, leaflets were produced which made it quite clear that they would have to be available for work— the majority knew that— and that has been part of the problem with restart. I take my hon. Friend's point and thank him for what he has said.

    CEGB
    Mr. Radice: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet John Baker, the chief executive of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet senior members of the Central Electricity Generating Board, including Mr. John Baker.
    Mr. Radice: Will the Minister tell the House about an important issue that has arisen from discussions that he might have had with Mr. Baker— that is, the latest estimate of the costs of the flotation of electricity supply industry shares?
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir. Never have any Government made that sort of information available, especially before the
    564
    enabling legislation has passed through the House of Commons. It would be wrong of us to get estimates and to go into deep preparations for flotation campaigns before Parliament has finally passed judgment on the Bill that would enable us to do so.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend seek assurances from the chief executive of the CEGB that the privatised generation companies will not inhibit competition by continuing to hoard the 100 or more redundant power station sites that the CEGB has not been interested in redeveloping or refurbishing, but which the private sector is keen to develop with new technologies for the smaller power stations which have planning approvals because it will be difficult to find sites for competitive power stations unless we use those that we already have?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have made flexible provisions for compulsory purchase by private power companies should they wish to take over the land that has not been used by the existing operators. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's words are widely heard.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Minister agree that if the costs of selling electricity are the same as those for gas and British Telecom, we are talking about £25 for every household in the country and when that is added to higher prices, to a special nuclear tax and to uncertainty even about security of supply, it is no wonder that the vast majority of people in this country oppose privatisation?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is giving us an overture to what will no doubt be his speech at the beginning of our Report and Third Reading debates later today.
    This is the biggest privatisation of all time— and quite rightly so. Many consumers will benefit, and there will be a much increased number of shareholders. One of the Opposition Front Bench Members said that he hoped that the privatisation would be properly undertaken. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be properly undertaken and that there will be a proper campaign to promote it.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister recall that during the Report stage of the Electricity Bill his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that a new code of practice on disconnections would be brought before the House, or at least would be notified to the House, before that stage of the Bill had been completed? Can he tell us what has happened to the code of practice, and when we are likely to hear the details of it?
    Mr. Spicer: I hope very much that we shall be able to bring the code of practice forward before the House has finished its consideration of the Bill. I shall have to refresh my memory, but I think that that is what was said. Certainly it is what we shall try, to do.

    Severn Tidal Power Group
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the final report of the Severn tidal power group.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The study by the Severn tidal power group is nearing completion, and I expect to receive a final report within the next few months.
    Mr. Banks: While talk of the Severn barrage is not exactly the matter of the moment in pubs in Newham, a good renewable energy source certainly is. Tidal power presents precisely that prospect. Will the Minister say whether the Government are committed in principle to the idea of tidal power? When the report has been received, and before any of the recommendations are implemented, will he make sure that the interests of both Welsh miners and redshanks are well protected?
    Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that tidal power is not the chat of the pubs in Newham; I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the chat of the pubs in my constituency, the City of Chester, not least because of the Mersey barrage. Indeed, there is great interest in it there. Of course, the final decision on whether the scheme should go ahead will be taken on commercial grounds, as well as environmental grounds, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which, I agree, are very important indeed.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to bring the report forward as soon as possible? While this matter may not be the talk of the pubs in Newham, I can assure him that it is the talk of the pubs around the docks in Bristol, not least because it is hoped that the new opportunities that will be created in Avonmouth by the abolition of the national dock labour scheme will not be stopped by a barrage just outside the port.
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, the speed of a convoy is the speed of its slowest ship. I can assure him that in this matter, I will not be the slowest ship. We shall make sure that as soon as the report reaches us it is put expeditiously in the right places so that everybody can see it.

    Acid Rain
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the programme to combat the polluting emissions which cause acid rain.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The CEGB announced in February the award of the contract for retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment to Drax power station. The board is currently considering which station should be retrofitted next.
    Mr. Archer: Has the Minister grasped that it is not only the international relations of this country that are threatened by acid rain, but every industry and every activity that depends upon pure water, and that those waters that have not yet acidified are depending on their buffering effect, which is by definition a diminishing asset? Does he have no sense of urgency about this?
    Mr. Spicer: We have a very great sense of urgency. That is why we will comply, and will make sure that our industry complies with the regulations under which there must be a 60 per cent. reduction in SO2, emissions by the year 2003.
    Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern in the Warrington and St. Helens area that the CEGB is backtracking on the proposal to install a gas scrubber in the Fiddlers Ferry power station? Will he give an undertaking that, notwithstanding privatisation,
    566
    the CEGB, or the privatised company, will go ahead with that scrubber, which is essential if acid rain in the Warrington and St. Helens area is to be reduced?
    Mr. Spicer: I cannot say that Fiddlers Ferry will get the next scrubber, because that will be the responsibility of the successor company, PowerGen. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance— the assurance that I have just given the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)— that the regulation requiring a 60 per cent. cut in SO2emissions by the year 2003 will be complied with by the industry. Which existing power stations it decides to retrofit will be a matter for the industry. However, I repeat that the 60 per cent. reduction regulation will have to be complied with.

    British Coal
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many miners there were in 1979; how many there are at present; and what information he has of British Coal's estimate of long-term trends in future numbers working in the industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: At the end of British Coal's 1988–89 financial year there were 81,739 men on colliery books compared with 233,163 at the end of 1979–80. Numbers for future years will depend on the performance of individual collieries and the success of British Coal in meeting the requirements of its customers.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that those numbers will decline even further unless the Government take action to prevent major imports of coal? Will he look at the possibility of subsidising exported coal to the same extent as nations such as Russia, South Africa, many South American countries, Poland and Australia, subsidise their exports to this country? Will he introduce some balance into subsidy?
    Mr. Spicer: First, I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that those reductions in manpower from 233,000 to 81,000, which are considerable, have been accompanied by an almost static production rate, which shows a tremendous, fantastic increase in productivity. Secondly, I remind him of the Government's policy to ensure that that improved performance will continue in future. That continuation will be sufficient to beat off imports. We shall not introduce either increased subsidies on the present levels, which are considerable— we have spent £9 billion of taxpayers' money in recent years, and the hon. Gentleman should remember that when he talks about coal subsidies— or import controls, because that would not be in the best interest of consumers, particularly of electricity.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Magistrates (Appointment)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General how many local advisory committees on the appointment of magistrates (a) have and (b) have not made their membership publicly known; and what further steps he is taking to encourage an end to secrecy in the appointment of magistrates.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): About half the 95 advisory committees had made the identity of their members public by the end of 1988. All committees are required to do so by the end of 1992. The Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are encouraging committees to make the identity of their members public immediately.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Solicitor-General concerned about the secrecy involved in these local advisory committees? Will he encourage the committees that have not yet responded, so that the local community is properly reflected by sex, ethnic origin and class? Will he also ensure that he finds out how many freemasons are on the committees, so that they, too, have a fair share of local magistrates?
    The Solicitor-General: As I have said, the Lord Chancellor is encouraging the local advisory committees to publish their composition without delay. He is anxious that they should be broadly based and reflect the nature of the local community, as should the broad base of the magistracy itself.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my hon. and learned Friend give the age of the youngest magistrate? Could more and younger magistrates be appointed? That would have the obvious advantages that they would serve for a long time and gain in experience, as well as being useful on appointment.
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact age of the youngest magistrate, but certainly the Lord Chancellor seeks to procure magistrates from a wide age range, including younger ones, who are more difficult to get because they tend to be more involved in their work. He will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Legal Profession (Green Papers)
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Attorney-General what responses the Lord Chancellor has received to his Green Papers on the future of the legal profession.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): At 31 March a total of 702 such responses had been received.
    Mr. Archer: While thanking the Attorney-General for that informative reply, may I ask whether he has now grasped that the Green Papers have succeeded in uniting opposition from a diverse spectrum of opinion? Is he aware that some of us are troubled not because the proposals are too radical, but because it has not become apparent how Manchester school of economics principles will achieve the stated objective of making effective legal services avalable to the wider public?.
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have observed, perhaps, that in another place on Friday, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said that it was part of the purpose of the Green Papers to stimulate debate and that they had certainly succeeded in that objective. The purpose of the Government's provisonal proposals is to ensure that the public are provided with the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economical price.
    Mr. Favell: No one should be granted immunity from change— not doctors, not nurses, not dockers and not lawyers.
    568
    On the constitutional issue raised by the Lord Chief Justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Government will do all that is necessary to ensure the long-term future independence of judges, never forgetting that the Left would dearly like to bring the judiciary within the long arm of the state?
    The Attorney-General: The legal profession is certainly not one which expects, requires or seeks to be immune from change.
    As to the constitutional requirement of the independence of the judiciary in this country, I can give, on behalf of the Government and of the Lord Chancellor, the most categorical assurance that they hold firmly to that principle, which is absolutely central to the rule of law.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Attorney-General ensure that, whatever may be the final outcome regarding the future of legal services in this country, there will be adequate provision for the confidentiality of letters written by Law Officers about matters related to Cabinet affairs? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that he was the fall guy in the Westland affair? Does he not feel deeply resentful and angry at the way in which he was used by No. 10?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the main question.
    The Attorney-General: Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to quarrel at this early state of the afternoon with your opinion.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me that the Green Papers have stimulated necessary debate and that we should be looking for changes in the legal profession only where those are necessary? In the course of seeking advice on the Green Papers, will my right hon. and learned Friend also institute inquiries into the way in which estate agents up and down the country are insisting that people go to them for legal services and for mortgages as well as for the purchase of houses? Will he consider the effect of that policy on small town solicitors throughout the country who are the backbone of legal advice?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question with which, of course, I fully agree. It is the key to the Government's provisional proposals that they should stimulate competition, because the Government's belief in competition being very much in the interests of the ordinary citizen, in whatever area with which we are concerned, lies behind these provisional proposals. I believe that what my hon. Friend has said would form the basis of a very proper submission to the Lord Chancellor in response to the Green Papers.
    Mr. Mullin: Given some of the people who have come out against the Lord Chancellor's proposals, does the Attorney-General agree that the proposals cannot be all bad?
    The Attorney-General: I would welcome the opportunity— although I am surprised that one should be thought necessary— of saying that my opinion is that these proposals are not "all bad".
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that there is adequate consultation with the

    569
    members of the Bar whose future careers are involved in this matter, and not give undue credence to the aged opponents of reform in the other place, who are no more representative of the Bar than the other place is of the general public?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend asks that the Lord Chancellor in particular, and the Government in general, shall not give undue credence to any particular expression of opinion. It would not be the purpose of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to be undue in any response to what is put to him.
    What is required in response to the Green Papers is, as my noble Friend has so often made clear, the fullest and the most frank and uninhibited discussion possible. At the end of the period that has been set aside for consideration of the proposals the Government will consider what the next step forward should be.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Attorney-General aware that at the performance of The Plantagenets at the Barbican the line from Henry VI, Part 2
    "let's kill all the lawyers"
    gets the largest cheer from the audience? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware just how unpopular lawyers are— perhaps even more unpopular than Members of Parliament? Therefore, will he ensure that they are brought to heel and that when we have a vote in this House it will be a free one?
    The Attorney-General: I have just come back from a visit to the People's Republic of China where quite a large number of lawyers were killed not long ago. That country is now trying to recruit about half a million lawyers.

    Land Registry
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Attorney-General what is the present number of staff employed by the Land Registry.
    The Solicitor-General: At 1 March 1989 the Land Registry employed 11,476 staff.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite an increase in staff, the Land Registry has admitted that there is no prospect of an immediate reduction in the unacceptable delay in handling transactions? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the current policy of compulsory registration by 1990 is sustainable? Should the time scale be extended, the backlog cleared and then calls for voluntary registration, where appropriate, made?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend may know that, last year, the complement of staff was increased by more than 2,100 and as a result the Land Registry's throughput has increased considerably. Last year, some 6·4 million pre-completion, pre-contract transactions were dealt with — 90 per cent. within four days and the remaining 10 per cent. within six to seven days. The problem arises with the post-completion, substantive applications where there has been an average delay of four months. With the increase in staff, those applications are now being worked off quite fast at the rate of about 112,000 since the beginning of this year, over and above the speed at which those applications are coming in. It is reckoned that the Land Registry is on course to achieve a satisfactory standard by March next year.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Yemen
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the aid programmes to the Yemen Arab Republic and to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Our aid to the Yemen Arab Republic came to about £6·9 million in the financial year just ended. The programme comprises assistance for technical co-operation projects, notably in natural resources, and English language teaching, together with training. Assistance has also been provided under the aid and trade provision. In the case of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, our aid came to just under £1 million last year, including emergency relief, colonial pension payments and a small technical co-operation programme concentrating on training and English language teaching.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that in north Yemen, due to the lack of longstanding links between that country and our own, our aid programme is substantially less than that of most of our European Community partners and that in south Yemen, the needs are great, but, due to the unhappy ending of our previous relations in 1967, our assistance is extremely small? In the light of the Foreign Secretary's recent visit will my hon. Friend consider reassessing our relationship in terms of aid with those countries?
    Mr. Patten: We looked at our aid programme in the Yemen Arab Republic and in its next door neighbour before my right hon. and learned Friend's visit and that is one reason why, during that visit, he announced an increase of about £500,000 in the technical assistance programmes to the YAR.
    The development of our aid partnership with the People's Republic of Yemen has been held back not only by political factors, but by the lack of a memorandum of understanding on technical co-operation. That has posed administrative problems, but there is a draft memorandum with that country's Government and I hope that they will return it to us as soon as possible.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that now is a good time to improve relations with the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen? If he does, will he give careful consideration to making a generous donation to the PDRY to alleviate the floods and destruction that have just occurred there?
    Mr. Patten: Following the recent floods we have been able to give help of £ 190,000 to the PDRY for the purchase of two Land Rovers, shelter materials and water purification tablets. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley); it would help us to develop our technical assistance programme with the PDRY if it would agree a memorandum of understanding with us.

    Disasters
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the Armenian earthquake, he has reviewed Britain's capacity to respond to disasters overseas.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have now carried out such a review and introduced a number of improvements in our operations. These include more staff and disaster management training in the Overseas Development Administration and better co-ordination with other Departments and voluntary agencies in this country involved in disaster relief.
    At the international level I have put proposals to the United Nations disaster relief office for improving the co-ordination of the response to disasters.
    Mr. Moss: While recognising that this country and many others responded extremely generously, should not the international community do more to prepare in a better way for such disasters, so that it can respond in a more professional and organised manner?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with what my hon. Friend said. It is important that, at the outset of the United Nations natural disaster reduction decade, we should put forward initiatives for better co-ordinating our assistance. We have proposed to the United Nations that the disaster relief office should hold an international register of pledges of specific assistance that could be cashed whenever a disaster occurred. I have also told the UNDRO that we are prepared to host a ministerial conference to take forward those ideas. I hope that that will be possible in the next few months.
    Mr. Hanley: Is it not true that the British Government and people are extremely generous with emergency aid? Is it not also true that we are greatly respected throughout the world for our quick and positive response to such circumstances?
    Mr. Patten: The propositions of my hon. Friend are true. I particularly commend our experienced international charities such as the Red Cross and Oxfam. We have lessons to learn from those charities and— without requiring an excess of Christian humility on their part— they occasionally have lessons to learn from us.

    Ghana
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Ghana.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The United Kingdom continues to be a major supporter of Ghana's economic recovery programme, for which we announced on 1 March a pledge of a further £20 million of balance of payments finance. This brings the total of our balance of payments support to Ghana since 1983 to £92·5 million.
    Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show that the Government's record of aid to Ghana is excellent? However, does not the success in Ghana show that African countries that follow a sensible reform programme—for example, that suggested by the World Bank or the United Nations— do better than those which do not?
    Mr. Patten: Yes. The World Bank and the United Nations development programme have just issued an encouraging report underlining the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that other countries will draw confidence and inspiration from what Ghana has achieved in the past few years. I hope that they will also follow Ghana in attempting to design good social programmes to accompany the economic reform programmes.
    Mr. Boateng: Given the outstanding success of the British Council library and reading rooms in Ghana, will the Minister consider extending aid and assistance to the British Council so that it can open similar libraries and reading rooms in southern Africa, particularly in Namibia, where they are much needed in the run-up to independence?.
    Mr. Patten: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the important role played by the British Council. I am delighted that the amount that it can do in developing countries will have increased during this year. It has an important job to do in countries in the front line in southern Africa, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that we particularly need to go on training, teaching the English language and providing as much assistance as possible in Namibia as it moves towards independence.

    World Bank
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider publishing the United Kingdom's voting record at the World Bank.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have considered this question, but have decided for the moment to make no change in the longstanding practice of successive Governments.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister reconsider that answer in view of the fact that the United States of America not only discloses its voting record in the World Bank but encourages other countries to do so? It seems to me and many others essential that people who ask for help from the World Bank should know what decisions are being taken, because that will help them to put their case.
    Mr. Patten: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the advocacy of the United States in the World Bank. It has not been as successful there as elsewhere, as we do exactly the same as everyone else in the organisation, with the exception of the United States.
    It is important to remember that votes in the World Bank board are extremely rare. Our main interest is that the World Bank should be as effective as possible, but, as a matter of course, we consult widely on controversial matters that come before the board— for example, with interested environmental groups.
    Mr. Jack: What are the Government doing to encourage the World Bank to develop more environmentally sensitive approaches in its investment policy, particularly on the rain forests?
    Mr. Patten: We are doing a good deal to encourage the World Bank and other multilateral organisations to do more environmentally. The World Bank has learnt a good number of lessons in the past few years. We also intend to do more through our bilateral programme in this extremely important area.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Minister reconsider his answer about the World Bank, bearing in mind that the Canadian Government have expressed concern that matters should not be shrouded in secrecy and that more information should be available? The United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Brady, has written to the president of the World Bank about the same issue. Remembering that things that are kept secret by the Government tend to be leaked at the end of the day, is it not important that taxpayers should know how we behave on these important matters in the World Bank, and should not the information be made available?
    Mr. Patten: To be honest, the best way of keeping a secret is to make a speech or deliver an answer in the House. It is conceivable that that will continue to be so for this answer, too.
    We should not get this out of perspective. It seems to me that, as the recent controversy over the power sector loan for Brazil has shown, when matters of controversy arise there is a good and open debate about them. The members of the Overseas Development Administration who are at present answering the thousands of letters about the proposed loan to Brazil, which I think is unlikely to go forward in the shape originally suggested, would not think that matters had been shrouded in secrecy.

Points of Order
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from Ministers about a statement on the entirely new doctrine that it has apparently now become all right for a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister to authorise the leaking of a Law Officer's letter to Mr. Chris Moncrieff?
Have you had any request for an explanation of whether Lord Armstrong of Ilminster knew that there had been explicit approval of a disclosure of a Law Officer's letter when he put forward a report that concentrated on differences of understanding between civil servants? Might he not have been just a little economical with the truth?
My point of order is this: in the style of Mr. Justice McCowan, is it now the case that a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister should carry out the instructions of politicians, even though he knows that those instructions are against the highest traditions of the British Civil Service?
Finally, when did Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell tell their Prime Minister what they had done and what they had approved?
Mr. Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have had no such request. These are matters for political debate and not for points of order to me.
Mr. David Winnick: I have a point of order which is directly for you, Mr. Speaker, and it is one which I consider to be of such importance. I do not think that an hon. Member who has been here for a quarter of a century or more is suspended simply for the joy of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was suspended; it is true that there was a vote on it. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, because there is no one else I can ask. If later events prove that an hon. Member who has been suspended was telling the truth— and everything indicates that my hon. Friend has been telling the truth about Westland— what can be done about the suspension?
Mr. Speaker: I can deal with that question quite simply. The hon. Member was not suspended for what he said but because he would not withdraw an unparliamentary word.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of my point of order, but I expect that the article by Adam Raphael in yesterday's edition of The Observer has been brought to your attention because it makes serious allegations about the workings of the House. In the article, a Mr. Charles Miller, of Public Policy Consultants, is quoted as saying that some Select Committee Chairmen had been bought. He says:
"I have found a large number of venal members of Parliament."
The article makes a number of serious allegations, including allegations that some research assistants employed by Members are full-time members of companies that are professional lobbyists of the House. The article is headlined:
"A £10m trade in influence".
It makes serious allegations that I ask you to consider. As there is a range of matters affecting a number of Committees, I should be most grateful if you would consider this matter with a view to requesting the appropriate Committees to interview Mr. Miller and to
576
consider other steps that could be taken to clean up what is being rapidly seen as a corrupt, or potentially corrupt, House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: Of course I saw that article. I understand that the Select Committee is already investigating this matter and has taken evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has a further point to put about Mr. Miller's allegation, he should direct it to the Select Committee.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday you gave a ruling which no one in the House challenged. It was about the application of the sub judice rule in connection with published sections of the report on Harrods, Al Fayed and Lonrho. We did not challenge your ruling because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry— [Interruption.]
We are trying to be serious about an important national matter. We did not challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because we had the assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that any such quotations could have prejudiced the fairness of any subsequent trial and because the serious fraud office had said that further disclosure could prejudice its further inquiries.
On the front page of today's Financial Times there is a fascinating article by a Mr. Clive Wolman. The article is based on extensive information, including quotations about activities by members of the serious fraud office and officials. We have had the much publicised comment by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about wrongdoing. That comment may have been a political gaffe and a blunder, but we are not making much of that because such things occasionally happen. However, when it is taken in conjunction with what is clearly leaked information that could have come only from the Department of Trade and Industry or from the serious fraud office, it reveals information that would prejudice any future trial.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the contents of the article and let us know, perhaps tomorrow, whether, in view of what is clearly official leaking from one or other o those two bodies, the ruling that you gave last week should be reconsidered?
Mr. Speaker: I will have a look at the article. It would be difficult for me to read all the newspapers every day. do my best at the weekend. The sub judice rule is well known. I have nothing to add to what I said about it last week.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), will you consider this point as well? I do not expect you to respond immediately to it. It flows directly from your ruling last Tuesday, which I do not challenge— and I genuinely mean that.
For questions to the Attorney-General on 12 December and 23 January the Table Office allowed me to table specific questions— which were answered— about the report of the Department of Trade and Industry on the House of Fraser and Lonrho. For questions to the Attorney-General on 13 February, by which time the issue had gone to the other place, I was prevented from asking such questions, and so resorted to questions about the serious fraud office.

577
The issue before the other place is whether the Secretary of State misdirected himself. Win or lose in the other place, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He cannot be ordered to do so. Therefore, the sub judice rule is being extended. When the other place has made its decision, it does not matter what the Secretary of State decides to do; he cannot be wrong. The law gives him total discretion as to the reference.
When the other place has so decided, will I and other hon. Members be free, as I was in both December and January, to table specific questions about this matter, to be answered at the Dispatch Box? There are no other changed grounds— no proceedings, no prosecutions, no charges. It is simply an internal working document of government for which no legal actions will be pending. I hope that you will consider this point, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I will look into the matter. When the hon. Gentleman tabled his questions before, the matter was not before a court, and in such circumstances hon. Members could table questions. My sub judice ruling last week was well understood by hon. Members. I said that it was not in order to quote from the document. The House will know that, with that proviso, I granted a private notice question on the matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the points of order that have been raised this afternoon. I do not know whether you videoed the programme last Friday. It was a bit boring in parts, I have to agree, but it made an essential statement that needs to be looked at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked when you would be able to assist him in getting a statement or a debate about the renewed arguments about Westland, and you had to say, "It's nowt to do with me." You were than asked about the takeover of Harrods, which is also in the public eye, and you had to say, "Sorry, I can't help." My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked about an article in The Observer, which claimed that Members of Parliament who table questions on behalf of somebody can get £200 a time, and you had to say, "Sorry, it's none of my business."
This afternoon, we shall be debating the Electricity Bill, and not one Opposition Member wants that Bill. I doubt whether more than 20 per cent. of our people want the electricity industry to be privatised. If we had a proper system in this cock-eyed place, we would be debating those three important issues and not the Electricity Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to an interesting point. Too frequently, points of order are matters of political controversy across the Chamber, as they have been today. I fully understand that, over many years, it has become a practice for the Opposition to put questions such as these through the Chair, but the House knows that they are not really matters for me. I do not think that it would be wise for the Speaker of the House to be given the responsibility of deciding also what business we should debate every day.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I was rising in my place long before anyone else.
Mr. Speaker: The procedure does not work like that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be most diligent——
Mr. Flannery: Disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the difficult task of deciding who catches my eye first, and it was the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I ask you to be most diligent, Mr. Speaker, when dealing with the article, and especially the statement which clearly emanates from the serious fraud office. Will you examine the article on the basis that I intend to table a long series of motions that will bring into the public domain hitherto unpublished material that sets out what happened in Lonrho and what appeared in the Lonrho broadsheet over the past few months during which Mr. Tiny Rowland has been pursuing the Al Fayeds.
Mr. Speaker: First, the hon. Gentleman must submit his motions, and then we shall see what happens.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall now hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
Mr. Flannery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is about time.
Mr. Speaker: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. It would be courteous if he were to rephrase that comment.
Mr. Flannery: May I rephrase it by saying thank you, Mr. Speaker?
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I note that the Leader of the House is in his place. The article which appeared in yesterday's edition of The Observer which was written by Mr. Adam Raphael reveals a state of affairs that should concern every hon. Member.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the lucrative consultancies within the House are held by Conservative Members. Most of the consultancies that are held by Labour Members relate to trade unions. Any other consultants on the Labour Benches should be ashamed of themselves. The article to which I have referred reveals that extremely important individuals on the Government Benches have masses of directorships and consultancies, and that some of them are in charge of Committees. The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said that he was taking up these activities for the later part of his life, suggesting that the rest of us do not need to do it. In any event, we do not do it in that way.
Is it in order for me, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House to say something about the serious issue which has been drawn to our attention, whether now or in the future? People throughout the country know now that there is something sick and wrong in this place. They know that vast sums are being made by some hon. Members, largely Conservative Members. The rest of us are being blamed for the things that they do. They are making millions of pounds out of their activities.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I wish to take up, Mr. Speaker, your reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr Winnick), which concerned something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was recently thrown out of the House. My hon. Friend was thrown out because he said that someone was a liar. If I know that an hon. Member is lying and I wish to say that he is lying, does your action in having my hon. Friend thrown out mean that for all time none of us can ever say that an hon. Member is lying when we know that he is? How can we deal with such an issue?
I understand that it is custom and practice that we do not say certain things in this place. At times I have retreated, as it were, because I have been instructed to retreat. I did not think it right to retreat, but you, Mr. Speaker, told me to retreat, and so I retreated. I do not believe in getting thrown out of the House, and never have done. However, if I know that someone is a liar and he says something that I know is a lie, how can I relate that to the House? Apparently, I cannot table a motion that states that a Member of this place is a liar. How can I deal with it?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members know that self-discipline in the House requires that hon. Members do not impute dishonour to each other. Every occupant of the Chair is reluctant to use the weapon of naming a Member. Most hon. Members, when instructed by the Chair to withdraw an unparliamentary word, such as that which the hon. Member mentioned, do so, and I hope that that will always happen. If an hon. Member wishes to persist in making an allegation about another hon. Member, he must do so by an appropriately worded substantive motion.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the Government are trying to secure the receipt of all copies of The Observer special edition which was published last week. Incidentally, the print comes off the special edition just as it comes off the regular edition, but the factual content is interesting.
Will we be advised by you, Sir, to hand our copies to the Government? A number of us have received the special copies— indeed, I am doing a fairly good trade in lending mine to Conservative Members, including Front-Bench Members. Are we entitled to keep our special copies, or do we have to return them to the Government?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I have not seen the special edition either, so perhaps the hon. Member will lend me his copy.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the National Health Service (Functions of Health Boards) (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 446) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.— [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Orders of the Day

  LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (LORDS
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) ( Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Electricity Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Clause 19

  POWER TO REQUIRE SECURITY
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 16, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  '(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above, reasonable and sufficient security shall be deemed given

  (a) (i) where the person giving security is prepared to take supply of electricity through a pre-payment meter; and

  (ii) it is reasonably practical in all the circumstances (including in particular the risk of loss or damage) for the supplier to provide such a meter; or

  (b) where a direct payment is made to the supplier under regulation 35 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (deductions from income support and other benefits and direct payments to thrid parties); or

  (c) the person requiring the supply is repared to enter an agreement to pay the estimated costs by means of a weekly or monthly instalment plan, the payment to be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect actual consumption.

  (5) In sub-section 1(a) above, "security" means any arrangement in consequence of which a public electricity supplier may be assured of payment of money due to him and shall include a deposit given to such supplier or guarantee or charge (whether legal or equitable) in favour of such supplier.
  (6) Any dispute arising under sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) above between a public electricity supplier and a person giving or wishing to give security shall be determined by the Director as though it were a dispute falling to be determined under section 21 below.'.
  Mr.Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 115, in schedule 6, page 89, line 38, at end, insert—
  '(2A) For the purposes of paragraph 2, (2) (a) above, a person shall be regarded as having made good the default—

  (a) where the person giving security is prepared to take supply of electricity through a pre-payment meter—

  (i) which is calibrated to recover over a reasonable period any money in respect of which he is in default; and

  (ii) it is reasonably practical in all the circumstances (including in particular the risk of loss or damage) for the supplier to provide such a meter; or

  (b) Where a direct payment is made to the supplier under regulation 35 of the Social security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (deductions from income support and other benefits and direct payments to third parties).

  No. 152, in schedule 6, page 91, line 6, at end add—
  '5A. If a tariff customer has not, after the expiry of 28 working days from the making of a demand in writing by a public electricity supplier for payment thereof, paid all money due from him in respect of the supply of electricity by the supplier to any premises at the provision by the supplier of any electric line or electric plant, the supplier may—

  (a) apply to a court for an order granting permission to cut off the supply to the premises, or to any other premises occupied by the customer, by such means as he thinks fit;

  (b) recover any expenses incurred in so doing from the customer and

  (c) an application to court under this schedule shall be by way of summary procedure.'.

  Mr. Bruce: Amendment No. 116 is designed to reduce the incidence of disconnection of electricity customers, and amendment No. 115 is designed to speed up and facilitate reconnection for those who have had the misfortune to be disconnected. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect our considerable debate on disconnections and the wider linked issue of fuel poverty. Somewhat to our surprise, and to the surprise of Conservative Back Benchers, we got an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Government intended to support a revised code of practice similar to that nearing completion of negotiation for the gas industry. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that it was absurd that the code of practice for disconnection in the electricity industry should be less advantageous to the consumer than that which applied in the gas industry.
  When pressed, the Secretary of State amplified the position somewhat. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more detail. The Secretary of State finally said:
  "Because of the consultations that must take place, the final form may not be settled before the Bill leaves its Committee stage, but it will be settled well before the Bill leaves the Commons. There is a three-month cycle of consultations which may not end before the Committee stage. We expect the licence to be modified by Report stage."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 31 January 1989; c. 614.]
  I raised this matter during Question Time and the Minister gave the impression that a final agreement was not yet to hand. I hope that he will accept that it is appropriate and legitimate at this point to press him for some clarification about the terms of the code of practice— to the extent that he is able to reveal them— about the timetable for when the code of practice will be agreed and about how and when it will be incorporated into the licence. It is not wholly satisfactory to be told that the code of practice may be available to us before the Bill finally leaves this House.
  If the Bill is unamended in the other place, it will not come back to this House. However, when it goes to the other place, we shall seek to press this amendment. Whatever happens, it will be helpful if the Minister can give us some clarification.
  I am sure that the Minister will accept that many people are interested in this matter and want to know what will happen. For the record, it may be worth pointing out that, as the Bill is drafted, there is a significant distinction between the gas code of practice and the electricity code of practice proposed under the draft licence. It is proposed that the electricity consumer should be given only 15 days' notice of disconnection, whereas the gas consumer receives 28 days' notice.
  The issue of disconnection ebbs and flows and arguments about the figures in themselves are not especially constructive. The annual rate of disconnections is still about 80,000 which I hope all hon. Members will regard as far too many. There has been some dispute about whether the figure is coming down throughout the country. Some of the figures suggest that the disconnection rate is going up in at least one or two areas, which is a matter for concern. We cannot be absolutely sure that, even to the extent that figures suggest that disconnections are decreasing, it is entirely to do with modified practices as opposed to the good fortune of having had a mild winter, which inevitably reduces the likelihood of disconnection.
  It is all very well for the Government to say that the trend is downward and that there is no need to worry

  583
  because they will ensure that that trend will continue after privatisation. The experience with the privatisation of British Gas was the reverse: as soon as privatisation came into effect, the number of disconnections increased. That is why a new code of practice for disconnections is being introduced for gas consumers. I am sure that the Minister does not want a repeat of that in the privatisation of electricity because it would be politically embarrassing for him and, of course, far worse for those who suffer disconnection.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that there are just two hon. Members on the Government Benches? We are discussing disconnections and people who will suffer considerably as a result. Yet Conservative Members are so interested in the matter that they will simply come in to vote against the amendment. The general public should take note of that.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Whey I saw the number of Members on the Conservative Benches I thought that I had come lucky in an unexpected raffle for an extra Adjournment debate.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that only three Back-Bench Labour Members are present? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr Heller) should not cast stones when he is sitting in a glasshouse himself.
  Mr. Bruce: I think that I had better let that pass. I shall say simply that it would be helpful for the debate if more hon. Members were present. We are debating a serious and important issue which affects many people and causes them considerable concern.
  We must avoid a situation in which new companies come into effect under the licensing procedures proposed in the Bill, but are not required to adopt a process of disconnection that automatically gives a better deal to the consumer than exists or has existed hitherto. The amendments seek to include specific measures in the Bill to ensure that whoever receives a licence is required to operate a code of practice that will minimise the incidence of disconnection.
  4 pm
  In that context the obvious factor to be considered is the extent to which lower income groups and poorer people are disadvantaged because they spend proportionately more of their income on electricity. Low-income pensioner households spend, on average, 30 per cent. more on electricity than average-income pensioner households. That makes electricity like an old-fashioned Giffen good. The 19th century example is the potato. As the price of potatoes went up, people bought more, because the potato was their staple diet. They had to ensure that they had an adequate supply, and it was other things such as bread and the luxury of meat that went by the board.
  The same applies to electricity. People on low incomes facing increased electricity costs are forced to cut back on other commodities. They sometimes economise on heating, ca using great danger to their health and safety, and, regrettably, many of them die of hypothermia as a direct result. Some economise on food, which also
  584
  undermines their health, or on other near-essential commodities which are nevertheless not quite as necessary as heat and light.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his arguments are particularly relevant to the north-east of Scotland— the area that he and I represent— where charges for heating are about 30 per cent. higher than they are in the south-east of England?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point that I proposed to raise. He is absolutely right that, in areas such as the north of Scotland where winter temperatures are generally lower, although we have been luckier than usual this winter, people have to spend even more on heating than people in the milder south.
  The problem is further aggravated by a number of measures introduced by the Government that squeeze people on low incomes. A direct consequence of the switch from the community programme to employment training has been a significant reduction in the number of home insulation schemes carried out by organisations under the neighbourhood energy action umbrella. SCARF—Save Cost and Reduce Fuel— an organisation in Aberdeen, which covers part of my constituency, is concerned about its ability to maintain a programme that is of benefit to people on low incomes and helps them to be warmer at lower cost. The reduction in such provision increases the burden.
  The second factor that has to be taken into account is the introduction of the poll tax or community charge in Scotland this year. The poll tax falls proportionately more heavily on low-income families and will reduce their ability to pay for other essential services such as electricity. People on low incomes tend to depend more on electricity for their heating. Their houses tend to be less well insulated and they tend to be unable to take appropriate action to deal with the problem.
  It is interesting, too, that the Government are about to launch a promotion campaign because of the relatively low take-up of family credit, which was designed to help low-income families. Many people have not taken up their entitlement, perhaps because of a lack of information and perhaps because of a reasonable feeling that if a household has wages coming in— particularly if there are two wage earners— it ought to be able to meet the essential bills. People do not like the idea of having to seek additional support and feel that wages ought to be paid at an economic level rather than being subsidised by the taxpayer. The very title "family credit" gives the impression that repayment is required, and that may deter people from taking up the benefit. Perhaps they are unable to service their existing debts and wisely do not wish to go further into debt. All those measures have increased the squeeze on low-income families at a time when they face rising costs.
  An additional factor, touched on by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is that in certain parts of the country heating costs are higher. Yet the heating allowances scheme has been abolished in favour of the much less generous incorporation into the normal benefit process and a severe weather payment which has not been invoked since its introduction because we have had a mild winter. No one has benefited from those arrangements.

  585
  The situation is serious. We must introduce measures that give people a fairer deal in relation to disconnection. The Government say, "We resent the implication that we are responsible for inflicting disconnections." Yet in a variety of ways the Government's policies are hitting low-income groups and making it harder for them to pay electricity bills. That makes it more likely that they will get into difficulty and, under the existing code of practice, increases the likelihood that they will be disconnected. We must make a stand and prevent that happening.
  The final factor to be taken into account is that privatisation will result in higher electricity prices for the whole population, and especially for those on low incomes. Even the Government acknowledge that that will happen in the short run, and many of us believe that it will happen in the long run as well. Electricity prices have already been increased unnecessarily and unjustifiably. Again, the situation is worse in Scotland than in England and Wales. In Scotland, the increase in electricity prices has been higher than the average rate of inflation, with no justification, other than that the companies— now the boards— are preparing for the privatisation requirement. That will force up electricity prices in Scotland— from the lowest in the United Kingdom to the highest in the United Kingdom. Such burdens on lower income families will mean an increase in the risk of disconnection and the hardship associated with it.
  The amendments represent essential improvements to the Bill to ensure a specific agreed workable means of preventing disconnection wherever possible. I have not suggested a more radical measure, such as that in operation in Wisconsin, where all electricity supplies are reconnected on 1 October regardless of the customer's outstanding debt because of the importance of giving people heat and light throughout the winter. There should be no disconnections during the winter. I have refrained from making such a suggestion because I felt that the Government might be inclined to resist it. Instead, I have tabled practical and reasonable amendments which propose a code of practice within the law to prevent disconnections.
  Obviously, the best solution is the use of prepayment meters. They enable people to pay as they go and remove the uncertainty of credit. People can see how fast they are using electricity. Meters can be adjusted by agreement to take account of any previous debt. For many, meters represent the best way to pay, particularly now that new meters have been introduced to reduce the risk of people breaking in, forcing the mechanism and running away with the money—or, in the case referred to last week, the washers— that they may find in the meter. If a person is prepared to take a prepayment meter, and if it is reasonable to provide such a meter, if direct payment has been agreed— from the social security office or by standing Order—or if a person has agreed to pay a deposit, there should be no question of disconnection. If someone disconnected under the existing arrangements agrees to the proposals, he should automatically be reconnected immediately.
  Our objective is to prevent disconnections, and that is why amendment No. 116 is so important. The argument is overwhelming. The increase in fuel poverty that the Government are imposing on people on low incomes is
  586
  intensifying and, as drafted, the Bill would increase the possibility of hardship. The amendment is reasonable, practical and workable, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: First, I should like to comment briefly on the absence of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will remember our debate in Committee on fuel poverty. From the beginning of the sitting at 10.30 am until 7 pm every Tory Back Bencher who spoke defended the code of practice, only to be wiped off the floor when the Secretary of State spoke later. Perhaps Tory Members are not too keen on having a re-run of that in this debate.
  The amendments pursue a number of the issues that we raised in Committee and seek to ease the burden of fuel debt for badly off consumers and to ensure that no one's fuel supply is disconnected because he or she is unable to meet the fuel bill.
  People are fuel-poor for several reasons. Obviously, income plays a major part. People on low incomes have great difficulty in providing themselves and their families with enough heat to keep warm and enough power for adequate lighting and hot water. Unfortunately, those whose bills are the largest and the most difficult to meet tend to live in homes with no insulation, damp proofing, double glazing or central heating. In the long term, it will be only through a policy of bringing all homes up to insulation standards, as well as ensuring that everyone has an adequate income, that we will make inroads into solving the problems of fuel poverty.
  It is important to stress that now, because, as a result of changes in employment regulations, the different funding of projects through the Manpower Services Commission and the changes made to employment training, unfortunately many schemes that had been useful in helping people who live in poorly insulated homes to fight fuel poverty have had to be stopped in the past six months.
  However, at least at the moment we can ensure that people do not have to live without heat or power. Living like that is a miserable experience which causes great stress to individuals and families, as well as depriving them of warmth and light. I am sure that in this day and age and in this country, which is energy-rich in coal, oil and gas, there should be no need for people to suffer fuel poverty.
  We are anxious to avoid the massive increases in disconnections that followed the privatisation of the gas industry. As the House knows, since that privatisation disconnections have risen by 30,000 per year.
  In Committee, we were pleased that the Secretary of State finally agreed with us that the present voluntary code of practice, which had been defended by many of his hon. Friends, has not proved adequate and has not protected consumers who need protection. The Secretary of State told the Committee:
  "there are good grounds for moving to the system that Mr. McKinnon"
  — the director of Ofgas—
  "is recommending for gas …we shall add a similar clause to the licence. It will be a better arrangement."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 31 January 1989; c. 607–8.]
  It was on that basis that we withdrew all our amendments on fuel poverty to this section of schedule 6. The Secretary of State gave the Committee an assurance that the House would see the proposed clause. He said that he hoped that that could happen before reaching this stage of our proceedings on the Bill but, unfortunately, he has

  587
  notified us that that cannot happen because Mr. McKinnon is revising his proposals in the light of the consultations that he has held since the original publication of the modification for the licence.
  4.15 pm
  The major weakness of the original proposals— I assume that the Secretary of State as well as Mr. McKinnon is considering this—was that the additional protection would be available only to those who made contact with British Gas. Advice agencies have expressed their worry that those who do not make contact— out of fear, because they are unaware of the need to do so, because of language or literacy problems or because they have no experience of dealing with bills— will fall into even greater debt and suffer disconnection. All hon. Members who have ever dealt personally with those who have been disconnected or who are in default with electricity boards will know that such people normally fall within the categories that I have outlined.
  There has also been no clarification about with whom contact should be made or how, whether it should be in person, in writing, by telephone, to the accounts department or to a showroom. A customer may believe himself to have made contact, but that will not prove sufficient. For all those reasons, we would prefer that the additional protection that will be afforded customers will not be dependent on their making the contact. In any case, at least the "who" and the "how" should be defined and the administrative procedures explained.
  The proposed modification still leaves the question of access to pre-payment meters rather vague. We were told by the Secretary of State that electricity consumers would have a new right to demand a pre-payment meter, but that appears to be only at the point of disconnection or in lieu of a deposit. It is absolutely right that pre-payment meters should be provided as an alternative to disconnection, but there is no reason why a consumer should have to reach that point before being able to make such a choice. Every consumer should have the right to choose to have supply through a pre-payment meter at any stage. Wider availability of such meters would help to prevent the build-up of debt. Problems arise when one cannot meet one's quarterly bill, and one way of avoiding that problem is to pay for one's electricity as one goes along, by means of a pre-payment meter.
  We are pleased that the Government are at last making some moves on the issue of disconnections and are no longer simply asserting that the voluntary code is suifficient in either its content or application. However, it would be even better if a full and comprehensive code of practice were written into the Bill. We attempted to do that in Committee, but, of course, it was not accepted. Such a code of practice would make clear the rights and obligations of both consumers and suppliers and would enshrine the principle of a right to warmth and light. That is what we hoped would happen, but, unfortunately, the Government were not able to accept it. We hope that the measures that will be brought forward and written into the licence will achieve Mr. McKinnon's aspiration of making disconnections a thing of the past. We urge the Secretary of State to adopt our suggestions.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gordon will want to press his amendment to a vote. If he does, the official Opposition will support him.
  588
  Whether or not the Secretary of State meant to say what he did in Committee, we believe that he must take action so that even if a code is not included in the Bill, there will at least be a code in the licences to give direct specifications to the supply boards about how they should treat customers who have fuel debt and about the availability of pre-payment meters. Such meters should be available throughout the country, not just in some area or supply boards.
  We hope that the Minister will show some good will and that that will happen. We said in Committee that we did not wish to divide the Committee, and we do not wish to divide the House on this issue. However, as Mr. McKinnon said of gas, we hope that electricity disconnections will become a thing of the past.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right that pre-payment meters will not be available on demand except as a substitute for a demand of security. However, under clause 21 the director will have powers to arbitrate if he thinks that there is any unfairness in any dispute where there is demand but where the company does not wish to give pre-payment metering, if he thinks that pre-payment metering would help people.
  In answering both the hon. Member for Rother Valley and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I shall speak only briefly now because we have already had lengthy discussions on this subject. The number of disconnections has been falling, by and large, throughout the country over a three-year period. Therefore, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Gordon was relating disconnections specifically to weather conditions, I should like to put on the record that I do not think that it is right to do that.
  On the understandable question that the hon. Member for Gordon asked me at Question Time and to which he has again referred, we have not yet been able to bring forward the licence conditions that will apply to the problem that he has outlined. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Committee; these codes will be the subject of licence conditions. There is no doubt about that. But, as the hon. Member has said, and as my right hon. Friend said in Committee, we want to make sure that they are absolutely on a par with the code that is currently under discussion between Mr. McKinnon and British Gas.
  The problem that we face is that there has been a round of consultations between Mr. McKinnon and the industry, as a result of which he is making proposals further to strengthen the conditions. We do not want the conditions that we attach to licences for the electricity industry to be in any way weaker that those in respect of gas. The only issue at the moment is to make sure that the two sets of conditions are comparable—preferably indentical. The wait for the outcome of the gas discussions is all that is holding us up at the moment. That is why we have not been able to bring the conditions forward for this stage of the parliamentary deliberations. Certainly, we shall want to do so before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that what I have said amounts to a substantive answer to the hon. Gentleman's legitimate concern about this matter.
  Amendment No. 116 suggests that where there is some form of payment arrangement, that arrangement provides security. Manifestly it does not. It is not an alternative to prepayment as a form of security. Therefore we cannot accept amendment No 116. Nor,

  589
  I fear, can we accept No. 115, because the industry and the Government already accept the principle that if a payment arrangement allowing both the recovery of an outstanding debt and payment for future charges is entered into and is kept, disconnection should not be necessary. That is clearly set out in the industry's voluntary code of practice on the payment of bills. The public electricity suppliers will be required, as a condition of their licence to produce a code and to agree it with the director. Thus, I think that the spirit of amendment No. 115 is met.
  In relation to amendment No. 152— indeed, this is implied in amendments No. 115— we cannot accept the idea that the existence of a pre-payment meter itself constitutes some sort of security that debt will be settled. Manifestly, that is not the case. The substance of amendment No. 152 was referred to in Committee. I think that it was I who pointed out that 15 working days are allowed for payment of bills and that this reflects existing practices within the industry. In England and Wales, some 166,000 consumers are billed monthly, so the 28-day condition is not appropriate for them.
  The second part of the amendment leads me briefly to remind the House that, for the first time, the supplier will have to go through a formal procedure before he can disconnect a consumer. In any case, there can be no disconnection where there is a genuine dispute. In addition, under the licence, the public electricity supplier will be obliged to produce a code of practice on payment of bills, including arrangements, for people having difficulty meeting their bills. While I am unable, at the moment to give the details of the conditions, I can say that it is intended that a distinction shall be made between those who cannot pay their bills and those who will not pay their bills. That is a perfectly fair distinction to make.
  I think that we are meeting what all sides of the House undoubtedly want, which is that pre-payment meters should be available as an alternative to security; that where people want a pre-payment meter, but are not offered one by the supplying company, the director shall arbitrate; and that there shall be written into the licences a code of practice that will ensure that all this is done fairly and in the best interests of consumers.
  Given that that is the spirit behind the amendments, and behind the Labour party's pronouncements on this matter, I very much hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will not press the amendments.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position on the code of practice. It is a little disappointing, although I understand the reasons, that it is not possible to shed any more light on the nature of the code of practice that we discussed in Committe. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has pointed out, quite rightly, that there was not much support from the Secretary of State's own side for his commitment to an improved code of practice. Possibly that is because he had not told his hon. Friends his view before he entered the debate at the end. There is a feeling that some Conservative Members are less than sympathetic to the need for this kind of code of practice. However, I accept that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are not in that category that they are determined that the agreement in respect of gas should be applied to electricity.
  Mr. Barron: We should not jump to too many conclusions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will recall that the Minister said earlier that there was no question but that this would be written into the licences. Well, it was not in the draft licences. We can only assume that at that time the Government were going to let the industry draw up its own supply codes. It is because of what happened in Committee that a supply code will be written into the draft licence.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is very interesting that in Committee the Secretary of State was clearly somewhat stung by the attack— though perhaps that is an internal matter for those who were present. Perhaps he decided on the spot that the Opposition's arguments were correct. Perhaps he decided that the suggestion that there should be a worse code of practice for electricity consumers than for gas consumers was ludicrous and indefensible, and determined, at that point, to do something about it. I accept that he is still committed to that position, but he has not actually come up with the answer. Obviously, that makes the position a little difficult for us at this stage.
  The Minister took issue with me on the question of security. I feel that the reference to security is a sufficient undertaking to the supplier. The amendment says:
  "'Security' means any arrangement in consequence of which a public electricity supplier may be assured of payment of money due to him and shall include a deposit …in favour of such supplier."
  It seems to me that that is a pretty clear definition of "security"— meaning that the supplier will get his money, and that there is an adequately agreed method: by paying a deposit up front, or by going for a meter, or by some mutually agreeable standing order arrangement, both sides having the right to appeal to the director.
  As the Minister will appreciate, I do not claim total credit for the amendment or its contents. It has been thought through, and I believe that it would write into the Bill a specific defence for those who face the possibility of disconnection. I should like to give the lie to, or lay to rest, any suggestion that I or my colleagues, or any Opposition Member, is interested in enabling people who can pay their electricity bills to get away with failing to do so. I believe that the wording of the amendment takes care of that. People in that category could be forced to pay a deposit, or to set up an unbreakable standing order, or to provide some other kind of security. But people who cannot pay would have the option of a meter or a direct payment, such as is provided by the fuel direct scheme, from social security. That seems to me to be a very considerable improvement on the present arrangement, and will ensure that the supplier gets his money— which I think is quite reasonable, even though suppliers' charges are too high — and that the customer is able to keep up with payments because they are geared in a way enabling him to pay as he goes along and to monitor both the cost and the level of consumption.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not being churlish when I say that I wish to divide the House. I believe that we do not have a firm enough position on the record. If the amendment were included, it would improve the Bill considerably. It would in no way be incompatible with the code of practice, but rather it would help to stiffen the contents of the code of practice that we have not yet seen. The issue is sufficiently important to divide the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 226.

  Division No. 147]

  [4.29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Holland, Stuart

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Allen, Graham

  Hood, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich,

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Lambie, David

  Blair, Tony

  Lamond, James

  Boateng, Paul

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Buchan, Norman

  McAllion, John

  Buckley, George J.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Caborn, Richard

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Callaghan, Jim

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McKelvey, William

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Madden, Max

  Clelland, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Coleman Donald

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbett, Robin

  Maxton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Meacher, Michael

  Cox, Tom

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Crowther, Stan

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cummings, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mullin, Chris

  Dixon, Don

  Murphy, Paul

  Doran, Frank

  O'Brien, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Eadie, Alexander

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Prescott, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Fisher, Mark

  Richardson, Jo

  Flannery, Martin

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Flynn, Paul

  Robertson, George

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Rogers, Allan

  Foster, Derek

  Rooker, Jeff

  Foulkes, George

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Fraser, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ruddock, Joan

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Salmond, Alex

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  George, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Snape, Peter

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Soley, Clive

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Stott, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hardy, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wall, Pat

  Haynes, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  592

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Menzies Campbell.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gale, Roger

  Alexander, Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Allason, Rupert

  Gill, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Amos, Alan

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gow, Ian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ashby, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Atkins, Robert

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Atkinson, David

  Grist, Ian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Ground, Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hague, William

  Benyon, W.

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Harris, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayward, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hill, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bowis, John

  Holt, Richard

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Bright, Graham

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Irvine, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Irving, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Jack, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Janman, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Conway, Derek

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lang, Ian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Latham, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Couchman, James

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cran, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Critchley, Julian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Curry, David

  Lightbown, David

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

  Lilley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lord, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCrindle, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Eggar, Tim

  Maclean, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Favell, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maples, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Mates, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mellor, David

  593

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Shersby, Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Sims, Roger

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Neubert, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stevens, Lewis

  Page, Richard

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Paice, James

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Price, Sir David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raffan, Keith

  Walden, George

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, John

  Wheeler, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rost, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. John Mark Taylor.

  Ryder, Richard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 20

  SPECIAL AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SUPPLY
  Amendments made: No. 17, in page 16, line 29, after '19', insert
  'and (Additional terms of supply)'.
  No. 18, in page 16, line 47, after '19', insert 'and (Additional terms of supply)'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 21

  DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 17, line 7, after 'to', insert
  '19, (Additional terms of supply) and 20'.
  No. 20, in page 17, line 16, after 'to', insert
  '19, (Additional terms of supply) and 20'.
  No. 21, in page 17, line 18, leave out from 'section' to `may' in line 23 and insert
  'the Director may give directions as to the circumstances in which, and the terms on which, the supplier is to continue to give the supply pending the determination of the dispute.
  (3) Where any dispute arising under section 19(1) above fails to be determined under this section, the Director may give directions as to the security (if any) to be given pending the determination of the dispute.
  (3A) Directions under subsection (2) or (3) above.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 23

  ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 3, leave out
  'has contravened and is likely again'
  and insert 'is likely'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos 23 to 25, Government amendment No. 27 and amendment No. 191, in clause 46 page 35, line 45, at end add—
  `(e) include a financial statement surveying costs for each area board during that year.'
  Mr. Spicer: I merely want to say, by way of proposing the amendments, that there was some discussion about these issues in Committee. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) in particular argued that the director general should have powers to take action if he has clear reasons for believing that action contrary to licence conditions is likely to be taken. If the amendments are acceptable to the House that point will be met. The director general will be able to take action if he has legitimate reasons for believing that action contrary to licence conditions is likely to be taken.
  Mr. Tony Blair: The purpose of amendment No. 191 is to ensure that, when the director general makes a report to the Secretary of State— as under clause 46 of the Bill he will be obliged to do— on his activities during the year, he includes a financial statement surveying the costs for each area board during that year. It is entirely appropriate on this day, when we will be debating a series of amendments concerning the rights and needs of consumers, that we ask what price the consumers will be required to pay for this legislation. At the end of the day— no matter how many discussions that people who are fond of debating the industry structure may wish to have—what the ordinary consumer will ask is, "Will privatisation improve the service and will it bring down bills?"
  The boast of the Secretary of State about this legislation was that this privatisation is somehow different from gas and British Telecom because there is no monopoly. The criticism that was implicitly acknowledged by him was that gas and British Telecom had gone wrong as privatisations because there was a monopoly element in relation to consumers. However, for the vast majority of consumers, that is exactly what has happened here. The consumer will deal with the same electricity board as now, with no ability to transfer custom if he is dissatisfied with the service, and with no opportunity to hold the electricity board publicly accountable, because it will no longer be publicly owned.
  4.45 pm
  If we have learnt anything from privatisation, it is surely that, when one turns a public monopoly into a private monopoly, one combines in the worst way possible public service and private profit. One has the need to use without the right to choose. That will exactly describe the plight of Britain's 22 million electricity consumers following privatisation.
  When we examine what the Bill includes for consumers, we must point out first that there will be no choice in relation to the area board used and that, of course, the grid system will be a monopoly owned by those area boards.

  595
  The only element of competition comes twice removed from the consumer in generation. Yet I believe that, if the Committee stage of the Bill accomplished anything, it exploded the notion that the duopoly that will be created—big G and little G owning the generating capacity—will make it at all likely that there will be any true competitive element operating within the scheme. In other words, as it became increasingly apparent during Committee, the Government are driven to rely on the public sector regulator to give any credibility at all to their notion of public accountability.
  We have been told of all the independent power projects that are due to flood the system. We have consistently asked for details of the 20 power projects that the Government say are awaiting us in the new privatised structure, but we have not yet been given them. At one point in Committee I thought that we might have been promised them, but perhaps we can have them now. I suspect, however, that on examination many of those projects will turn out to be nothing more sophisticated than bids by various fuel suppliers or power plant builders to ensure that they are in on the act after privatisation.
  The Secretary of State continually said throughout the Committee proceedings that this was no longer a cost-plus system. I suppose he meant by that that we were no longer in a situation where the costs would be simply passed on to the consumer. Yet it is extremely difficult to envisage how that is not the case. Most of the contracts for power generation will be long term. Many will be on a take-or-pay basis. If the regulator is involved at all, he will be involved when those contracts are first concluded and agreed.
  The licence agreement that governs the area boards in what they charge the consumer will operate according to the formula RPI minus X plus Y. We do not know what X is, we do knot know how Y is formulated, and we find in the licence conditions that, even after the formula has been set for the area boards, they will be permitted to exceed it by what is called in the licence "the permitted percentage". That is an excess by which the area boards will be able to exceed whatever targets the regulator sets. Yet again, when we look at the licence to discover what the permitted percentage is, another blank appears. So often in our debates, when we get down to the detail of what awaits the consumer after privatisation, we face a blank. The truth is that this is a bill without any specific charges in it at all.
  If we wanted any proof as to what will happen to prices after privatisation, the proof is with us already—it was 9 per cent. last year, because of privatisation raising the rate of return, and 6·5 per cent. this year. We now know that the rate of return will be raised from 5 to 8 per cent. for nationalised industries. I suspect that that is to provide the colour of an excuse, so that area boards and the privatised electricity industry will have written into their regulatory structure a minimum rate of return of 8 per cent. Perhaps the Minister and the Secretary of State can confirm that. If the Secretary of State is right—although we can never be sure when dealing with figures whether he is right or wrong—he is talking about £30 billion of investment over the next few years, at an 8 per cent. rate of return. That will have a dramatic upward pressure on prices. In relation to the nuclear industry, we know that the higher the rate of return, the higher the nuclear tax that consumers will pay for nuclear power.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend appreciate—does the Minister appreciate—that during the past three years the CEGB's costs for the nuclear fuel cycle have increased by £460 million? That is a 53 per cent. increase. Who will pay for that—the consumer?
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that rise. He is also right that it will be the consumer who will pay along with the taxpayer, as we shall see later.
  The irony of the Bill is that, whereas the profit from the electricity industry moves to the private sector, much of the risk and liability stays in the public sector. The Government can no longer seriously maintain that prices will fall. Although it is true that back in the heady days of 1987 when the Secretary of State was first talking about the proposals he wrote an article in the Daily Express
  "How I am going to cut your electricity bills".
  We get little from the Government even to remotely suggest that bills will come down. Instead they have mounted a fairly defensive exercise to say that bills will not go up as much as Labour says.
  The truth is that replacing the downward pressure on costs—that was the slogan of the Government—is an inexorable upward pressure on costs as a result of privatisation. The Government's only real hope of prices falling after electricity privatisation lies in fuel costs coming down. In other words, something entirely extraneous to the process of privatisation. That is the only vestige of respectability that the argument for falling prices has left.
  I have often said that one of the extraordinary things about the Bill as it moves through the House is that whether the discussion has been about prices, the nuclear tax or the costs of flotation, even the least curious Conservative Members would want to know what it is going to cost their constituents. The cost of flotation is a prime example of that.
  The analysis we provided in Committee suggested that the cost of flotation, as a percentage of the proceeds, would be about 5 per cent. If that calculation is repeated on figures such as those given in the newspapers regarding what the industry will fetch on the market—about £18 billion—we are talking about flotation costs of about £900 million, which represents a £25 premium or special additional surcharge on every household in the country.
  Yet we have been consistently denied any explanation from the Government as to whether they think that that calculation is wrong or wildly inaccurate. They have given no estimate themselves as to what they consider to be the costs of flotation. If they say, "We never normally provide that" then perhaps it is about time that they did. Surely that is one of the things that we are entitled to take into consideration when deciding whether to support this Bill.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does my hon. Friend realise—it was published quite recently—that because the Bill is doing so badly the Government intend to spend another £20 million on advertising?
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If £20 million were the sum total we would consider that we had got off fairly lightly, but, unfortunately, that is not so. The CEGB has allocated £76 million this financial year to be spent on privatisation—this does not include the cost of the flotation itself; it is all pre-flotation costs. That does not include the promotion costs of the flotation or,

  597
  perhaps most important, any of the costs of the area boards or of the national grid as a result of privatisation. That is why it is right to ask for figures from the Minister so that we know exactly what we are up against.
  One interesting aspect of the presentation given by Mr. Baker to electricity board managers a short time ago was a document presented by Lazard Brothers, who are advising the new National Power—big G—on the financial aspects of the privatisation. That document says quite clearly exactly what we can expect as consumers and taxpayers from privatisation. It states:
  "The challenge to be faced in the reorganisation of the industry cannot be overstated. A restructuring of this sort so close to flotation is unprecedented in its scale and complexity … the reorganisation of the electricity industry raises fundamental problems of logistics."
  It also states that a considerable marketing exercise will be required to establish the commercial credibility of the new National Power company. All of this, helpfully admitted by Lazards, will be paid for by us, the consumer and the taxpayer. We shall have advertisements promoting a sale that no one wants. That is what is so wrong with this privatisation.
  We have had opinion polls that show almost 70 per cent. of the population oppose the privatisation, as they oppose water privatisation. The Government made no effective attempt to persuade public opinion during the Committee. They believe that if they have a majority here that obviates the need to explain to people why they are carrying on with this privatisation process. The answer is that they are doing it for no other reason than privatisation itself.
  This essential public service that we all need to use will be privatised at enormous cost to the consumer and the taxpayer at a time of immense uncertainty in the industry. There can be nothing more irresponsible than to embark upon that process, but I am afraid that there is nothing more typical of the Government.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I suppose that any Government are obliged to give serious consideration to the values or dogmas that they hold dear. However, they also have an obligation to the nation to see that the application of those dogmas is not prejudicial to the interests of the community and the country. Unfortunately, there is cause for grave concern about the effects of Government policies on the price of the electricity paid for by the domestic consumer and by industry.
  Since the introduction of the Bill I have had a number of discussions with people engaged in the special steels industry. Only the other day I met people from the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—men who work in the Rotherham works of the engineering steels industry, who are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and myself. We meet representatives of that industry frequently and high on the agenda is the price of electricity. In our area we produce steel by the electric arc method and the price is significant.
  Those steel workers who were worried about the price of electricity have, during the past decade, broken world record after world record. They take pride in the superb achievements of their works and the knowledge that their skill has made them most competitive. They deeply resent the fact that, last year, there was a 9 per cent. increase in
  598
  electricity charges followed by a 6 per cent. increase this year. Those price increases could take the competitive edge off their industrial endeavours.
  They are conscious of the fact that if we are to build from the ashes of deindustrialisation that the Government have inflicted on the country during the past decade, industries with the potential to export should be able to expect Government assistance and encouragement rather than the introduction of enormous economic strategic disincentives.
  For example, I calculated that last year's electricity price increase would make a 4 per cent. increase in the cost of our steel production inevitable. When the special steels industry of Britain is competing with that of Germany, Japan and other steel producers, it is nonsense for the Government deliberately to embark on a policy that forces up the industry's prices and takes off its competitive edge. However, that is what has happened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) virtually invited the House to look at the realities of this increase. When the 9 per cent. increase was imposed, the Secretary of State—who I know cannot be with us, but I doubt whether he or the Under-Secretary could deny this—made it absolutely clear that the increase was necessary to provide the electricity industry with an investment capacity. However, the industry had already budgeted for an investment of just over £1,000 million, of which the Secretary of State for Energy appeared to be unaware. He said that we had to make an increase in excess of £1,000 million so that the CEGB could invest.
  5 pm
  The Minister knows that, in Committee, I made a number of attempts to secure from him the actual record of investment following that 9 per cent. increase in prices. Capital expenditure by the electricity supply industry in 1987–88 was £1,089 million and that approved in 1988–89 was £1,474 million—little more than the amount that would have been spent by the industry without the 9 per cent. increase in prices. The amount planned for next year is little more than would have been fulfilled by the electricity supply industry without this year's 6 per cent. increase in prices—let alone the 9 per cent. increase of last year.
  I know—as do the steel workers of my area—why the 9 per cent. and 6 per cent. increases were applied. It was to ensure that, despite the existing burdens on domestic consumers—millions of whom find it difficult to pay their bills—and despite the enormous trade deficit we have as a result of the Government's incompetence and negligence, consumers must also bear the burden of increased costs of production.
  The Government give no priority to industry, and I regret that organisations such as the CBI and others that are supposed to represent Britain's important industries tend to be supine in their criticism of Government policies which are not in the interests of British industry. Sooner or later, a Government will have to take office who recognise that the job of exporting and matching the enormous deficit now facing the United Kingdom requires a different set of priorities. Such a Government would not force industry and domestic consumers to bear enormous price increases only in order to provide the Government with a sweetener to enable them to privatise the industry.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: In Committee and on Report we have been constantly told that the Bill is in the interests of the consumer. That is a lot of rubbish. It is really in the interests of the people who will buy into the industry. It is all right for the Minister to tell us, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that ordinary people will be able to buy into the industry. In previous privatisations the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that pensioners would be in the queues to buy shares in the privatisation of our public industries. Some pensioners may have bought a share or two but it was not long before they flogged them to the big-money folk who moved in to buy them off. Organisations and people with big money are the ones who have bought up willy nilly the industries that the Government have privatised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) mentioned the regulator who will be acting not in the interests of the consumer but, once again, in the interests of those who will get a rake-off—those whom Conservative Members represent. Conservative Members represent the people with pockets of money—I am not joking. They have put so much money in their pockets that they cannot find enough pockets to hold it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield mentioned big G and little G, which reminded me that in my youth there were two first-class Warner Brothers film stars—Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson. They were always talking about getting hold of big G. They robbed banks and folks in the street for big Gs, which they used to call greenbacks. That is what the Bill is all about. I understand big G and little G and it hurts me because Opposition Members represent ordinary folk in the street. Conservative Members represent people in big business—by God, they look after them.
  While the Minister is listening, I shall tell him something else. I am terribly disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here. He is swanning around in Concorde in the Soviet Union when he should be here delivering this wicked Bill for the privatisation of electricity. He has ducked out of his responsibility and nipped across to have a word with Gorbachev, perhaps to try to convince him to sell off his electricity industry. He will have a job over there, although it appears that he has a simple job here.
  Mr. Hardy: I knew that the Secretary of State was away but I did not know that he was travelling in Concorde. If so, his journey time must be short enough to allow him to fulfil both his obligations—the one here and the one in Russia.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see how any of this can possibly arise under any of the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Haynes: No. I shall duck out of that one.
  I am making the point that the Secretary of State should be here, delivering the Bill through the House on the last day on Report, and Third Reading, instead of swanning around in the Soviet Union. Too many Secretaries of State swan around in different places of the world. Half of them live in the stratosphere instead of here, doing their jobs on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.
  I am getting a bellyful from my constituents who, as I told the Minister in Committee, had a bellyful of Sid, when
  600
  the Government were flogging off gas. All we saw when we switched on our televisions was Sid. All of a sudden, Sid disappeared and the Secretary of State seems to keep disappearing on this Bill too. In Committee I also suggested that the Government ought to consider seriously their advertisements. My constituents tell me that they know all about our electricity industry, yet the Government keep putting advertisements on television telling us all about it. It is all in the interests of flogging off the industry to those people who have plenty of money but who want to make more. The Secretary of State keeps bumping up the price of electricity—by 9 per cent. last year and by seven point something this year, after we were told that the increase would be 6 per cent. The Minister is riot looking at me—he is looking around the Chamber. I am trying to educate him about my constituents' feelings but I shall be happy to give way to him if he wants to intervene.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I have certainly been listening to the hon. Gentleman, but it takes some concentration because he always makes the same speech. If he made a different one, it would be easier to listen with intense interest.
  Mr. Blair: Ministers are so difficult to educate.
  Mr. Haynes: I must keep repeating my message until I get it across; some of these Ministers are really thick. They do not listen.
  The Opposition are talking sense. We hear a lot of technical rubbish from the Government, but when we get back to our constituencies we hear in no uncertain terms about what people there think about the Government's actions. At the moment, we are talking about the privatisation of electricity——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Haynes: Come on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be fair. I am talking about the costs and price of privatisation, and I am telling the Minister how my constituents feel. I am speaking of lower-paid workers, not Members of Parliament, particularly Conservative Members who hold seven or eight directorships as well as this job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised a point of order earlier about where the money was really going to go. It will not go to the people we represent—it will go to the people the Conservatives represent. The Conservatives always look after their kind, but, as the Minister knows full well, come the next election we shall occupy the Government Benches and the Minister will be here only if he wins his seat.
  I am repeating myself for a specific purpose. We shall put the electricity industry right when we return to power, and it will be under public control so that the people out in the country can take the decisions—not a small clique of 300 or so Conservative Members deciding matters for 60 million people in the country. It is true that the Government gave fair warning in their manifesto that they intended to privatise this and other industries. My notes at this point read, "Consumers—ha! ha! ha!" This is a big joke; the Government are not interested in the consumer.
  The Government Benches are empty today, but here comes the little lad from Bosworth who made a contribution in Committee last week. I hope that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) will make one today. Occasionally he makes sensible contributions about

  601
  this privatisation. He has probably been outside the Chamber preparing his speech, which I can see on his knees. I hope that he will tell us his real feelings about the people in his constituency. I know plenty of people there; Bosworth is not far from my constituency. At one time it was Labour-controlled——
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Not any more.
  Mr. Haynes: It will go back to being so——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Bosworth is not mentioned in the amendments. I hope that we shall get back to them now.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Haynes: Privatisation affects Bosworth as well as my constituency or Sedgefield or the Minister's constituency. It involves every constituency—even Doncaster, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you will pull me up for mentioning Doncaster, which will be seriously affected by the privatisation of electricity. It has a race course, with occasional night racing, for which lights are needed. The race course will be affected by the prices which we will enjoy following privatisation. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind my saying so. Mr. Deputy Speaker is fair; he gives us the opportunity to speak our feelings, which is what I am trying to do this afternoon. I know that you have pulled me up a couple of times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you did not really mean it. The important thing is that many people at the lower end of the income scale are wholly dependent on social security benefits—yet the Government have cut them. Such people will really feel the massive price increases that are on the way.
  I know how this will end up: more people will have their electricity cut off, and Members of Parliament will face real problems. When Labour returns to power after the next election, we shall put all that right. We shall reduce the number of cut-offs, introduce fairness and put the money where it is needed, not into the pockets of the rich.
  I remember my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) holding up his poll tax form from Scotland. The poll tax is another way in which the Government are robbing the poor whom we are trying to look after. My hon. Friend held up his poll tax demand and said that it was for £1,000 less than he had paid last year. That shows what the Government are up to. The lower paid and those just above the border line will pay——
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House next that since the privatisation of the gas industry there have been far fewer disconnections?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that he will not do so on this group of amendments.
  Mr. Haynes: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gas is not mentioned in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has got himself in a mess and should rephrase his question.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman. Since the privatisation of the gas industry the
  602
  number of disconnections has fallen, so it is likely that the number of disconnections in the electricity industry will likewise fall because of the downward pressure on prices.
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. I am suggesting that, because of previous privatisations, prices have risen and gas cut-offs have trebled. After this privatisation there will be more and more cut-offs of electricity——
  Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the people who may be disconnected, a growing number of people are likely to need special concessions in the form of pre-payment meters, tokens and so on? These people will pay more for their electricity than those who can afford to pay the higher bills without much trouble.
  Mr. Haynes: Exactly. The Secretary of State has talked about the pre-payment meter with a card. That is more costly to the consumer, but the Secretary of State did not mention that. People in the lower income groups will be hit hard.
  I am being bombarded by representatives of industry who tell me of how their industries will be affected by the increased costs of electricity. Industry is telling us in no uncertain terms that it is not looking forward to privatisation. I see that the Minister is busy. I hope that he does not need to send his Parliamentary Private Secretary to find an answer to my questions. The problems that I am putting to the Minister are simple and he should fully understand them because the problems in his constituency must be similar to the problems in mine in connection with what will happen after privatisation. People are asking how they will pay their bills. They want to know whether they will be cut off or whether they will have a pre-payment meter put in and pay extra. Will industry in the Minister's constituency pay more and more which will then be reflected in prices? Bread, a necessity of life, will increase in price because of privatisation. That is why we keep pressing the Minister, as we did in Committee, about exactly what will happen under the Bill.
  The Government do not listen and that is why Ministers repeat themselves at the Dispatch Box. They will not listen to home truths from Members who really represent the people. Our constituents tell us and we bring the information to the House. There are real problems now in the constituencies, quite apart from the problems that will exist after privatisation. The situation will get worse, but it is a waste of time asking the Minister to consider the issues that we are putting forward. The Minister will not be able to answer my next question because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is not in the Chamber. He is in Moscow, talking, I hope, to Gorbachev.
  The Bill will hit our constituents and at this eleventh hour I ask them to withdraw the Bill and leave the industry under public control. That is where it will be when we are in government.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Amendment No. 191 asks distribution companies to
  "include a financial statement surveying costs for each area board during that year.'."
  That is a modest request. People are greatly concerned about what the Electricity Bill holds in terms of future prices. The same concern applies to the Water Bill because water prices are likely to rise by 50 per cent. or more in the

  603
  next few years. The Bill will create a private monopoly because there will he no real competition and no alternative source of supply for the consumer. Each area board will have to make a profit for its shareholders and at the end of the day such profit can come only from the bills that are sent to consumers.
  Last year there was a 9 per cent. increase in price and this year there will be a further 6 per cent. rise. There is no justification for either of those rises and it is quite clear that they were imposed simply to fatten the industry for privatisation. About 80 per cent. of our industry relies on coal and the productivity record of our coal industry has been stupendous. There has been a more than 50 per cent. improvement in productivity in the last five years, so there is no justification for the price rises.
  At the first sitting of the Standing Committee in January we discussed prices, franchises and the future investment policy of the Central Electricity Generating Board. The justification given for last year's price rise was that the electricity industry needed to embark on a massive investment programme of £45 billion. At that first sitting the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State on that £45 billion figure were torn to shreds. There is no way that the industry requires investment on that scale. It obviously needs new power stations, not PWRs, but proper environment-respecting coal-powered stations. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the figure of £45 billion was knocked into shape. The Government were talking about outturn prices in the year 2000. The correct figure turned out to be £13 billion at present prices. In Committee we destroyed the case for last year's 9 per cent. increase and this year's 6 per cent. increase.
  As I have said, the ordinary consumer is greatly concerned about the future price of electricity. That concern is shared by industry. In my part of the world, in south Wales, industry has the highest proportion of electricity demand of any region. Fifty-nine per cent. of electricity produced in south Wales goes to industry. The Merseyside and North-Western electricity board area has the second highest with 56 per cent. Industry faced a price rise of 9 per cent. last year and 6 per cent. this year, but who knows what sort of increase it will face in the years ahead? Such increases affect the competitiveness of British industry.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: My hon. Friend is on an important issue and in some ways the matter has gone full circle. The only source of energy for operating industrial machinery is electricity. Machines cannot run on gas or oil or on any other energy source. An increase in electricity prices to the coal industry, which consumes a huge amount of electricity, will push up coal prices and create pressure on the coal industry.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is right. Increases in the price of electricity feed right through industry and result in increases in the price of raw materials such as coal and the price of the manufactured goods that we need to sell on world markets. It crucially affects competitiveness.
  Faced with increased charges, many major industries, the large consumers, may decide to opt out of supply from the distribution companies and provide their own independent supply. That will have a knock-on effect on the domestic consumer because prices to the householder will go even higher. We should remember that electricity
  604
  costs hear heavily on elderly people, families and the low paid. That compounds the retail prices index. Electricity costs are a small part of a rich person's budget, but for the low paid and the elderly—people who spend most of their time at home—the electricity bill forms a large chunk of their outgoings.
  The Bill talks about some kind of mythical downward pressure on prices that might come from increased efficiency. However, shareholders will demand their cut. Where can that money come from other than from higher prices? I recently had a look at the 1987–88 annual report of the CEGB, which has a 50-year history. In the last 30 years electricity prices have fallen in real terms and have dropped below the retail price index.
  Part of the reason for that is increased efficiency in t he running of power stations and the generating of electricity. Another part of the reason is that, generally, fuel costs have fallen in real terms.
  5.30 pm
  I cannot see why the Bill should not contain a clause saying that, over the next 10 years, electricity prices need not rise in real terms so that that pattern is continued. British Coal has offered the CEGB a 10-year price agreement under which the price of coal would be fixed to the retail prices index. In the past five or six years, coal prices have fallen, and that could be continued for the next 10 years. Fuel costs represent the major cost in generating electricity, and 80 per cent. of our electricity comes from the burning of coal, so there is no reason why electricity prices should increase in real terms over the next 10 years.
  As a result of the amendment,
  "a financial statement surveying the cost of each board"
  would be submitted every year. That is a simple safeguard for consumers. I am certain that the Bill will inevitably lead to higher electricity prices, but there must be transparency about what is happening.
  Mr. George J. Buckley: I agree with my hon. Friend that increased electricity prices are the inevitable result of privatisation. However, will not the main pressure to increase prices, as has been stated by the Minister in Committee, be a result of the higher return on capital investment that is bound to be demanded from a privatised electricity industry?
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are increasing the rate of return. In an electricity industry in the hands of private shareholders, there are dangers that that will be pushed further. Another pressure on the cost of electricity is the nuclear component that the Government insist on having—the nuclear quota or nuclear tax. The four PWR stations will cost at least £1 billion each, and the electricity that they produce will be uneconomic especially at the high discount rates that the Government are talking about.
  The Bill is a cause of great worry for the domestic consumer. People are concerned that, as with water prices, electricity prices will go through the roof over the next few years. That is why the Government should be listening to public opinion. Some 70 per cent. of the people are opposed to the Bill.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I commend amendment No. 191. A financial statement for each area board would allow some visible mechanism 'whereby a proportion of the profits that the area boards will undoubtedly rake off from the business of selling electricity can be diverted into vital

  605
  research and development by our universities, our centres of research and our centres of excellence. That might put them on a par with the research and development carried out by the large multinational corporations. They will be selling us technologies that at the moment may not be profitable, but in the future will be both vital and profitable. For example, renewable energies and clean burn technologies are being developed and investigated at Grimethorpe. Research is being carried out into the decommissioning processes, about which we know so little but which those on the Government Front Bench blandly assume will be carried out with impunity. There is also research into the storage of nuclear waste. The Government have already admitted that there is a good case for a nuclear tax, which is what it will amount to—let us not try to gloss over it. In other words, there will be a rake off of profits to sustain a ringfence nuclear industry.
  Instead of that, why should not a proportion of the profits that will undoubtedly accrue in large amounts go into research and development? That would ensure that in the 21st century we shall not be held hostage by the technologies that will otherwise be designed and developed by the multinational corporations in Japan, the United States and Germany. Why can we not develop them here, so that British industry will be in the forefront of these industries? This amendment would give us some purchase on this otherwise hostile Bill, and mean that the state can insist that the electricity industry pays attention to research and development because, if it does not, the electricity supply industry will fall badly behind.
  Mr. Frank Doran: My hon. Friends have made out a clear case as to why amendment No. 191 should be accepted. The principal reason is that, as the consequence of the Bill, the price of electricity will increase considerably. Last year, there was an increase of 9 per cent., and this year an increase of 6 per cent. in England and Wales and 8·5 per cent. in Scotland, all as a direct consequence of the Bill. Additional costs will result from the nuclear levy, and costs of flotation and various other associated costs, and the need for the new privatised companies to increase profits for their shareholders.
  We must ask what the Government have to be afraid of that makes them oppose our amendment No. 191. We are simply asking that, in his annual report, the director includes a financial statement so that the consumer can see what the costs are in the various area boards. The Government have claimd that the Bill will introduce competition, but they are refusing us the opportunity to see how that competition will operate in practice and how the costs of the boards match up to one another. That is a simple service to provide the consumer, and the best person to provide it is the director. That is why we have tabled our amendment.
  The Government amendments relate mainly to the powers of the director in relation to the companies, and in particular the sanctions that the director will have to ensure compliance with the Act and the various licence conditions. Amendment No. 22 will strengthen the hand of the director. Under the Bill as previously drafted, the director would have had to show that there had been a previous contravention by the licence holder. We argued against that in Committee and were pleased that the Government agreed that the director could anticipate a
  606
  contravention on the part of a licence holder. However, amendment No. 25 lets the licence holder off the hook to a certain extent because it gives the director the power to negotiate. I am concerned about that, and I ask the Minister to explain how he sees that operating.
  I am particularly concerned about clause 46, which requires the director to produce an annual report. Specifically, clause 46(2)(b) requires him to set out in his annual report
  "any final or provisional orders made by the Director during that year".
  That will exclude boards or licence holders who have transgressed, but who are able to get into a negotiating position because of amendment No. 25, and avoid any publicity that might result from their transgression and the adverse effect on their business that that might involve.
  I am also concerned about what would be involved in the failure of any board or licence holder to recognise the order of the director. Apart from the issue of a provisional order or a final order, there is no real sanction on the continually transgressing boards.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: In speaking to amendment No. 191, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) designated today as consumer day. I must tell the House that, after the passage of the Bill, every day will be consumer day. I shall tell the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), all others who contributed to the debate and anyone else who cares to listen why that is so. The generating side of the business, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield designated as twice removed, accounts for about 70 per cent. of all the costs that pass through to the consumer. Therefore, it is of some direct interest to the consumer. That side of the business will be subject to stringent competition.
  We know of 20 projects with cost structures that are considerably below those that are now the average for the CEGB. I can inform the House of some of them because they are in the public domain. These include Barking, Corby, Roosecote, Leicester and Brigg. I cannot refer to them all because some of them are commercially confidential. However, the cost structures that we have seen are considerably below those of the CEGB.
  The Government's case does not rest on the existence or otherwise of 20 new independent projects that will represent anything up to 7·5 GW of potential electricity. Our case rests on fundamentally altering the structure of the generating side of the electricity industry We are changing an industry in which there is only one supplier of electricity in England and Wales. It is that supplier which determines the cost structure of the industry and then passes the consequences of that straight through to the consumer. The fact that we are interposing a new set of pressures on the generating side of the industry constitutes our basic argument that we are doing more for the consumer in one piece of legislation than the Labour party will ever contemplate doing, even in its wildest dreams.
  5.45 pm
  I call in evidence the pronouncements, for example, of the chief executive designate of National Power, Mr. Baker, whom the Opposition are especially keen to quote. There are also the pronouncements of Mr. Malpas, the chairman designate of PowerGen. The Opposition do not seem to understand that those gentlemen's pronouncements signal a radical change in attitude on the part of undertakings which, for the first time, are having to think

  607
  about the market place. Mr. Baker's speech, which was of particular interest to the Opposition in its leaked form, made the position clear for future employees. He was categoric when he said, in effect, "Unless we start to realise that we are in competition from now onwards with other companies, your jobs and our business will be at stake." That is precisely the change in attitude that I call in aid in justifying the argument that the Bill is in the interests of consumers.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Are the private generators to which the Minister has been talking willing to proceed on anything other than a take-and-pay basis?
  Mr. Spicer: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what I told him only the other day. The motivation of the companies does not reside in any price structure that is either imposed on them or given to them, or in conditions of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Instead, it resides in their knowledge of the efficiency with which they will be able potentially to compete with existing players. They know that they have new technologies, ideas, management structures and practices that will enable them to compete with the successor bodies.
  Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Minister will care to confirm something that he was not prepared to commit himself to in Committee. Under the contracts concluded by area boards and the duopoly structure—PowerGen and National Power—that the Government are setting up, there will be no yardstick competition prevailing.
  Mr. Spicer: The question of contracts is one that is yet to be settled. I have never made any bones about that. There is no secret about it. Nor is there any secret about the fact that the Government intend that the contracts should not be agreed to in a way that will prevent future and further competition.
  As for competition——
  Mr. Blair: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Spicer: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene later. I wish to develop an important argument.
  The hon. Gentleman based his speech on the argument that we are doing nothing for the consumer. I have said already that that is manifestly untrue in respect of generation. Even if the considerations and worries that the hon. Gentleman has presented were realities, the fact remains that the generation side of the industry is to be changed radically. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that there is one monopoly supplier. That supplier is to have his monopoly broken, and from now on the industry will be geared up to encourage new entrants.
  Incidentally, the amendment refers to area boards. I thought that we would be able to agree that the Bill refers to public electricity suppliers. Area boards will be abolished by the Bill. However, I put that on one side. Opposition Members have argued that competitive pressures will bear too strongly on the public electricity supply companies. For example, large companies or smaller companies will have a right not to contract with their local public electricity supply company. The supply companies will face pressures that have never existed in the past. As they will have the right to charge the tariff structures that they wish to introduce under the regulatory conditions, undoubtedly there will be a measure of competitive pressure that does not presently exist.
  608
  Where competitive pressures do not exist, there will be the regulator and the regulatory rules. For the first time, the regulator will have the consumer as one of his prime responsibilities when he comes to focus upon his duties. The regulatory duties that relate to the consumer are spelt out in a way that is different from anything which has existed in the past. That is denied by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, but it is a fact that duties will be placed upon the regulator to regard as paramount the interests of consumers.
  Under the Bill, there is a right to the supply of electricity that did not exist previously for anyone with connections, or potential connections, more than 50 yd away from the mains supply. That is another consumer right that has been introduced. There is to be a panoply of new consumer rights under the Bill. At least give us the credit for that. If the companies do not meet certain standards, moneys will be returned to consumers. That is a brand new provision. That is something which the hon. Member for Sedgefield might acknowledge in a debate that is about consumers.
  Mr. Blair: The Bill does not do a single thing for consumers that could not be done separately from privatisation. The hon. Gentleman must make a ca se showing why the Government are privatising the industry. So that the public fully understand, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the ordinary, average consumer will have no choice but to continue contracting with his area board?
  Mr. Spicer: The case that the hon. Gentleman must make is in answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield, who said that he wanted to put the industry back into public control. I shall not leave that point alone and I shall certainly address the question "Why privatise?" put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
  I have already said that customers, including, for instance, those managing large new estates or large blocks of flats, would have the right to opt out—as everyone has—and it might even be a practical proposition—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sedgefield is not listening to my answer to his question. Domestic customers will have the right to opt out, and certain managers of large new estates or large blocks of flats may well want to do so——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Spicer: I have answered one question put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and I want to deal with his other questions.
  One feature for which no Opposition Member has given credit in the context of a debate on consumer rights, although I am sure that they have understood it, is the new place of the consumers' committees within the regulatory body. For the first time, instead of shouting outside the industry and giving the benefit of their advice to anyone who wishes to listen, consumers' committees will be players involved in the regulatory process. They will have statutory rights that they did not have before. At least the Opposition might congratulate the Government on this new innovative approach to the involvement of consumers' committees within the regulatory authority.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that domestic dwellings can opt out?
  Mr. Spicer: I am saying that everyone will have the right to opt out. The question on which, I suspect, the Labour Front Bench will wish to come back to me is whether that is a practical proposition. I have told the House that in certain circumstances the managers of large new estates or large blocks of flats may decide that, at the very least, they want to ensure that their local public electricity supply company understands that they have that right. The pressure that those managers could exert might be satisfactory from the consumers' point of view——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can return more closely to the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Spicer: I hesitate to quarrel in any way with your ruling, Sir, but you allowed the hon. Member for Sedgefield to develop an argument against our proposals in relation to consumers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is right. I was a little overrelaxed in allowing a wide debate. The Minister is being given an adequte opportunity to respond to those points which I should not perhaps have allowed. I hope that, now that the matter has been redressed, we shall return to the amendments.
  Mr. Spicer: You allowed the Opposition to ask why we were going to privatise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that they felt that that question was related to the question of surveying costs for, as they described it, each area board, although it will not be an area board. This matter is relevant and, if I may, I should like to answer the question "Why privatise?" It is a fair question in the context of consumerism and prices.
  One reason why we wish to privatise is that the country is faced—this relates directly to the question of surveying costs—with a massive investment programme. We have argued about exactly what it will comprise. The central part of our position is that that investment will not take place on the taxpayers' back, as it would in the public sector.
  More fundamentally, it will occur in a form that is not dependent upon political decisions taken behind beige doors in Whitehall but has reference to genuine market needs. That must be a better way of engaging in investment decisions than having decisions that are a result of political infighting, as so many investment decisions are at present.
  Because of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me leave aside the issue of increasing further public ownership of shares. By "public ownership of shares" we mean increasing ownership from the present 9 million shareholders and particularly increasing ownership of shares by employees—something about which the Opposition have never liked hearing.
  I should like to ask the Opposition a question which we have asked before but to which we have not had an answer. Do they or do they not agree with the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Ashfield, who jumps from the Front Bench to the Back Benches and makes a statement on the Opposition's behalf that he would renation-alise——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are being led back into a Second Reading debate, but we will not have that. Hon. Members must return to the amendments before the
  610
  House. I hope that when hon. Members demand flexibility from the Chair they realise the consequences of opening that door.
  Mr. Spicer: Of course I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall ask that question later. I serve notice on the Opposition that, when it is in order, I should like them to say whether public control means renationalisation under a different name.
  We have not heard much about the Government's amendments, I suspect, because the Opposition basically agree—[Interruption.] I have been answering the points raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and I think that it is fair for the Government to do that. Hon. Members should not provoke me if they do not want answers.
  The Government amendments were suggested after discussion in Committee, as were a number of Government amendments that have been tabled in the past few days, as the Opposition recognise. These amendments relate to the power of the director general to deal with matters when it is likely in his view that a public electricity supplier or licence holder will take actions that may break the licence conditions. The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked whether an enforcement procedure would be provided for in subsequent Government amendments. There is such a procedure. It concerns various levels and is allowed for in the Bill, as a reading of the Bill makes clear. There is no question of enforcement being a problem. I can give that assurance.
  These Government amendments have been brought forward in a desire to meet the points made by hon. Members in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 23, in page 18, line 9, leave out
  `has contravened and is likely again'
  and insert 'is likely'.
  No. 24, in page 18, line 30, leave out
  `has contravened and is likely again'
  and insert 'is likely'.
  No. 25, in page 18, line 38, after 'order', insert—
  `(aa) that the licence holder has agreed to take and is taking all such steps as it appears to the Director for the time being to be appropriate for the licence holder to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition or requirement in question;'.
  No. 26, in page 19, line 18, leave out
  `the preceding provisions of this part'
  and insert
  `section 8 or sections 15 to 19, (Additional terms of supply) 20 and 21 above'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 25
  VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 21, line 20, leave out `the supplier' and insert 'him'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
Clause 27

  REGULATIONS RELATING TO SUPPLY AND SAFETY
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 22, line 25, leave out from 'efficient' to end of line 30 and insert—
  `(b) protecting the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or supply of electricity, from the use of electricity supplied or from the installation, maintenance or use of any electric line or electrical plant; and

  611
  (c) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) above, eliminating or reducing the risks of personal injury, or damage to property or interference with its use, arising as mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 7

  USE ETC. OF ELECTRICITY METERS
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 96, line 22, after `whom' insert
  'and the circumstances in which'.
  No. 30, in page 98, line 9, leave out from 'supplier' to end of line 10 and insert
  'otherwise than in respect of the supply of electricity, the provision of an electric line or electrical plant or the provision of the meter'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 30

  ELECTRICITY FROM NON-FOSSIL FUEL SOURCES
  Amendments made: No. 31, in page 24, line 16, leave out from 'made' to end of line 18 and insert—
  '(a) such arrangements; or
  (b) where a previous order under this subsection has had effect in relation to him, such additional arrangements,
  as will secure the result mentioned in subsection (1A) below.
  (1A) The result referred to in subsection (1) above is that—
  (a) on and after the second day appointed by the order; or'.
  No. 32, in page 24, line 22, leave out first 'him' and insert 'the public electricity supplier.'
  No. 33, in page 24, line 23, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
  No. 34, in page 24, line 29, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (1A) above'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 31

  FOSSIL FUEL LEVY
  6 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 25, line 32, leave out 'makes an order' and insert
  'has made one or more orders'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 36 to 43.
  Mr. Spicer: After the previous debate, I shall be brief, although the Opposition may want me to come back to some points. I shall explain the purpose of the amendments. If the contract between the generator and the supply company contains terms that allow for payments to be made before stations are commissioned, the amendments will allow the costs to be covered through the levy.
  The issue is complicated, so the best way to proceed is for me to listen to any Opposition comments and respond to them if necessary.
  Mr. Doran: I was interested to hear the Minister's point. My interpretation is that the amendment extends considerably the scope of the nuclear levy and introduces the concept of advance payments. There is no reference to contracts between suppliers and generators, so it seems that the amendment seeks to introduce the concept of payment in advance of the intended nuclear generating
  612
  capacity. We have heard of four new generators and we have already referred today to the cost of that scheme, which the Minister put at £38 billion. That is interesting in the context of the debates in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) often pressed the Secretary of State and the Minister to make clear what was covered by the nuclear levy and it was made clear at that time that it did not cover advance payments.
  One possible interpretation of the amendment is that the whole cost of any new generating capacity can be included in those advance payments. In Committee, the Minister conceded that the level of the levy was likely to be in excess of 8 per cent., and gave a figure approaching 10 per cent. when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. That is a crucial and fundamental question on a day that is devoted to consumers and prices. The Minister should advise us what extra cost has been added to consumer costs as a result of the amendment, which allows the payment of advance expenses. The Minister conceded a figure of 8 per cent. If we take into account the additional expenditure of about £30 billion between now and the turn of the century, we must be talking about a considerably increased cost. We are entitled to an answer at this stage of the debate.
  It is also important to note—although we are talking about a different degree of cost—that amendment No. 40 allows the Government to farm out the whole process. In Committee, the Minister talked about the possible use of a firm of accountants. That is another area where the bureaucratic structure of regulation and the collection of the levy will involve more cost for the consumer. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what costs he envisages will be involved. The structure required to assess the level of levy and to collect it will be considerable. Amendment No. 36 appears to add substantially to the costs brought within the scope of the levy. We demand to know what that will mean for the consumer.
  Mr. Hardy: I had not intended to speak on these amendments, and I want merely to make one point. In his rather long reply to the previous debate, the Minister did not say a word to explain the grossly unsatisfactory situation that faces industries that are high energy users, such as the one in my own constituency to which I referred. The Minister will be aware that, while the Bill was in Committee, the chemical industry expressed deep anxiety about its position. British industry, especially that part of it that uses a great deal of energy, will have found no cause for comfort in anything the Minister has said. He did not appear to address the problem at all.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I must remind the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) of a point that needs to be made every so often, which is that, in real terms, electricity prices have been falling over the past five years. Industrial electricity prices have fallen by 6 per cent. It also has to be said—and I did not want to raise the point again—that in the five years of the last Labour Government, domestic prices rose by 9 per cent. and industrial prices by 6 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman asked a question on behalf of the chemical industry or possibly the steel industry—I do not know which. Under the last Labour Government, prices rose in real terms, whereas under this Government prices have fallen in real terms. What substantial case is the hon. Gentleman making?
  Mr. Hardy: The Minister overlooks the central point. The Government should be looking at our industrial costs in comparison with those of our competitors. It is no good the Minister saying that electricity prices have fallen in real terms. I would not say whether they have or not. What we must do is to compare the costs faced by British industry with the costs faced by our competitors. As I said in an earlier debate, the competitive edge of British industrial high energy users is considerably blunted as a consequence of the decisions taken last year and this year. It seems that we are justified in being fearful about the effect next year or the year after.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I am grateful for that further intervention, because it gives me the chance to put the record straight. I gave one figure wrongly by 100 per cent. Industrial prices have fallen not by 6 per cent., but by 12 per cent. under this Conservative Government. That is one of those slips of the tongue on which the Opposition would be happy to sit. Industrial prices have fallen by 12 per cent. under this Conservative Government, whereas they rose by 6 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about competitiveness, so I must point out that if one compares our industrial electricity prices with those of, for example, other European countries, we come in about the middle. If we consider the West Germans, we do much better than——
  Mr. Morgan: Not for bulk supply.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman refers to bulk supply and industry sometimes makes the case that there is a panoply of special contracts in Europe about which nobody knows much. I have asked the industry from time to time to come up with information that can be publicised about this mass of subterranean contracts which would give a different picture from the one that I have given to the House, but it is difficult to obtain specific, detailed evidence. However, we have published data about electricity prices for industry generally. That shows that British industry as a whole receives electricity at about the median price level compared with other European countries. Nobody denies that.
  Mr. Morgan: What about contract prices?
  Mr. Spicer: The Government have to go on published data. Private contracts may exist, but such private information is not available to the Government.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) asked what was to be included in the levy, and whether the amendment would mean an increase in the levy. I shall make broadly the same point as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in reply to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in Committee. At the moment, the cost of financing nuclear power stations is taken directly, within the price. Whether that will be the case in future, and whether the levy will directly finance nuclear power stations—as it would under the present arrangements—depends on what contracts are struck. In particular it depends on the financing arrangements catered for and the timing of payments under those contracts. Until the contracts have been settled, therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks.
  What I can say is that the Government will ensure that the contracts strike the right balance between providing a
  614
  motivation for the industry to invest in nuclear power stations and ensuring that they do not make excess profit from, and are not wasteful in, that investment to the detriment of the consumer. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  Mr. Doran: The Minister seems to have confirmed what he refused to confirm in Committee. I want to be clear on exactly what he is saying. The amendment says nothing about contracts. It gives a specific right to the new supply industry to receive payments in certain specific circumstances. The amendment seems to cover the whole cost of providing the capacity and appears to have nothing to do with contracts or the Government's control of those contracts.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, because the amendments are permissive and allow for the recouping of costs. I am not saying that the costs will be financed as he suggests, because that will depend on how the contracts are struck. At the moment, the industry finances its development directly and passes its costs straight on to the bulk supply tariff. In future, there will, no doubt, be an element of financing, but we cannot tell what the exact result will be until the contracts have been struck. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the Opposition will feel able to accept the amendments.
  Mr. Morgan: That was a completely unsatisfactory reply. An issue of Electrical Review that came out over Christmas carried the headline "Proposed Contracts are Riskless". The description that the Minister has given is a perfect description of a contract that is riskless for the private sector. The electricity consumer will now have to pay the private generator to build private generating stations. If that is the purpose of the Bill, it is about time the consumer knew it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and I spent a long time examining Government amendments Nos. 36 to 43, and concluded that they showed that the nuclear levy is in serious trouble. The Government and the electricity companies do not know, and the consumer and the House certainly do not know, how the nuclear levy will work. It has been devised at a Sir Humphrey's mad hatter's tea party and the amendments show us all just how much trouble the levy is in and just how short a time the Government have left to get it right.
  The area boards do not know how the nuclear levy will be collected. They know only that the additional costs of nuclear production over coal production—which John Baker, the chief executive, told us would be 42 per cent. in the financial year that has just started—will be distributed in some way. The proposal cuts completely across the concept at the heart of the Bill and the Idea of direct contracts between generators and suppliers. It looks to us as though the Government are beginning to admit that they have devised a wholly unworkable system for collecting the levy.
  Amendment agreed to.
  6.15 pm
  Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 25, line 42, after `the', insert
  'aggregate of the amounts given by subsections (2A) and (2B) below.
  (2A) The amount given by this subsection is a one-twelfth part of any advance payments which, in pursuance of qualifying arrangements, fall to be made by the public

  615
  electricity supplier during the relevant year; and in this subsection "the relevant year" means whichever one of the following periods the qualifying month falls within, namely—

  (a)the period of twelve months beginning on the first day appointed by the first order under section 30 above; and

  (b)each successive period of twelve months.

  (2B) The amount given by this subsection is the'.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 180.

  Division No. 148]

  [6.16 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Eggar, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Freeman, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gow, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

  Grist, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grylls, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton. Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, John

  Butterfill, John

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  616

  Jack, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Janman, Tim

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Portillo, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Price, Sir David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Knapman, Roger

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Redwood, John

  Lang, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Latham, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rost, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lilley, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lord, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shelton, Sir William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shersby, Michael

  McLoughiin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Speed, Keith

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Ward, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Norris, Steve

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Paice, James

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Margaret

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Tony

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  617

  Buchan, Norman

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Buckley, George J.

  Lambie, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Jim

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cartwright, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McAllion, John

  Clay, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clelland, David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Coleman, Donald

  McFall, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Cousins, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Crowther, Stan

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cummings, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morley, Elliott

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Fatchett, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Brien, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flannery, Martin

  Patchett, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pike, Peter L.

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Prescott, John

  Fraser, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fyte, Maria

  Randall, Stuart

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Redmond, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Reid, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Richardson, Jo

  Gould, Bryan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Robertson, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rogers, Allan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Haynes, Frank

  Salmond, Alex

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Holland, Stuart

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

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Snape, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Vaz, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Wall, Pat

  Janner, Greville

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Winnick, David

  618

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 37, in page 25, line 44, leave out from 'cost' to 'during' in line 45 and insert
  `to the supplier of purchasing or generating any electricity supplied by him'.
  No. 38, in page 26, line 1, after 'cost,' insert 'to him'.
  No. 39, in page 26, line 4, leave out 'the regulations' and insert
  'regulations under this section and excluding, in the case of the cost mentioned in paragraph (a) above, any advance payments taken into account under subsection (2A) above'.
  No. 40, in page 26, line 14, after 'sufficient', insert
  `(after payment of the administrative expenses of the prescribed person)'.
  No. 41, in page 26, line 17, at end insert—
  '"advance payment" means—

  (a) any payment made by the public electricity supplier in pursuance of the qualifying arrangements; and

  (b) where he is generating electricity in pursuance of those arrangements, any expense so incurred by him,

  which is made or incurred before any electricity is generated in pursuance of those arrangements, and any reference to the making of advance payments shall be construed accordingly;'.
  No. 42, in page 26, line 21, leave out
  `the order under section 30(1)'
  and insert
  `an order under section 30'.
  No. 43, in page 26, line 25, leave out from 'the' to end of line 26 and insert
  'first day appointed by the first order under section 30 above or, if that'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 32

  FUEL STOCKS ETC. AT GENERATING STATIONS
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 27, line 26, at end insert—
  '(4A) A direction under subsection (2) or (3) above which confers on any person the function of specifying anything failing to be specified under the direction may require that person to exercise that function in such manner as may be specified by the direction.'
  This is essentially a technical amendment, designed to provide an additional and necessary element of flexibility to the direction-making powers in the clause. It allows the Secretary of State, when giving directions to the operators of generating stations, to give directions to the National Grid Company also. Clearly, that makes sense. It seemed to us right to underline that in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

  CONSENT REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION ETC. OF GENERATING STATIONS
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 28, line 1, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (2A)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 48, 46, 97, 99 and 100.
  Mr. Lang: We have put down these amendments to clause 33, which provides for consent to be obtained for the construction, extension or operation of generating stations. The proposed amendments will provide a degree of flexibility if, for example, we wish to exclude certain types of station from the consent required should the 50 MW threshold be lowered at any time in the future. The amendments will also enable certain types of works in connection with generating stations, or certain changes in operation, to be exempted from the consent requirement if the Secretary of State considers it more appropriate that they should be dealt with under normal planning procedures.
  Amendment No. 46 refers to fees accompanying applications. We have decided that, in future, fees should be payable with such applications. No such power exists under present legislation, and I think that the House would agree that it has long been anomalous that the Department's costs have not been recoverable.
  Amendments Nos. 97 and 99 relate to the deeming of the granting of hazardous substances consent. New paragraph (1A) parallels a provision to be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1972 by part IV of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which the Government intend to bring in force later this year.
  Part IV of the 1986 Act will introduce new controls over hazardous substances. Under the provisions to be introduced by the Act in relation to statutory undertakers, a Minister will be able to deem to be granted hazardous substances consent where a hazardous substance will be present on a development for which his authorisation is required. This does not imply any diminution of scrutiny of any hazardous substance aspect of any application.
  The purpose of the amendment is to simplify the procedures for those making applications under clause 33. Not all such applicants will be deemed to be statutory undertakers, and the relevant provision under part IV of the 1986 Act will not, therefore, be applicable in all cases. It is because of this that a free-standing provision in relation to deemed planning permission is already included in paragraph 7(1) of schedule 8. A similar free-standing provision is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to deem hazardous substances consent to be granted, where appropriate, in granting consent under clause 33.
  The new paragraph requires the Secretary of State to consult the Health and Safety Commission before deeming a hazardous substances consent to be granted. This requirement is consistent with the parallel provision to be introduced under the Housing and Planning Act 1986.
  Amendment No. 100 is a consolidation amendment, which also corrects an error in the original drafting.
  Mr. Doran: I wish to raise some minor points of clarification.
  As I understand it, amendment No. 48 will give the Secretary of State the power to order that certain power stations of the classes or descriptions that he will specify should not require his special consent. Under the terms of clause 33(2), power stations of under 50 MW generating capacity are already excluded, so I should like clarification of why that power is required. Does the Minister envisage that larger power stations—and if my memory serves me correctly, the 50 MW capacity can already be altered by order—would be excluded if they fell into a particular category?
  620
  In relation to amendment No. 97, the Opposition always get nervous when we feel that the Health and Safety Commission is being excluded or is not being given its proper place. Obviously I am conscious that the amendment would require it to be consulted, but in what circumstances would that be, and what change in the existing procedure is envisaged? My understanding is that at present the specific permission of the Health and Safety Commission—not just consultation—is required for the granting of a hazardous substance consent.
  May I please have clarification on those two points?
  Mr. Eadie: The Minister talked about fees having to be paid. He said that the House would probably be astonished to find that the Department's fees had never been recoverable. I wonder if he could tell us something about the circumstances, and about the sums that are likely to be involved.
  Mr. Lang: I shall try to answer the three points that have been put to me.
  As I explained in the context of amendment No. 48, we were anxious to have a degree of flexibility—for example, in case we might want to exclude certain types of stations from the consent requirement if we were to reduce the 50 MW threshold at any time in the future. It is also worth mentioning that the amendments would enable generating stations on offshore oil and gas installations which operate for the generators' own use to be exempted from the consent requirement. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), particularly with his constituency interest, will know that there are special provisions under the Offshore Installations Act which cover offshore platforms, but that is an example of the kind of thing that we might wish to exclude from the provisions here.
  The hon. Member is concerned about the implications for the Health and Safety Commission. Let me reassure him that under part IV of the 1986 Act we are tightening up the controls over substances of this kind, such as chlorine, hydrogen and asbestos. The amendments bring the Bill into line with the thinking behind that Act. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the Health and Safety Commission before deeming a hazardous substances consent to be granted.
  In respect of the point raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), it is difficult to be precise about the fees. They would tend to relate to the land involved in the application and would, therefore, form a very small proportion of the overall costs of any project in the context of the construction of a generating station. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is in line with our general policy that such costs should be recovered. The provision would bring the situation into line with the arrangements for other planning applications.
  Mr. Eadie: I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a statement about fees and costs, but would he care to write to me, when he has had an opportunity to consider the matter, and tell me what the cost is likely to be? Ministers are bound to have some idea.
  Mr. Lang: How long is a piece of string? Certainly I will write to the hon. Gentleman—I am keen to be helpful. I am not sure that there is much more that I will be able to say to him, but I shall try to give some hypothetical cases, which I hope will assist.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 28, line 13, at end insert
  '(2A) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (1) above shall not apply to generating stations of a particular class or description, either generally or for such purposes as may be specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 8

  CONSENTS UNDER SECTIONS 33 AND 34
  Amendments made: No. 46 in page 98, line 37, at end insert—
  '(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision for determining the fees to be paid on applications for consent under section 33 or 34 of this Act, and the circumstances in which they are to be paid.
  (4) Any sums received by the Secretary of State under this paragraph shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.
  No. 97, in page 101, line 40, at end insert—
  '(lA) On granting a consent under section 33 of this Act in respect of any operation or change of use that would involve the presence of a hazardous substance in circumstances requiring hazardous substances consent, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, direct that hazardous substances consent shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.'.
  No. 99, in page 101, line 42, after 'permission', insert 'or hazardous substances consent'.
  No. 100, in page 102, line 7, at end insert—
  '(2) In section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, each of the following, namely—

  (a) subsection (3)(a) (power of Secretary of State to confer on urban development corporation functions of local planning authority in England and Wales); and

  (b) subsection (8)(a) (which makes corresponding provision in relation to Scotland),

  shall have effect in relation to the provisions of this Schedule (so far as applying to applications for consent under section 34 of this Act) as it has effect in relation to the provisions referred to in that subsection.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 9
  PRESERVATION OF AMENITY AND FISHERIES
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 102, line 10, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert—

  'Code of Practice for Environmental Conservation: England and Wales
  1.—(1) The Secretary of State in consultation with the Director General shall by order made by statutory instrument issue a code of practice with respect to the environmental and recreational duties for the purpose of:

  (a) requiring, when formulating or considering any relevant proposals, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State,

  (i) to further the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaelogical interest there;

  (ii) to further the protection of buildings, features and other objects of architectural or historic interest; and

  (iii) to promote energy conservation.

  622

  (b) giving advice to any licence holder, and any person authorised by exemption to generate electricity, with respect to any of the requirements in subsection 1(a) above;

  (c) promoting practices that will further the requirements under subsection 1(a) above;

  (2) In fulfilling their responsibilities those named in subsection 1 above shall:

  (a) take into account any effect the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects, as described in subsection 1(a) above.

  (3) In subsection (1) 'relevant proposals' means:

  (a) in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate electricity, any proposals, programme or series of proposals:

  (i) for the construction, extension or operation of a generating station;

  (ii) for the installation of an electric line, whether above or below ground;

  (iii) for the execution of any other works for or connection with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity;

  (b) in relation to the Director any proposals, programme or series of proposals which arise as a result of his general duties to promote the generation, and efficient use, of electricity;

  (c) in relation to the Secretary of State, any proposals for which his consent is required under this Act.

  (4) In fulfilling their responsibilities under this section those named in subsection 1 shall consult on any proposals as defined in subsection (3) above with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall prior to issuing an order under this section in consultation with the Director General, take into account the views of the Countryside Commission, The Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and other persons it is reasonable to expect him to consult.
  (6) A person who, contravenes or fails to comply with an order issued under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (7) Any person shall be entitled to lay a complaint of breach of any order under this section at any magistrates' court in England and Wales.
  (8) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.

  Code of Practice for Environmental Conservation: Scotland
  2.—(1) The Secretary of State in consultation with the Scottish Office of the Director General shall by order made by statutory instrument issue a code of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties in Scotland for the purpose of:

  (a) requiring, when formulating or considering any relevant proposals, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State,

  (i) to further the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there;

  (ii) to further the protection of buildings, features and other objects of architectural or historic interest;

  (iii) to promote energy conservation;

  (iv) to, without prejudice to the generality of subsections 2(1)(a)(i) and (ii) above, to avoid causing injury, so far as possible, to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters;

  (b) giving advice to any licence holder, and any authorised by exemption to generate electricity, with respect to any of the requirements in subsection 1(a) above;

  623

  (c) promoting practices that will further the requirements under subsection 1(a) above.

  (2) In fulfilling their responsibilities those named in subsection 1 above shall:

  (a) take into account any effect the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects, as described in subsection 1(a) above;

  (3) In subsection 1 'relevant proposals' means:

  (a) in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate electricity, any proposals, programme or series of proposals:

  (i) for the construction, extension or operation of a generating station;

  (ii) for the installation of an electric line, whether above or below ground;

  (iii) for the execution of any other works for or connection with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity;

  (b) in relation to the Director any proposals, programme or series of proposals which arise as a result of his general duties to promote the generation, and efficient use, of electricity;

  (c) in relation to the Secretary of State, any proposals for which his consent is required for under this Act.

  (4) In fulfilling their responsibilities under this section those named in subsection (1) shall consult on any proposals as defined in subsection (3) above with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Fisheries Committee, the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall prior to issuing an order under this section in consultation with the Director General's office in Scotland, take into account the views of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Fisheries Committee, the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and other persons it is reasonable to expect him to consult.
  (6) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with an order issued under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (7) Any person shall be entitled to seek a finding that there has been a breach of any order under this section by summary application in the sheriff court.
  (8) This section applies to Scotland only.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 90.
  Amendment No. 155, in page 103, line 13, after `fisheries', insert `(including fish farms)'.
  Amendment No. 156, in page 103, line 17, at end add `after consulting all relevant local authorities and such persons as appear to him to represent the interests of fishermen'.
  Mr. Bruce: The thrust behind the amendment is self evident. It replaces the two paragraphs in schedule 9 with a much more strongly worded paragraph to ensure that the environmental commitment in the Bill is beefed up.
  Effectively, schedule 9 sets out no more than the obligations imposed on the electricity supply industry in 1957. The Government should be able to do better than that when they are proposing to transfer that industry to the private sector more than 30 years later, especially when they claim to have a much higher commitment to environmental factors. Regrettably, the schedule is extremely weak. It uses phrases such as the industry
  "shall have regard to the desirability of"
  environmental factors and
  "shall take into account any effect"
  on the countryside. The amendment makes it a requirement on the industry "to further the conservation" of the countryside. The wording is much more positive and
  624
  changes a weak, out-of-date statement of mild, good intent to a code of practice that specifically addresses environmental issues, particularly flora, fauna, buildings, fisheries and energy conservation. It takes into account the wider effect of the impact that the industry is now known to have on all aspects of the environment in a variety of radical ways.
  The energy supply industry affects the health and welfare of every species on the planet, whether animals, birds, plants or human beings. It also affects buildings. You, Mr. Speaker, more than many may be aware of how much it affects buildings, considering the work done on this building in the past few years, why it cost much more than was originally estimated and why it required a much more radical programme of work than had been anticipated.
  I understand that the contractors thought that the restoration of the building involved a cleaning process. I shall leave aside the much vaunted anecdote of the overspent parliamentary Committee of more than 100 years ago which toured the country at great expense looking for suitable stone. Its members may have been stoned more often than they sought stone because they came up with an unsatisfactory building material. The effects of acid rain on the atmosphere created by power stations in the London area led many statutes to fall apart when the contractors set to work on them. That is the sort of consideration that I hope we shall take into account in future. What is the point of cleaning buildings if we do not create the framework by which we prevent deterioration at the same rate in future generations?
  The Minister may argue that that is a matter for broader regulations. Indeed, he has argued that it is not something that should be built into the industry's requirements but that the industry should simply respond to regulations imposed by the Government. I must take issue with him on that. The electricity supply industry has far too great an environmental impact not to be charged internally to promote the quality of the environment as a specific part of its brief under the licence which is, after all, issue to it by the director general and the Secretary of State. We should not pass a measure which does not make it absolutely clear that any licence holder who is generating electricity under the terms of the Bill must take specific account of the industry's impact on the environment.
  I shall give some examples of the contribution of the electricity supply industry to some of our more significant environmental problems. It emits 233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, accounting for 39 per cent. of the total output of carbon dioxide. That makes it a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is perhaps also worth noting in passing that it does not make so much of a contribution that the replacement of fossil-fuelled power stations with a small number of nuclear power stations will significantly reduce that impact. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to charge the industry with trying to improve that record.
  6.45 pm
  Seventy-three per cent. of the sulphur dioxide discharged into the atmosphere comes from the electricity supply industry in the United Kingdom, as does 35 per cent. of the nitrous oxides. The nuclear industry makes a significant contribution to environmental problems because to date we have one and a half teaspoonfuls of high-level, radioactive waste for every man, woman and

  625
  child in the country—all directly produced by the electricity supply industry and having significant implications for the environment. That has been stated previously and will no doubt be discussed again.
  We have several examples of where the discharges from the industry have an effect on the flora and fauna of certain areas. In particular, in Cumbria, cattle and, if there is any significance in the bits of evidence, the local population are affected. Nobody can suggest that the electricity supply industry does not have a major impact on the environment.
  That makes the Government's twin-track position on their legislation strange. This Bill and the Water Bill are going through the House simultaneously and both are recognised to have significant importance to the environment. The Government have tried to turn the attack on the Water Bill into a defence as they have argued that they will use the legislation to promote environmental improvements. In addition, they have attached a substantial environmental schedule to the Bill. It seems strange that Ministers in one Department should recognise that one Bill requires a major environmental provision built into it while Ministers in a different Department argue that there is no such necessity, particularly as many environmental groups agree with me that the impact of the electricity supply industry on the environment is greater than that of the water industry. The requirement for stringent environmental controls and action to promote environmental improvements is probably greater for the electricity supply industry than the water industry. It seems extraordinary that the Government are taking such an opposing view on this legislation compared with the Water Bill.
  If the amendment were adopted, electricity supply companies would almost certainly appoint a director with specific responsibility for promoting the environment. The Minister may say, "The companies may in any case do that of their own volition", and they may. Unless they have a specific statutory responsibility to promote environmental protection and improvements, that will be purely fortuitous. It is certainly unlikely to be a pattern followed by every company, if indeed it is followed by any.
  It is worth suggesting that the companies appoint such a director. The oil companies do. I know that Shell and British Petroleum have board directors with specific responsibility for the environment because they recognise the substantial environmental impact of the activities in which they are engaged.
  I acknowledge that the responsibility under this provision should apply to all types of electricity generation. Although I am sceptical that the legislation will achieve it, I hope that there will be an increase in the generation of electricity through new, renewable alternative sources. If that is the case, as the Minister is fond of telling us, that will have an environmental impact. It is a favoured expression of the Minister that there is no form of generating electricity that does not have an environmental impact. It is perhaps a matter of judgment as to how great any intrusive environmental impact is, but I am prepared for the purposes of this debate to acknowledge what the Minister has said.
  If over the next few years we have a significant increase in the number of proposals for electricity generation by
  626
  tidal or wave power, that will have clear implications for our estuaries, our fisheries and, indeed, for the visual amenity of certain areas around our coasts. It could have implications for tourism and recreation, such as sailing and other water sports. I do not dispute that some of the benefits may be positive ones. That, again, is a matter of judgment. It is important to ensure, however, that, if the industry moves into those areas, it has a responsibility to ensure that it takes fully into account the environmental impacts and, indeed, produces environmental impact studies for such significant proposals.
  Mr. Hardy: One smaller aspect of the matter that the hon. Gentleman may wish to consider is that the public sector electricity organisations have been most helpful and have frequently been good neighbours of the conservation movement. In Yorkshire, the board has been extremely supportive of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. I believe that that sort of comment could be generally applied. There is some anxiety that, when the industry becomes privately owned, it may not take such a helpful or good neighbourly view as has been displayed by the CEGB and number of the area boards.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he made an important point which I believe reinforces the purpose of my amendment. What is slightly worrying is that, in a sense, the Bill as it stands almost weakens the existing provisions for the industry. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the industry has over time started to do things over and above what is required of it and has built up a relationship with the conservation bodies. It would seem a wrong signal to go out from the House at this time to suggest that, at the very time when we are transferring the ownership to new generating companies—new licensees—that we should at the same time say that, if anything, the environmental restraints on those new companies are no greater, and may be marginally weaker, than has been the case since 1957. We are entitled to suggest that now is the time to build in all the existing best practice and make that the starting point of the environmental restraints that should be applied to the new licensees.
  I make it clear that that is not what my amendment says. I am suggesting that that is what could be the result of the amendment if the provision for requiring a code of practice to be drawn up were written into the schedule. All that my amendment suggests is that there should be a code of practice. The Government's schedule, unamended, pretty well restates a rather weak, general statement of good intent without any real statutory force and without any requirement positively to promote environmental considerations. The intervention of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was pertinent and reinforces my point.
  In Committee we had a number of debates relating to the environmental impact of the industry on a smaller scale. We discussed, for example, the problem of overhead power lines. I believe that those should be taken into account in a number of different ways. We have perhaps over the past 30 or 40 years become slightly inured to the march of pylons across the countryside. They are very intrusive, and sometimes the line that is taken—partly because there may be no other option, but partly because it may be an easier and cheaper line—is especially intrusive. In certain parts of the country nobody can deny

  627
  that pylons have substantially spoiled the outlook and the amenity. Nobody could suggest that at this juncture we should suddenly say, "Right, under the new regime all power lines should be buried", but we should be raising the issue that it is desirable to bury them where appropriate and that it is desirable to consider even more strenuously routing them in a way that would minimise their impact. If we do not take a stand on this matter, the signal may be given that we are not changing the standards but are relaxing them.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that in the Highlands of Scotland it would be practical, economical or wise to consider that one should continue to supply the remote hamlets and homes in any way other than with overhead lines. The alternative would prohibit that from happening.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was perhaps superfluous, because I made it clear that I was not suggesting that we should do away with pylons. I was suggesting that we should look still more sensitively at their routing and their degree of intrusion, and, where appropriate, we should consider the possibility of burial. Even in the Highlands of Scotland, there are areas where in the most sensitive parts it may be appropriate—for example, where they are over the skyline and in the communities—to find a way of burying them. In my home village of Torphins there is a positive cat's cradle of overhead power lines right through the village, which I question to some extent on safety grounds, never mind on the grounds of visual amenity. They certainly spoil the outlook.
  To be fair, we deal with this problem far better than they do in America, where the general visual effect of their power lines is much more intrusive than ours. However, there is no doubt that there is considerable scope for more sensitive routing, more visual sensitivity about the location of overhead lines and for considering burying some of the existing lines, especially in the most sensitive areas.
  I am outlining the kind of things that should and could be dealt with in a code of practice such as is required by my amendment. No such code of practice is proposed by the Government, who have effectively said that it is not a matter for the Bill, as it is not an environment Bill and there is no requirement for building in environmental restraints. I would take issue fundamentally with the Minister. I do not deny that the Government have an additional responsibility to provide the regulatory framework and the environmental controls on a general basis with which all industry, and, indeed, all organisations that have a physical impact on the environment, should have to conform. I hope that over the next few years the Government will introduce a series of measures designed to do just that.
  I believe that the Government are fundamentally wrong if they do not recognise that, unless they are built into the obligations of the companies at the outset, the environmental standards that are promoted will inevitably be weaker. Companies will be required to conform to external regulations only as and when they are introduced. My amendment seeks to provide that we should say to the directors, the shareholders and the management of the new companies who will operate under the licence of the Bill, "You must know from the first day on which you take up
  628
  your responsibility that you are charged with a positive duty to promote environmental improvement. You must. first, consider everything that you are doing in terms of its environmental impact and minimise that impact and, secondly, review all the assets that you have in place and see whether you can find ways of reducing the impact".
  There is no doubt that people are not simply looking for no greater despoliation in future. If that is all the Government are offering them, that is a fairly restricted way of tackling the environmental problems about which the Government claim to be concerned. What people want is action to repair some of the damage done in the past. No one can deny that the electricity supply industry has made a significant contribution to damage to the environment—by its very nature it is an intrusive industry. We need a better code of practice for the future in order to repair some of the damage. Therefore, this amendment is necessary and desirable.
  7 pm
  We intend to make sure that as the Bill passes through the House the Government are made aware of pressures from outside and from the Opposition. When they talk about the environment, we intend to try to ensure that that is translated into action. So far they have resisted every attempt to convert the Bill into one that will promote positive environmental improvement. For that reason, it is a retrograde step and I remain unconvinced by the Government's arguments, even at this stage. I hope that they will recognise that my amendment is a way of giving the Bill a genuine green tinge and that they will therefore accept it.
  Mr. Hardy: I merely want to endorse the call for a code of practice which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has proposed.
  Although I recognise that damage has been done to the environment, there have been pluses to which I referred during my intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, one is fearful about the prospect of that sort of attitude being maintained. I am deeply worried about that, not least because of the intervention by the hon. Member for Tayside North (Mr. Walker). He seemed to suggest that those of us who are anxious about pylons may be seeking to bury all existing transmission lines, but that is not so. I endorse the reply that the hon. Member for Gordon made. He may recall that I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, which was not accepted. I am not at all optimistic that the Government will accept this amendment.
  There is a difference between the present situation and that which will follow privatisation. The British people may say that we must consider the public interest and that we should not do this, that or the other. Once privatised, a substantial proportion of the electricity industry will be owned by those seeking to make profits from their homes in foreign parts—Japan, California, West Germany or wherever. Why should they make a profit from the despoliation of our environment? That argument could be used to counter chauvinism and it would also ensure that there was a code of practice. The amendment is commendable.
  If the amendment is not carried I hope that the less-disciplined and more-sensitive members of the other place will insist on a code of practice before the Bill reaches the statute book.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): We are debating an important series of amendments to an important part of the Bill. As time goes on we are becoming more conscious of the relationship between industry and the environment. It astounds me to compare the kind of commitment to consider the environment contained in the Bill with the positive impact which would be derived from the imposition of a code of practice.
  Currently we are hearing much about commitment to green issues. In fact, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues now believe that green issues will be the dominant ones in the future. At the weekend some people even suggested that if the Government are to succeed for a fourth term green issues will come to the forefront of politics. Yet the lip service paid by the Government to the environment in this Bill suggests all talk and no action.
  Let us look at the words included in schedule 9 as it presently stands:
  "shall have regard to the desirability of … shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have".
  Those words are totally meaningless. Unless there is a positive code of practice obliging the industry to look upon environmental issues positively it will get off lightly.
  Although general issues are involved, I should like to deal with a specific interest of great concern to me—the nuclear power station in my constituency and its environmental impact. The decommissioning of that nuclear power station and whether there will be a replacement have been discussed on another occasion. We are unaware of the full environmental impact of decommissioning a nuclear power station. A few days ago there was an announcement about the decommissioning of an existing nuclear power station. The industry must be made aware of the concern of my constituents and people in other parts of the United Kingdom about this matter.
  We are now supposed to be in the green age, or should I say a greener age, because a lot of us have been green for a long time. Some people have taken this issue on board recently. I accept that I am green in more than one way.
  The amendment can also be recommended because it gives a firm commitment and promise that a code of practice would deal with energy conservation. Energy conservation is central to our argument against the Bill. Unless industry understands that there is merit in energy conservation, our country will continue to waste energy. I know what I am talking about because, as a son of a minister of religion, for many years I lived in large rambling manses with doors which did not fit and windows which let in draughts day and night. I know what is meant by the lack of a proper energy conservation policy because I suffered from it in my early days. I am sure that we have moved on a great deal since those days. The Minister will no doubt point out that these days building regulations do not allow that to happen. I am sure that he is right, but I regularly visit a number of properties that are energy inefficient and unless there is a positive commitment to energy conservation in a code of practice there will be no improvement.
  We should be telling people that there are simple ways in which they can be energy efficient. I am sure that many of our existing electrical appliances are inefficient. When people are considering buying a new electrical appliance they should be persuaded to buy the one that is the most energy efficient. I accept, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr Bruce) has said, that the code of practice is not written on tablets of stone. The Government must consider ways
  630
  to deal with conflicting demands. I accept that greater thought must be given to this matter, but it is one on which we should put greater store. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
  Mr. John Maxton: I shall be brief in supporting the amendment and mention amendments Nos. 155 and 156 which relate to fishing and which, although minor, raise a couple of important points. First, when talking about fisheries, we should include fish farms. The way that a power station operates may affect a fish farm and it is not clear in schedule 9 whether fish farms are included. I hope that the Minister will make it clear. Before the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints the members of the fisheries committee he should consult the professional, commercial fishermen in the industry and fishermen's associations to ensure that the organisation truly represents them.
  One reason why we shall support the amendment involves fisheries. Schedule 9 and the fisheries committee relate only to water—to hydro power and other forms of water power stations. I do not understand why that should be so. Nuclear stations are often—certainly Hunterston on the Clyde and Dounreay in Caithness are—placed beside water and may have an impact on fishing.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: They are all next to water.
  Mr. Maxton: Such stations may affect fishing but the fisheries committee does not cover nuclear power stations, only hydro stations.
  I say to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that a major stretch of pylons—not in his constituency—will be replaced over the next couple of years. That is—he will well know the word from Committee—the interconnector between Scotland and England, which will be upgraded right the way through to the southern uplands of Scotland. Much of it is, at present, scenically intrusive, as anyone who drives along the A74 will know.
  I assume that the replacement, which will mean taking down the present pylons and replacing them with better power lines, will take better account of the scenic desirability and environmental suitability of their position so that they do not intrude on the environment—even if they are not placed underground, although, in some cases we should prefer them to go underground. I hope that we shall receive such a commitment.
  I once took my family to Aviemore for a short holiday. We set off to see Urquhart castle on Loch Ness, from where one is supposed to see the Loch Ness monster. Unfortunately, travelling out from Inverness I took the wrong road and went down the wrong side of the loch. We eventually turned off the main road and finished at one of the ugliest little pieces of industrial dereliction that I have ever seen. I never worked out what the place was—there was a lot of waste metal, derelict buildings and overgrown weeds. About a month ago I was taken back to that place by the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to see the Foyers generating station.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is important in this context. The environmental improvement carried out by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at Foyers power station was something of which the board should be proud. It had renovated the old buildings, which are now protected and a fish farm was being run there. As far as it could be, the

  631
  place was attractive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth quite rightly said that that is what a public organisation can do. A private company will not have the same concern for the environment as a public board.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) rightly dealt at length with how various aspects of the environment will be affected—not merely by pollution, although that is important. Other aspects affected include the scenery and the fishing stocks of particular waters. In Scotland, the scenery is not merely nice to enjoy, but is a major tourist attraction. If we despoil it, we could destroy our tourist industry. Like the hon. Member for Gordon, I believe that schedule 9 is not strong enough. If the Government—or, as the Friends of the Earth recently described them, the "bags", which is an unfair description of the Prime Minister but stands for "born-again greens"—are seriously committed to the environment they should consider accepting the amendment. If not, they should at least introduce other amendments in the other place to make the Bill much stronger.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The Government believe that amendment No. 155, which extends the fisheries provision to fish farms, may be valid. We shall consider introducing measures to that end in the other place. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has caught a fish. Perhaps he did not expect to; he looks surprised. However, we think that the hon. Gentleman has a point and we shall certainly consider it.
  The Government entirely agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) who moved amendment No. 118. Some of the arguments in this debate will be circular. We agree about the importance of environmental considerations. Furthermore, we agree that the amenity obligation in schedule 9 can be further extended.
  The purpose of the Government's amendments is to do precisely that. We have already ensured, within the terms of the Bill, something which was not there before, which is that the terms of the schedule should apply to private undertakings as well as to public utilities. We shall further extend it to ensure that it includes exempted suppliers, for instance people generating for their own use and various small generators.
  However, we must take issue with the general proposition that the hon. Member for Gordon places before the House—that a code of practice should be included in the Bill. We do so for several reasons, to some of which the hon. Gentleman has already alluded. It is true that, under the Bill, the regulator already has a duty to promote energy efficiency. That is a substantial point of development. The Opposition have sneered at it from time to time, but this is the first time that such duties have been set out in a Bill.
  We argue strongly that opening the industry to new forms of energy production and new players will ensure a more efficient use of energy. It will make sense in terms of the commercial decisions taken and the type of investment brought forward.
  Above all, as the hon. Member for Gordon recognised, the Government believe that a panoply of regulations surround the industry, some of which are extremely tough. Several mentions have been made by us and others to
  632
  sulphur dioxide emissions, the restrictions which those will impose on industry and the necessity for the industry to reduce such emissions by 60 per cent. by the year 2003.
  The regulations are real and the industry will have to gear itself up to comply with them. There are signs that that message is sinking in fast in the industry. Some of the recent pronouncements of the chairman-designate of PowerGen, Mr. Malpas, clearly show that there is a new recognition of the industry's need to comply with the regulations and to bring in innovations to do so. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to the directors who are responsible for these matters and their concern about the environment; such concern may well spread in response to the need by companies to comply with the regulations.
  By way of an example, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Given the state of technology and the fact that our industry is so dependent on coal for producing electricity, there is a limit to what can be done directly about these emissions. Of course, we all want a breakthrough—one thinks of the application of the technologies at Grimethorpe, for instance. Opposition Members do not agree that nuclear power and other forms of non-fossil power fit well into a programme of cutting back on CO2 emissions. We are surprised that the hon. Member for Gordon advances his code of practice, for which there are perfectly respectable arguments, and specifies the need to control CO2 emissions at the same time as fervently opposing our proposals for the nuclear industry. I am sure he accepts what we are doing about renewables, but renewables technology is new.
  I could go on at great length about what we are doing outside the scope of the Bill with the development of impact studies, and so on. In Committee, I said that even generating stations with a capacity of less than 300 MW might have to have environmental impact studies done on them. There is already a mass of regulations; the only point in dispute is our contention that this is not the Bill in which to introduce such measures. We must ensure—we have ensured—that the electricity industry after privatisation complies with these increasingly tough environmental regulations——
  Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that a code of environmental practice has been considered necessary in the water industry legislation. Will he provide us with an insight into why it is necessary in that legislation but not in this?
  Mr. Spicer: Water is integral to the environment. Of course, electricity has an impact on it, but, unlike water, it is not part of the environment as it is usually defined. It is perfectly rational to include environmental considerations in the water measure, which, after all, is largely to do with improving the environment and increasing regulations. The regulations that affect electricity, and other industries, are growing in number. The Bill ensures that the industry meets the requirements of the regulations, which is why I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We have had these arguments before, and he may well remain firm in his view, as we shall in ours.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is probably anticipating the inevitable. His reply was unsatisfactory in a number of ways. He said that the scope of the schedule was being extended to include additional people. I do not

  633
  deny that, but my amendment relates more to the coverage than to the scope of the schedule. The Minister is doing nothing to increase the positive requirements to take appropriate action.
  Secondly, the Minister drew a rather lame distinction between the electricity supply industry and the water industry and their respective environmental impacts. I suggest that the Government start to consider including in Bills, in much the same way as they include money resolutions, a statement of their environmental implications. That would ensure that a significant statement was attached to this Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government resist a schedule that merely includes a code of practice with the positive requirement to promote and improve the environment. The Government have produced their own code of practice for the benefit of the Committee that is scrutinising the Water Bill. If they want to convince anyone that they are genuinely committed to the environment, they must recognise that environmental responsibility must be integral to the functioning of an industry such as the electricity industry which has a strong impact on the environment.
  The Minister discussed the environmental impact of the greenhouse effect and CO2. I do not intend to pursue that argument, except to say that a code of practice can deal with all these matters. It can determine what the balance of priorities should be, and the relative impacts of alternative and established technologies. It can determine the balance between the output from fossil-fuel power stations and the possibility of switching to the use of more gas or nuclear power stations. Nothing in my amendment charges the industry with a preconceived mix. It merely says that there should be a code of practice.
  I am convinced that the Government have utterly failed to recognise this Bill's importance as an environmental measure. Their refusal to accept this amendment shows that they are prepared to go ahead and unleash an industry that has a massive impact on the environment without imposing adequate constraints on the private sector. I shall certainly divide the House on the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 256.

  Division No. 149]

  [7.27 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Buchan, Norman

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cartwright, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Donald

  Battle, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, A. J.

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart

  Crowther, Stan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cummings, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Doran, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Douglas, Dick

  634

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliott

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Murphy, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  O'Brien, William

  Fraser, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hardy, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Richardson, Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robertson, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Home Robertson, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Snape, Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Soley, Clive

  Kennedy, Charles

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stott, Roger

  Lambie, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamond, James

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Leighton, Ron

  Turner, Dennis

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Vaz, Keith

  Lewis, Terry

  Wall, Pat

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McAllion, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Winnick, David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McFall, John

  Worthington, Tony

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Menzies Campbell.

  Madden, Max

  Marek, Dr John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Benyon, W.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  635

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Howard, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Burns, Simon

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butcher, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Irving, Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Janman, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Curry, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dicks, Terry

  Lang, Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Latham, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fry, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Gardiner, George

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miller. Sir Hal

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gow, Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway. Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moate, Roger

  Gregory, Conal

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Str Charles

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hill, James

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  636

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Squire, Robin

  Portillo, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Steen, Anthony

  Price, Sir David

  Stern, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Redwood, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thorne, Neil

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Trotter, Neville

  Ryder, Richard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wheeler, John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 102, line 13, after 'generate', insert 'or supply'.
  No. 50, in page 102, line 23, after 'generate', insert 'or supply'.
  No. 90, in page 102, line 38, after 'generate', insert 'or supply'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 38

  INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE
  Amendments made: No. 51, in page 31, line 1, leave out 'from time to time' and insert
  'at least once in every year'.
  No. 52, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'such' and insert 'public electricity'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 40

  FIXING OF MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR RESELLING ELECTRICITY
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 32, line 35, leave out 'maximum prices' and insert 'a maximum price'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 112, in page 32, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 113, in page 32, line 46, at end, insert—
  '(4) Nothing in this section shall be used by private or other landlords to enable a profit to be made from reselling electricity to tenants.'.
  Mr. Bruce: I shall speak only briefly because this matter was raised in Committee. We feel that the issue is worth raising again at this stage to see whether the Government are prepared to acknowledge the nature of the problem. The purpose of these amendments is to prevent landlords

  637
  from making a profit out of the resale of electricity. In Committee, I said that the agreement between the landlord and tenant relates to rent, and that it is wrong that people who are given a rent that they accept as the basis on which they are to pay then have to pay a high rate for electricity as a means of the landlord supplementing the rent that he charges. This applies to a variety of accommodation, but particularly to furnished accommodation on both short and long-term lets and to holiday homes. I make no distinction; in all cases, the resale of electricity at a profit is a means of getting additional revenue from tenants, and we wish to prevent that.
  In Committee, the Government raised practical objections to our proposal, saying that it was difficult to determine what was profit as opposed to genuine cost. The amendments make clear our intention to ensure that if a landlord incurs costs associated with the provision of electricity over and above the straight cost that he is paying to the supply company, he should be entitled to cover them. Nobody is suggesting that he should not. However, he should not be entitled to add a profit margin, particularly when such charging is inadequately controlled. There have been frequent rip-offs, and substantial premiums have been charged.
  The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. It is to ensure that it would be made an offence to sell electricity on to a tenant at a profit over and above the cost of buying it. That is a reasonable proposition. When a landlord wants more money from a tenant, that should be incorporated in the rent. That is particularly true given the liberalisation of the rent laws promoted by the Government. In the past, over-charging on electricity was one way that landlords got round the Rent Acts. Those Acts no longer apply, so there is no justification for this practice continuing.
  The only people who should be making a profit are the supply companies. Introduce a middleman and consumers are ripped off. Often, they are those who are the most disadvantaged and weak. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is undesirable. If he cannot agree to the amendments, perhaps he can tell us how such a provision could be incorporated into the codes of practice or how our aim could be achieved by some other method.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has pointed out, the arguments on the resale of electricity by landlords were extensively rehearsed in Committee, but the Government appear to have chosen to ignore the points that were made then. I support the amendments, in particular as they relate to the ability of the landlord to profit from the resale of electricity through overcharging. The provisions of the Electricity Act 1957 have simply been restated in this Bill. They allow a maximum resale price for electricity, but there is an abuse of that and evidence of overcharging and profiteering by landlords.
  The resale of electricity mainly affects people in the lower income brackets, people who may be less able to pay such profiteering prices. They are people who live in caravans and mobile homes, short-term accommodation or private rented accommodation. As a result of other recent legislation, tenancies have been altered, and we must bear in mind that a tenant who complains about being overcharged for electricity may be on an assured
  638
  shorthold tenancy that lasts for six months. Naturally, he will be reluctant to upset his landlord by complaining that he is being overcharged for electricity.
  7.45 pm
  The methods by which electricity can be sold by a landlord to a tenant are extensive, and are set out in a document produced in 1985 by the Director General of Fair Trading. The document draws attention to the resale of electricity by landlords and points out that overcharging occurred to a great extent, but the Government have ignored that report. As the document says, these methods include:

  "(a) The rent may be inclusive of electricity, the actual amount charged for it not being stated.

  (b) There may be a separate charge made for electricity in addition to the rent, on the basis of an agreed fixed amount, which may however be subject to variations in electricity costs or consumption.

  (c) The landlord may supply two or more tenancies with electricity and apportion the total charge among them (eg two 'bed-sits' in one house).

  (d) The tenant may obtain electricity by inserting coins into a sub-meter which is either owned by the landlord or owned by the Electricity Board, but allocated to the landlord's account.

  (e) The tenant may pay for electricity in accordance with the amount used (which may be based on the readings on the landlord's credit meter)."

  The basic point is that the tenant often does not have access to the meter to determine how much electricity he has used, although the landlord does have access to the meter. The tenant has no way of measuring the amount of electricity that he has used or of comparing that to the price that he is being charged.
  As I pointed out, under the Electricity Act 1957, area boards set a maximum charge for the resale of electricity, but the Act did not set out powers to enforce the maximum charge. Again, the Bill has no clause to enable the enforcement of the maximum charge. All that there is in the Bill is a simple carry-over of the provisions of the 1957 Act, which the director general's report shows to be unsatisfactory.
  For the tenant who feels that he is being overcharged for electricity, the only avenue for redress is to make an application in the county court. This can be a daunting task, particularly if the tenant is unsure of his tenancy or does not wish to embroil himself in a dispute with his landlord that would involve him in taking his landlord to court. He is also faced with the difficulty of finding out in the first instance whether he is being overcharged or whether the landlord is merely conforming to the maximum resale price. Without such information, it will be difficult to challenge the charges.
  The sale of other fuels is subject to the criminal law, but it is not a criminal offence to overcharge for electricity when it is resold. The Government should have addressed themselves to this anomaly when drafting the Bill. The Weights and Measures Act 1963 makes it a criminal offence to overcharge for coal, smokeless fuel, petrol, paraffin and liquid gas. Unfortunately, that Act does not apply to the resale of electricity. That can be compared with what happens when a consumer is late in paying his bill or cannot pay because of financial difficulties. In that case, the law is imposed with some force, the supply is disconnected and the person is sued for that amount by the area board or the supplier.
  The first recommendation should be that the resale of electricity for a profit be prohibited. Overcharging by

  639
  landlords should be made a criminal offence as that would act as a deterrent. There is the argument that charging for electricity should be brought into line with charging for other fuels and within the remit of the 1963 Act. It is important to note that within the next few days the Government will be supporting a private Member's Bill that seeks substantially to amend the 1963 Act.
  The burden should be taken from the tenant when it comes to taking action. There are considerable difficulties facing a tenant when he tries to ascertain whether he has been overcharged. If he takes that course and finds that he has been overcharged, he faces further difficulties in trying to find a remedy. The recommendations of the director general should be accepted and implemented.
  Mr. Barron: The Minister will probably remember the debate in Committee during which we discussed the issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has referred. We discussed whether the reselling of electricity at rates that could be assumed to be higher than normal should be a criminal offence. The Minister said in reply that under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 the Department of Trade and Industry was about to issue new regulations for the metering of gas and electricity. That debate took place in February, and we should like to know whether the regulations to which the Minister referred are likely to be introduced before the Bill complete its passage through Parliament.
  Will the regulations require a landlord to itemise electricity bills? If he is reselling electricity, will he have to itemise the bills that he submits to a tenant? We were told that it would be a criminal offence if a landlord did not set out the price of the electricity in the bill that he submitted to the tenant or in the rent hook. We need to know exactly what the Department of Trade and Industry is proposing. We must see the regulations before the Bill completes its passage through the House. I hope that the House will excuse the pun when I say that we are in the dark.
  Amendments have been tabled that seek to protect tenants from the criminal acts of some landlords who resell electricity. We do not know whether the DTI regulations will be as effective as the introduction of a criminal offence so that those who infringed the law could be taken before a court and punished. I hope that the Minister will tell us when we can expect the new regulations to be introduced. There must be protection from excessive charges for the reselling of electricity.
  Mr. Lang: I understand the anxieties that led to the tabling of the amendment by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand also the anxieties expressed by the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). However, I do not accept the implication behind the amendment that all landlords are rogues and exploiters. At the same time, I understand that the amendment refers to an area of sensitivity about which there are legitimate concerns. This group of amendments would have the effect of permitting the director to fix only one maximum price at which electricity might be resold. It would prohibit a landlord from making a profit when selling electricity to his tenants. There are practical reasons, apart from any others, that make it impossible to accept the amendments.
  Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 would severely disadvantage many consumers. It is essential that the director's power to fix maximum prices at which electricity
  640
  may be resold should enable him to fix different prices to suit different circumstances and types of supply. The area boards' current system of tariffs identifies a number of different classes of consumer. The prices charged to the different classes reflect the different characteristics of supply for each class and the cost incurred in providing different supplies. We expect the system to continue in future.
  The power given to the director by clause 40 will enable him to set a different maximum resale price for each tariff class if he considers it necessary to do so. He will be able to set a maximum resale price that will apply for domestic supplies. He will be able also to set a maximum price for commercial and industrial consumers.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Gordon might draw an analogy with British Gas. In the event, he did not. The Director General of Gas Supply can set only one maximum retail price for gas because there is only one gas tariff. To permit the director to set only one maximum resale price for electricity would mean that if he were adequately to cover all classes he would have to set the price at a level that corresponded to the highest tariff rate. That would clearly be inequitable for those purchasing electricity from a landlord who was supplied at a lower rate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman identified this problem himself. Having tabled amendments Nos. 111 and 112, he tabled amendment No. 113, which would introduce a new subsection (4). That would prevent a landlord making a profit from reselling electricity. In a sense, amendment No. 113 is designed to counter the effect of amendments Nos. 111 and 112. As I think I have demonstrated, the first two amendments are unacceptable and the third would not be necessary. It is in the interests of consumers that the director should have the powers that are given to him under clause 40. I understand also, of course, the anxiety about possible exploitation of tenants by landlords.
  It is fair to say that landlords incur costs in the supplly of electricity. Those costs could include the provision, installation and maintenance of a meter, the installation and maintenance of electric wiring and meter reading, billing and collection. Some landlords may make a small loss in reselling electricity while others may make a profit. These are all factors that the director will need to take into account in setting the maxim um retail price. It would be impossible to examine every landlord's costs. The complexities and subjectivity of identifying the costs would make enforcement extremely difficult.
  I can offer the hon. Member for Gordon some consolation and respond to the issues raised by the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central and Rother Valley. We are concerned, as are hon. Members, with the need to protect consumers. We cannot prevent some landlords from making a small profit, but we have taken steps to ensure that a landlord cannot recover from a tenant more than he is entitled to charge.
  The regulations which were mentioned in Committee and to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley referred are to be introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry later this year under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. They will relate specifically to the resale of gas and electricity and will require landlords who resell electricity or gas to tenants for domestic use other than through a fixed charge in the rent to provide itemised bills that show the number of units charged for, the rate at which the electricity has been supplied, and the statutory maximum rate. A landlord who fails to provide this

  641
  information adequately will be committing an offence and will be liable to prosecution by a trading standards officer. It will be an additional offence to that of giving a misleading indication of price, which is provided for already in the Consumer Protection Act.
  The proposals, which have already been circulated in draft, have been welcomed by the Electricity Consumers Council, other consumer bodies and local authority trading standards organisations. We believe that they are the right way forward to deal with a possible abuse of the system. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Member for Gordon will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I accepted in my opening remarks that there are some practical difficulties. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that the abuse that has existed should be removed from the system. It was never defensible when the industry was in the public sector and it would be even less defensible following the transfer of the industry to the private sector.
  I am encouraged by what the Minister says about the regulations that are coming forward. I acknowledge that clause 40, even without the amendments, allows the director to fix maximum prices. In a sense, the purpose of tabling the amendments and initiating this short debate is to give to the director a clear sign of the feeling within the House and to highlight the abuses that we are anxious to have removed. I hope, therefore, that the Director General of Electricity Supply, reinforced by the regulations about which the Minister talked, will ensure that, apart from minor adjustments on a technical basis, the practice of selling electricity to sitting tenants at a substantial profit and as a means of supplementing the rent will not continue in any worthwhile commercial sense. That will not happen automatically because of the measures that have been tabled, but there is unanimity on both sides of the House about the desirability of ending that practice. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8 pm

Clause 44

  PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE
  Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 34, line 46, at end insert—
  '(3) The Director General of Fair Trading shall consult the Director before publishing under section 124 of the 1973 Act any information or advice which may be published by the Director under this section.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 54 to 63.
  Mr. Lang: This is a group of technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 53 and 55 relate to clauses 44 and 46 respectively and are aimed at preventing the wasteful duplication of effort. Amendment No. 54 relates to clause 45 and adds to the information held on the public register kept by the director general. Amendments Nos. 56 to 63
  642
  relate to clause 53 and provide additional disclosure gateways through which information may be disclosed to specified statutory or public bodies.
  Amendment No. 63 arises from an undertaking that I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to consider whether it would be appropriate for environmental health departments to be included in the list of organisations to which information might be disclosed. He believed that councils should have access to information about excessive discharges of dirt and dust. I understand that the legislative plans of the Department of the Environment include giving local authorities greater power over air emissions so that operators will need local authority consent before plants can operate.
  We do not think that it is necessary to include environmental health departments in the list now, but I have carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's point. Amendment No. 63 is designed to empower the Secretary of State to make orders creating gateways to such departments or other organisations as appropriate in the future. There is the possibility that not only could we meet the hon. Gentleman's point should the need arise, despite the further powers to be given to local authorities on air emissions, but we could go wider and include other organisations.
  Mr. Doran: In introducing amendments Nos. 53 and 55 the Minister mentioned that one of the aims was to prevent the wasteful duplication of effort. I believe that by removing the obligation on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to include references by the director general under the Bill, additional effort may be required to have an overview of the commission's work. Has the Minister considered that point?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion goes further than the Bill's provisions. The director general will take a close interest in such matters anyway and has adequate powers to keep an eye on them. To suggest that there should be some further change in powers to oversee the activities of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to go further than the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Doran: There has been a misunderstanding. My understanding of the amendment is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading are not required in their reports to mention referrals by the Director General of Electricity Supply under the Bill. I am concerned with the overview of the work of those two other bodies which these clauses affect. The legislation may create extra work.
  Mr. Lang: That is not the intention, nor is it our expectation.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister said that the Secretary of State may wish to make orders following new legislation about clean air monitoring and the powers of local authorities, so surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that environmental health departments of borough and local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland already have clean air responsibilities. It is peculiar to leave this aspect out of the legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman considering tabling a further amendment in another place?
  Mr. Lang: We are not contemplating that at the moment. It would not be sensible to reopen the debate that we had in Committee on clause 52 when we considered the

  643
  matter in detail and made clear the limited context in which the clause operated. It was clear that the various gateways provided in the Bill were adequate. I undertook to consider the point further both in the context of the specific point of dust and dirt to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in the general context. We have now come forward with a power to enable the Secretary of State to add names to the schedule by regulation, and I think that that is a desirable way forward. Hon. Members are at one in that purpose and we believe that our amendment meets the practical needs of the situation.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45

  KEEPING OF REGISTER
  Amendment made: No. 54 in page 35, line 6 after 'and', insert
  `every exemption granted to a particular person;(aa)'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 46

  ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS
  Amendment made: No. 55, in page 36, line 16 at end insert—
  '(6) Section 125(1) of the 1973 Act (annual and other reports) shall not apply to activities of the Monopolies Commission on which the Director is required to report by this section.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 52

  GENERAL RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 38, line 28, after `Authority', insert—
  '(viia) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal;'.
  No. 57, in page 38, line 32, after 'enactments', insert 'or instruments'.
  No. 58, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—

  `(bb) for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Secretary of State to exercise any powers conferred on him by the Financial Services Act 1986 or by the enactments relating to companies, insurance companies or insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting any inspector appointed by him under the enactments relating to companies to carry out his functions;

  (bc) for the purpose of enabling or assisting an official receiver to carry out his functions under the enactments relating to insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting a recognised professional body for the purpose of section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to carry out its functions as such;'.

  No. 59, in page 38, line 38, after 'enactments', insert 'or instruments'.
  No. 60, in page 38, line 41, after 'enactments', insert `and instruments'.
  No. 61, in page 39, line 6, at end insert—
  `(kk) the Insolvency Act 1986;'.
  No. 62, in page 39, line 7, at end insert—
  '(m) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 10th September 1984 (No. 84/450/EEC) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning misleading advertising.'.
  No. 63, in page 39, line 7, at end insert—
  644
  `(3A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsections (2) and (3) above shall have effect subject to such modifications as are specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 59

  INTERPRETATION ETC. OF PART I
  Amendments made: No. 64, in page 43, line 41, at end insert—
  '"generating station" in relation to a generating station wholly or mainly driven by water, includes all structures and works for holding or channelling water for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station;'.
  No. 65, in page 44, line 13, leave out '7(2)' and insert `16(1 )'—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 60

  TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ETC. OF AREA BOARDS
  Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 44, line 40, after 'property' insert
  `(except dwelling houses in the Board's ownership let or leased to Board employees, which such employees have registered a wish to purchase)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 190, in clause 61, page 45, line 9, after 'property', insert
  `(except dwelling houses in the Generating Board's ownership let or leased to Board employees which such employees have registered a wish to purchase)'.
  Mr. Alison: This probing amendment is designed to elicit information and reassurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State affecting the right-to-buy prospects of some CEGB tenants who live at Barlow near Drax in my constituency. Strictly speaking, the CEGB is not subject to the right-to-buy legislation in the Housi rig Act 1980, but there are a number of other public bodies which likewise are not subject to that legislation which still operate it in practice and in the spirit of the 1980 Act. For example, some police authorities sell surplus police houses to their officers at discounts equivalent to those obtaining under the right-to-buy policy. British Coal sells former National Coal Board houses to tenants at half their market value—at 50 per cent. discounts. I am advised that no less than three-quarters of all former NCB houses have already been sold to their tenants.
  I am glad to say that, like the police authorities to which I referred and British Coal, the CEGB has accepted the spirit of the 1980 Act and has announced and, I believe, promulgated to some extent a policy of selling some of its rented properties to its tenants who wish to buy. Of course, nothing like as many houses are involved with the CEG.B. I think that the generating board has only about 1'70 houses and flats in England and Wales. However, in respect of some of the CEGB rented properties at Barlow near Drax, I am not entirely happy that the generating board is measuring up fully to the spirit of the Housing Act 1980 or to the scale of generosity of discounts either as provided for local authority tenants under the Act or as voluntarily operated by, for example, British Coal. M y hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may be able to reassure me. If so, I shall not press the amendment.
  When I last met my Barlow constituents, a number of them had been waiting for an offer for sale for years, sometimes right back to 1981. That is a long time to wait, especially when one realises that the 1980 Act provides

  645
  time limits which local authorities must observe in disposing of houses to tenants who wish to buy. Moreover, all the potential Barlow buyers have been offered discounts only within the modest range of 20 to 30 per cent. When one considers how house prices have risen in Yorkshire recently, that leaves a large mortgage to be raised by a potential purchaser. I am hoping that my hon. Friend can say that better discounts may be forthcoming.
  Let me remind my hon. Friend and the House of the going rate of discounts elsewhere. The present discount level for council houses starts at 32 per cent. after two years' occupation, with an additional 1 per cent. discount for each extra year of occupation, and the maximum discount is no less than 60 per cent. reached after 30 years' occupation. The discount for flats starts at 44 per cent. after two years' occupation and increases by 2 per cent. for each extra year of occupation, reaching a maximum of 70 per cent. after 15 years' occupation. One should compare that to the maximum discount offered by the CEGB. I was advised recently—although it may be flexible and my hon. Friend may be able to reassure me—that it is only 30 per cent. Police authorities sell houses surplus to requirements to police officers at discount rates equivalent to those I have I have cited for local authorities. I have already mentioned that British Coal disposes of its properties at a 50 per cent. discount.
  Since constituents at Barlow first raised the matter of discounts with me, I have had some correspondence with the CEGB property services manager for the north of England, Mr. K. J. Howes, at Harrogate and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad to say that Mr. Howes has taken an active interest in the satisfactory disposal of the Barlow houses to the tenants, but I am still not quite clear about the level of discounts that may be offered. That is relevant to the attitude I take towards the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some encouragement and belief that discounts closer to those applying in local authorities, or as operated by British Coal or some police authorities, may be under consideration by the CEGB.
  It would be of great interest if my hon. Friend could tell me what will become of the right-to-buy prospects of tenants who have not yet decided that they want to buy, but who may decide to buy in the next few years, when the properties move from the ownership of the CEGB to the ownership of the new, big trading body. Will there be any moral—obviously, not legislative—obligation on the new owners to do what the police, British Coal and the outgoing CEGB have all done, which is to accept a moral obligation to match in some respects the local authority rights under the Housing Act 1980? Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to advise us about those points.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I must say first to my right hon. Friend, as a matter of generality, that clauses 60 and 61 provide for all property rights and liabilities of the area boards—and of the CEGB in the case of clause 61—to be transferred to the successor companies nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State. We would not want to change that generality. Secondly, my information is that the Barlow example is the only large group of houses that raises the problem that he has, quite properly, brought
  646
  before the House this evening. There are a handful of other similar properties for which the CEGB does not envisage any problem in negotiating the sale to the occupiers.
  I can tell my right hon. Friend that the CEGB is seeking to reach a satisfactory conclusion with the Barlow tenants involved and hopes to be able to complete the sales before the end of 1989. In direct answer to the point raised, should it be impossible for any reason to do that, I would expect National Power, to which the houses in question are expected to be transferred, to honour the intention of the CEGB to sell on terms to be agreed with the incumbent tenants. Although I would not wish to intervene in the matter, should there be any unreasonable difficulties about the terms of the sales, I would want to make inquiries myself of the CEGB to discover what the problem was. However, I am hopeful, as is the CEGB, that the matter can be resolved before the transfer takes place. If that is not the case, I would expect the sale to take place under the successor companies.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend was kind enough to suggest that he would keep a watching brief on the matter. Will the watching brief extend specifically to the question of the ultimate discounts offered? I am not asking him to be specific about an acceptable level, although I have described what I feel is a lowish level of discount. If I complain to my hon. Friend that the discounts remain too ungenerous, will my hon. Friend agree to intervene or at least to have a look at the matter?
  Mr. Spicer: As my right hon. Friend no doubt senses, I am extremely anxious not to become involved myself as it would not be appropriate. However, if I felt that any action taken was totally unreasonable or was a wrecking proposition, I would want to know about it. There is no compulsion on discount rates, but it is the board's intention that the houses should be sold. I would want to be reassured that there was nothing unreasonable in the proposals, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend any guarantees about the precise rate of discounts, nor would he expect me to do so.
  Mr. Barron: This is a fascinating scenario. Will the Minister take into account that coal miners who supplied the old Drax power station and the new one have, since the mid-1970s, received a 50 per cent. discount on their public body houses from the former National Coal Board? It seems grossly unfair that another public body is thinking of selling its properties with lower discounts than that.
  Mr. Spicer: That is a rather helpful intervention. It is interesting to know that the official Opposition support my right hon. Friend. I repeat that I would want to be sure that no unreasonable proposition had been made. It is helpful to have the Opposition's views on record in a positive and helpful way.
  Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister mentioned that the purchase of the houses would take place before privatisation—if possible. Surely it must be possible. Those people to whom the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred have been waiting for years and we are talking about only a small batch of houses. It should be possible to tie up such a deal before privatisation with the goodwill of the CEGB. The CEGB is morally obliged to give similar discounts to those given by local authorities.
  Mr. Spicer: I shall ensure that as soon as Hansard comes off the presses tomorrow morning, we shall run hot foot to the CEGB and explain that the Opposition are now enthusiastic about the sale of public sector houses to the private sector with appropriate discounts. It is extremely good news and I shall ensure that the Opposition's views are drawn to the attention of the CEGB as soon as Hansard comes off the presses tomorrow.
  Mr. Alison: On the basis of the assurance that my hon. Friend has kindly given—particularly in his commitment to the concept of reasonableness as a trigger, now also adumbrated by Opposition Members having regard to local authority and National Coal Board discounts—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in page 44, line 48, at end add—
  `(2A)(1) Six months after the date of transfer of all property rights and liabilities of each Area Board, the company nominated in accordance with this section shall publish a valuation of

  (a) Those capital assets of the Area Board utilised for the transmission of electricity; and

  (b) Those capital assets of the Area Board not so utilised.

  (2) Such valuations shall be based on the open market value of said assets at the date appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above.'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 161, in clause 61, page 45, line 14, leave out `(b)' and insert—
  `(bb) the Secretary of State shall make proper and reasonable provision for retention of the transmission system in public ownership.'
  Mr. Morgan: I read with interest in this morning's Financial Times that a double Olympic gold medal had been awarded to a Conservative Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), and a junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. They had been the hon. Members to vote most consistently in accordance with the views of the Adam Smith Institute and were deemed to be the most freedom-oriented hon. Members. I note that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is looking surprised that he did not win it. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs had been taking steroids in an attempt to achieve an outright win, but he did not make it.
  Hon. Members may be mystified as to the relevance of my remarks. It is that, given their views on the national grid, the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will not win such an award. They must have thought about selling the national grid as a private company, but they funked it. This is the appropriate stage at which to consider why they decided that the national grid should remain at one remove from the market. They have not kept it in the public sector, as we ask them to do in amendment No. 161, but they are not committing it to the furnace of the free market either. It will have semi-privatised status. Nobody will be able to touch it. Market forces will not be able to touch it and, although it will be owned by the 12 area boards, they will not be able to mess about with it much either. They cannot make a commercial asset out of it. It will be a separate plc
  648
  with its own capital budget and non-executive directors and the area boards will not be able to determine what happens to it.
  Why is that? Is it a curious omission of the Government, or is it a recognition by them that certain aspects of the electricity industry constitute public infrastructure rather than business? There are business aspects to all infrastructure provision and many businesses are also infrastructure. Part of the electricity industry is a heating business, as is British Gas, but only 25 per cent. or less of the electricity industry is a competitor for British Gas, which has already been part privatised, with 51 per cent. of the shares being sold. The Government seem to recognise that electricity and the national grid are part of the infrastructure. There are security of supply and national security arguments at stake, and the national grid thus falls clearly within the definition of infrastructure.
  The importance of the Government's funking the issue and their willingness to give up their Adam Smith Institute gold medals for another year or so lies in the fact that they recognise that problems arise when one permits full risk-bearing equity participation in certain types of businesses. Those are businesses from which the public has a right to expect something. The fact that the demands of the Government and the public can be expected to weigh heavily on such businesses makes them totally inappropriate for full risk-bearing equity participation which allows a company to go bust or to make an absolute fortune. The Opposition believe that that is unacceptable for the electricity industry as a whole, and even the Government recognise that it is not acceptable to submit the national grid to those conditions—to the risk of going bust or to the opportunity of exploiting its monopoly position to make a fortune.
  The Government are now telling us, "The industry is not that kind of industry". In that case, why not go the whole hog and leave it in the public sector, where we believe it belongs? We hope that we shall see a flicker of recognition—even if there is no cross-voting on the issue —of the fact that, although the Minister's American guru recommended that the national grid should become a private sector transmission company, the Government have had to concede that, although that may be possible in the United States, we cannot do it in Britain. If they concede that, amendment No. 161 represents the obvious solution.
  Some other aspects of the national grid are worth thinking about. The Government have structured the National Grid Company so that it can transmit, and has the obligation to try to transmit, cheap electricity economically and efficiently to comply with security of supply regulations and facilitate competition in the generating industry. One thing that it cannot do is to buy and sell electricity. Why is that? Why are not the Government willing to make the national grid the wholesaler of electricity—as it is now for all practical purposes? Why have they removed that capability? The reason is that it would make it far more difficult for private generators to enter the industry if the nation grid could buy and retail on to the area boards or big industrial consumers.
  The Government have made a serious mistake—which will cost the consumer hundreds of millions of pounds every year—by denying the national grid its natural role in the wholesale purchase and retail distribution of electricity to the area boards. The reason for that is simple. Under the

  649
  new system, if a major supplier such as National Power suffers from a major technical problem, it will be more difficult to deal with it. Ludicrous though it may seem, large and small power stations at the edge of the sea sometimes suffer when sea water covers their cooling water intake screens. If that happens, the power station has to be knocked off and thousands of megawatts have to come off line.
  Under the present system, the national grid says, "Drax cannot be used for the next hour, or until the sea water is cleaned off the screens. We shall use the next cheapest power station that we have in reserve and bring it on line". Will that happen in the future? It would happen if the Government agreed to making the national grid the wholesaler. But under the new system National Power will have the obligation to bring its next cheapest power station on line, and that power station may not be the cheapest power station that is off line and waiting in reserve.
  We are given to understand by electricity industry experts that that could mean an additional cost of £200 million a year to the consumer, all because the contracting generator will have the obligation to provide the next best power station that he has available rather than the national grid's being able to use the lowest unit cost alternative generator in the event of a major generating station or major transmission line breakdown. The Government should seriously think about the penalty to the consumer of not allowing the national grid to buy and sell power but merely allowing it to act as an inert and passive common carrier.
  The national grid should also carry the obligation to supply. It makes no sense for the area boards to have the obligation to supply to the consumer. The national grid will be a plc owned by the 12 area boards, but it will nevertheless be an entirely separate operation. If it had the obligation to supply, major savings to the consumer would accrue.
  Look at the lawyers' paradise that will be created by placing the obligation to supply on the area boards. Suppose that a major customer—say the steel industry in Yorkshire—finds that as a result of a voltage fault its steel is solidifying in its electric arc furnaces. The problem has nothing to do with the industry, which may have provided all the necessary contracts and a 10 per cent. margin over and above the highest winter demand. A generating or national grid fault may result in a sudden loss of power sufficient to wreck the induction furnaces or electric arc furnaces. The customer sues the area board; he cannot sue anyone else. The area board then has to sue the national grid or the generating board for the failure. Two or possibly more legal actions could be taking place at the same time.
  If the national grid had the obligation to supply, that would simplify the whole system because it would have the obligation to provide the power, the alternatives to the power and the insurance on the alternatives through the national grid system.
  The Under-Secretary of State has already referred today to the fact that his aim in life is to stop decisions being made behind what he called the "baize doors" in Whitehall and to have them made in the market place. I imagine that he does not want to see all the decisions being made in the High Court. However, he has devised a system
  650
  that will undoubtedly prove to be a lawyers' paradise. In our opinion, these problems will have to be solved in another place, if not in this place.
  The national grid is the right body to have the obligation to supply, and it is the right body to have the obligation to buy and sell power at the minimum unit cost to the consumer.
  8.30 pm
  I turn now to the contract system that will be devised around which the national grid will have to operate and which refers to the area boards, as does amendment No. 223. The Government's rhetoric says that an area board will have the right to place a contract with a generating station that can provide it with the cheapest power. The south Wales area board will in future buy from whichever is the cheapest station, which could be Aberthaw, its local big station. Yorkshire will buy from Drax and the East Midlands will buy from High Marnham or Ratcliffe-on-Soar, and the southern area boards will buy mainly nuclear, with a bit of oil and a bit of Didcot or whatever coal-fired power stations are nearby. We can see the problem immediately. A southern area board does not have cheap fossil fuel nearby. The South Western area board has only nuclear power nearby at Didcot, Aberthaw and at Fawley, on the fringes. Therefore, the power is much more expensive than is the power for the area boards in south Wales or in the north.
  What is the Government's solution? Is it the free market? I was going to use a non-parliamentary expression to answer that, but I shall not. It certainly is not the free market. It is a "Sir Humphrey" solution. The Government have devised the nuclear quota by which the South Western area board will buy, say, 15 or 20 per cent. of its power from nuclear sources instead of the 80 or 90 per cent. that one might have expected. Once one has allocated for the nuclear quota around the 12 area boards, those area boards can have a maximum of only 80 per cent. fossil power. The southern area boards must then buy fossil fuel long distance, a little bit from Didcot obviously, but mostly from Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
  When that is replicated over the country, it has to be spread out so that the 12 area boards will be doing something remarkably like what they do today. Once one has redistributed the 15 to 20 per cent. nuclear quota around the 12 area boards, one must then redistribute around the 12 area boards the 80 or 85 per cent. fossil quota. Because of the nuclear quota, one cannot have a wonderful system of local identification between south Wales and Aberthaw, Yorkshire and Drax, and East Midlands and Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Therefore, there will not be any way of minimising one's transmission costs and identifying with the local generating station or of being able to get some real buzz in the business whereby everybody realises, "If we produce cheaper power, it will be good for our local industries" or anything like that because this is a "Sir Humphrey", a "Mad Hatter's tea party" system.
  Finally, I remind the Minister that the new system of contracts is supposed to be operational by 1 October in shadow form and be in its full commercial form by 1 January 1990. The Minister already knows that that cannot be done either by 1 October or by 1 January next year, except in some attenuated, "weak tea" transitional form which is remarkably like the present bulk supply tariff system. The Minister will not admit it, but he knows

  651
  that that is what the area board chairmen are saying and that that is what those who are trying to devise the computer programme that will supply the despatch system and the settlement system for the contracts are saying. I am fairly sure that his own more local advisers are telling him, "If you want it by 1 January, you can have it, but it will look very much like the present system. If you want what it says in the rhetoric of the speech that you gave at last year's Tory party conference and more importantly what you want to say in the one that you hope to give at the next two Tory party conferences, you won't get it by 1 January." I hope that the Minister will be politically mature enough to admit that tonight.
  Mr. Hardy: I shall be relatively brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has already put forward exceedingly powerful arguments. Unfortunately, our experience of the Bill does not give us cause for great optimism that the Minister will respond to his entirely sensible views.
  The Government are confused. The Minister dare not retreat from the market force attachment, or the medals from the Adam Smith Institute to which my hon. Friend referred will be at risk. However, the fact is that the Minister is in a preposterous position. He has said that the Government will retain the best elements of the merit order system. The best element—the only element—of the merit order system is that the consumer obtains the cheapest possible available electricity. If the Minister departs from that principle, he cannot retain elements of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West spelt out in detail that if National Power's cheap power station goes off line, it will not be the next cheapest power station that will supply the supplier with electricity; it will be National Power's next cheapest or perhaps its next nomination. That is not satisfactory. Rather than act with good sense and serve the consumer well, the Government have clung to their dogma.
  I cannot see any sensible reason why the national grid should not remain in public hands or as an impartial wholesaler. An impartial wholesaler could act with good sense to ensure that there is encouragement for proper, sensible and wise developments in electricity generation. It could deter the insidious trader who may well be eagerly cheering the Government in their preposterous position. An impartial wholesaler could discourage those who are more concerned with financial massaging and manipulation than about the generation of electricity. People who can see through this muddled hotch potch see an opportunity for profit from the "take or pay" principle.
  I do not suppose that any words from Opposition Members will persuade the Minister that good sense is necessary, but they should at least be on the record and that is why I am making this brief speech. I want to make it clear that on 10 April 1989 when the Bill was in its final stages there were those who said that the national interest suggested that a different arrangement would be sensible.
  The Government are putting an enormous obligation on the director general. When one looks at the relatively meagre resources that the director general and the regulator will enjoy, one can see that it may later be regretted that the national grid was not given a more powerful and independent role in the industry. If the national grid were to remain in the role that we have been urging, the job of the regulator would be more effective.
  652
  As I have said, we cannot expect the Minister to accept our suggestions, because he will not have been given permission to do so before the Secretary of State flew off to Red Square. However, at least the Minister should explain to the House the elements of the merit order system that he will retain. We need to know that. I also want to know what steps he will take to ensure that the national grid has a capacity to apply a little wisdom in differentiating between the nearly crooked and the commendable in terms of generation development.
  Finally—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate this brief point—while we are talking about transmission, does the Minister recognise that Yorkshire consumers, and perhaps east midlands consumers also, have, because of their acceptance of the national interest, borne the fact that they have been subsidising some of the wealthier areas of this country because they have been paying rather more for their electricity than they would have done if they had not been contributing to the loss in transmission of a significant amount of electricity?
  Once we have gone to market forces—once the market force application, and so on, imbues the whole electricity industry, as the Government intend—what concession, what assistance, what recognition of past sacrifice will be afforded to the consumers, certainly the consumers of the Yorkshire area? I do not believe that the Government, having decided to pursue the course of selfishness, could then turn round and say to the Yorkshire electricity consumers, "You will carry on exactly as you have been doing." If they do, we will take a rather more serious and rather more caustic view.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions. In particular, I implore him to explain to me how he can retain anything like the merit order system in the muddled and foolish confusion that the Government have created by this route.
  Dr. Kim Howells: How does the Minister think the grid will offer choice for the consumer? It will be one grid, after all, and, with the best will in the world—I am trying to be as generous as possible to the Minister, because I know that he has a very difficult task to explain this—there will be a national grid company. Consider Sunday lunch time. Will we plug in to "On the Record" from PowerGen, and, when we decide to cook the Sunday lunch, will we plug in to National Power? Of course not. Will we watch "The Big Match" via ICI's sales to the grid? Of course not. It will be a national grid company, controlled by the area boards, that controls prices. It will, of course, be a cartel manifested in a single company. As our industry becomes more and more dependent upon electricity—and it will —we will find that this most vital of supply grids is controlled by the very people who are selling the stuff. They will do as I imagine all commercial companies do—try to get from the British public the highest possible profit. Of course, they will favour long-term "sweetheart" agreements with generating companies.
  Mr. Hardy: The French.
  Dr. Howells: Of course they will be looking to the French. Incidentally, I hope that the next time there is a strong wind from the Channel—one that does not originate in this House—the Minister will not allow the French suppliers to switch off the juice before the wind hits

  653
  Britain. I hope that we will not be stuck trying to find 2,000 MW in the south of England because the French have decided to protect their own supplies.
  The companies will favour comfortable long-term "sweetheart" agreements with generating companies. It will not be competition. It will not be a question of looking around for generators that are ready to supply the cheapest electricity. It will be a series of private monopolies. They will be looking for trouble-free supplies —and so they should—but there are so many inconsistencies in this Bill, and we will be so increasingly dependent upon electricity, that they will have to look around for trouble-free supplies and "sweetheart" agreements.
  But what about price? What will happen to price? We will have a series of cartels and a company that is a mouthpiece for those cartels, and prices will be increased so that profit levels may be cranked up as much as possible.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I have been following very carefully the hon. Member's arguments and those of his colleagues. Can the hon. Member explain what motive there could possibly be for the new area boards and distribution companies not to shop around through the grid for the cheapest possible supply, but to do as he suggests—up the price? Surely the whole purpose of the structure that the Government propose is to give the new distribution companies the opportunity to buy in from the cheapest possible sources. What motive could they possibly have for doing otherwise?
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is a good one because it affords me the opportunity to say that I believe that this Bill will allow the distribution companies to acquire power stations and, thereby, begin to control the local areas, not just in terms of the sale of electricity but in terms of its generation. It seems to me that in those circumstances the customer will be in very big trouble indeed. There will no longer be a chance to regulate supplies and costs. What we will have is an enfranchised monopoly, a private monopoly, over which we, as representatives of the customers in those areas, will have no control.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) opened his speech by saying that we had kept the grid neither in the public sector nor fully in the private sector. He made that point as a matter of criticism of the Government. Another way of looking at it is through our eyes. We have given the industry the benefits of privatisation—for instance, employee involvement in shares, Companies Act accounts, and motivation to efficiency. That is why we cannot accept amendment No. 161, which would result in the grids being kept in the public sector.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister says that employees will be given shares. In the national grid?
  Mr. Michael Spicer: There will be arrangements whereby employees of the grid company will be able to own shares in the industry. That will, of course, motivate
  654
  them in the way that I have suggested—something that would be denied to them by the Labour party and, in particular, by this amendment.
  On the other hand, we have provided for the benefits that undoubtedly accrue from an integrated network. The Opposition—this is a new one; as a matter of fact, it is one of the first new things to have come up tonight—apparently want us to provide for a market-making capacity, a monopolistic buying capacity. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was particularly enthused about that. On the other hand, we are concerned to allow the grid company to be a common carrier. That is quite specifically what we wish it to be because it is central to our concept of competition amongst generators.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked—I think he was asking, though perhaps he was just making a statement; in any case, I took it to be some sort of question —whether or not, and how, we would be retaining any aspects of the merit order despatch arrangement. Certainly the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised this question. Quite manifestly, the answer is yes, and it will be done on the basis of bid prices into the generator pool. Of course, that will be done regardless of who owns the station. It will be a matter of encouraging those who are able to come forward with the best bid prices to do so and, as a result—subject to the stability of the system which, of course, will remain the responsibility of an integrated network company—they will be able to sell their wares through the common carriage arrangements that the network will provide. We do not see that there will be any problem about this, other than in the minds of those who wish to see some sort of monopolistic situation being returned—in this case, through the operations of the grid company. That is precisely what the whole thrust of this Bill is aimed at avoiding.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West made a quite legitimate and proper point in saying that the non-fossil fuel obligation intervened and distorted, to an extent, the workings of this competitive regime to which I have alluded. We have never, in any way or at any point, disguised from the House, or from anybody else, the fact that the non-fossil fuel obligation is, of course, a distortion in the market place. We hope that that distortion will be temporary as the nuclear levy becomes unnecessary. On many occasions we have told the House why we wish to have part of the electricity in this country provided by nuclear power, and I do not intend to weary the House by going over the argument again. The reason why we want a nuclear industry is fully on the record. On that basis I defend the undoubted distortion which will exist in a minor way under the competitive regime that we are presenting to the House. There is no way that we wish to accept the amendments and on that fair, cogent exposition I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Morgan: I shall respond in like manner. The Minister is slightly wrong: regardless of his exposition I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope, possibly a vain one, that the other place will attend to these matters with its greater ability to think independently.
  The Minister's reference to preserving the best aspects of the merit order system under the new contract system is phoney. Mr. Montague of Linklaters and Paines, one of

  655
  the leading solicitors firms in the City that are looking into this on behalf of the industry or the Government—I forget which—is one of many who has said:
  "Profit is likely to be included in capacity charges rather than energy charges."
  Mr. Montague said that at The Economist conference on electricity privatisation before Christmas. In other words, before any generator submits his generating station into the merit order pool, he has already made his money in the contract simply by being there. In that case there is no incentive for him to reduce his unit cost or for the national grid to buy from his generator because its unit cost is low.
  Although we fully maintain our arguments and strongly reject the Government's arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61

  TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ETC. OF GENERATING BOARD AND ELECTRICITY COUNCIL
  Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 45, line 44, after 'including', insert
  `rights to receive any sums by way of repayment supplement and'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment Nos. 87 and 88.
  Mr. Lang: Amendment No. 66 is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that any repayments of corporation tax which might turn out to be overpaid would also be accompanied by repayment supplement due as a result of those repayments.
  Amendment No. 88 is a technical amendment to remove any doubt on the effect of paragraph 8 of schedule 11 which was inserted in Committee. It is designed to ensure that tax allowances transferred from one company to another can be utilised by the second company. Amendment No. 87 is a drafting amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10
  TRANSFERS UNDER SECTIONS 6I AND 62
  Amendment made: No. 67, in page 108, line 1, leave out `by' and insert 'in pursuance of'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
Clause 73
  TREASURY GUARANTEES FOR LOANS MADE TO THE SCOTTISH COMPANIES
  Amendment made: No. 68, in page 52, line 32, leave out `in Scotland'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
Clause 75

  FINANCIAL LIMITS ON BORROWINGS ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 69, in page 54, line 25, after 'of' insert '(a)'.
  No. 70, in page 54, line 26, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 28 and insert
  `and

  (b) sums issued under section 73 above in fulfilment of guarantees given in respect of loans made to such companies, shall not exceed £2,000 million.'.

  No. 71, in page 54, line 32, leave out
  `in fulfilment of guarantees under section 73 above'
  and insert
  `under section 73 above in fulfilment of guarantees given in respect of loans made to successor companies in Scotland'.
  No. 72 in page 54, line 34, leave out subsection (3).— [Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 76

  RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPOSITE LISTING PARTICULARS
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 54, line 37, leave out subsections (1) and (2) arid insert—
  '. —(1) Where—

  (a) the same document contains listing particulars for securities of two or more successor companies; and

  (b) any person's responsibility for any information included in the document is stated in the document to be confined to its inclusion as part of the listing particulars for securities of any one of those companies,
  that person shall not be treated as responsible for that information in so far as it is stated in the document to form part of the listing particulars for securities of any other of those companies.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 74.
  Mr. Spicer: These are two technical amendments. They are designed to ensure that stock exchange rules are complied with in the drafting of prospectuses.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 74, in page 55, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
  "`responsible" means responsible for the purposes of Part IV of the 1986 Act and "responsibility" shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicerr.]

Schedule 11

  TAXATION PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 87, in page 111, line 37, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  No. 88, in page 112, line 6, at end insert—
  '(5A) The trade carried on by a company whose liabilities are extinguished by virtue of section 74(1) of this Act shall, if the company's tax losses are aggregated and apportioned by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, be treated for the purposes of giving any relief under the Corporation Tax Acts in respect of the losses so apportioned as being, and having at all times been, the trade carried on by the successor companies to which the losses are apportioned.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 89

  DIRECTIONS FOR PRESERVING SECURITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES ETC
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
  '((2)) (1) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament additional directions for the purpose of—

  (a) preserving the security of building or installations used for, or for purposes connected with, or arising from the generating of nuclear power;

  (b) mitigating the effects of any civil emergency that may occur as a result of the generation of nuclear power or any matters connected with or arising from the generation of nuclear power.

  (2) in setting the directions under ((2)) (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant local

  657
  authority; with the corresponding health authority or board and with representatives of police, fire and ambulance services.

  (3) "relevant local authority" in ((2)) (2) above means the local authority in whose area the building or installation is situated; the local authority through whose area radioactive material may be transported and the local authorities whose area is within 25 miles of the building or installation.

  (4) personnel provided for the security of a building or installation under this subsection to prevent terrorist or other attack shall be the responsibility of the the Secretary of State and shall not be provided by firms providing private security services whether employed by the licence holder or any other body or person.'.

  The amendment specifically relates to the issues of security and safety at nuclear installations following privatisation. That has been referred to in previous debates and is an important issue. The amendment addresses several specific points.
  The first part of the amendment is concerned with the security of buildings and installations associated with the generation of nuclear power. It then deals with mitigating the effects of an emergency. It provides for the co-ordination of an emergency plan with the relevant local emergency services and the notification of local authorities within a 25-mile radius of the building or installation. The final part deals with the security services associated with protecting nuclear installations against terrorist attack and requires that the provision of such security shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and shall not be sub-contracted to private security firms.
  United Kingdom provision for the security of installations and for nuclear emergencies is not nationally co-ordinated or agreed, or well publicised. Nor does it compare favourably with nuclear installations in other countries. The requirement on nuclear power station operators is concerned only with on-site security and an evacuation planning distance of 3·5 km. Clearly, that does not take account of the possible implications of a significant fall-out of radioactivity. I have been advised that the evacuation distance is 16 km in the United States, 20 km in Finland, 10 km in Germany and between 12 and 15 km in Sweden. Only Mexico operates a smaller radius than we do, at 3 km, and the British Government should not be particularly proud of being marginally better than Mexico.
  The main problem is caused by the lack of overall guidelines. It is left to each individual installation. There is no general understanding among the emergency or neighbouring authorities of exactly what is required. I am advised that Somerset county council has taken steps to ensure that there is a well-publicised plan for emergency evacuation of its nuclear installations and that it is available to the public. That is a desirable example which could usefully become the basis for the norm. It has happened only because the county council has initiated such a proposal and because it has managed to secure the voluntary co-operation of the authorities at Hinkley Point. To be fair, they get a good deal of criticism. The fact that they have co-operated is welcome.
  The amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for this type of plan to be in operation in every circumstance and to make specific proposals for the involvement of the relevant authorities.
  It should go without saying not only that there should be a plan, but the emergency services, which are likely to
  658
  be most immediately affected in the neighbourhood, should be consulted in the formulation of the plan and fully informed about what the plan is. The fact that that is not the case is a matter for considerable alarm and shows unjustified complacency. No matter how good we may feel the safety and performance record of British installations is, we cannot rule out human error and the fact that there could be an accident. Indeed, there have been sufficient minor incidents—fortunately, in most cases, minor—to make it clear that we must have much better provisions and contingency arrangements for preparing for the possibility of a major disaster.
  I do not wish to detain the House longer than is necessary, because some of the arguments have been covered when discussing previous amendments. I believe, however, that the amendment is more specific than the previous ones and shows how we should deal with the problem.
  9 pm
  I make no secret of the fact that one reason why I have been a persistent and long-term critic of the nuclear power industry has been that, from the days of the previous Labour Government, it has been a requirement to provide armed police to guard nuclear power installations. That begins to bring into question civil liberties. Of course, I accept that those installations are targets for terrorism and need to be protected, but I believe that the House should consider how that protection will continue when the nuclear installations have been transferred to the private sector. That is not just idle speculation. A number of private security agencies are involved in the surveillance of people connected with or critical of the nuclear industry. It is a specific concern of mine that such a body as Zeus Security Consultants, now known as Securipol, could possibly be charged with actually carrying out the protection of those installations. If that were the case, it would effectively mean privatising not just a significant and important policing operation, but an armed policing operation. [Interruption.] The Government may want to privatise the police. However, I believe that we are in dangerous waters if we are suggesting that private nuclear power station operators should be free to contract with private security services to protect those installations. We could be faced with the possibility of a private company providing armed police and using security and surveillance methods that are more associated with counter-espionage than with normal policing operations.
  It is no secret that this issue has been raised previously, but I do not apologise for mentioning it again. A couple of months ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others tabled an early-day motion drawing attention to the involvement of Lord Chalfont in just one of those agencies. It remains the view of my right hon. Friend and my colleagues that being chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority is incompatible with being an active director of a company that carries out what I believe are rather unsavoury security and surveillance operations. Evidence—as recently as last week on Channel 4—has shown that the methods of operation of such companies are extremely dubious.
  There have been a number of revelations in the House about our state security services and their failings, but the idea that we should be licensing and, indeed, providing a market for private organisations of this character to be able to develop and expand is unacceptable.

  659
  I hope that the Minister can assure us that the security of nuclear installations in the private sector will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. If any armed personnel are involved in the protection of those installations—which presumably will continue to be necessary, as that has been the case for at least the past 15 years—they should be employees of the state and not of any private organisation.
  The amendment covers a number of different, although relevant and related matters. Do the Government propose to bring forward co-ordinated strategic plans for dealing with any emergency at a nuclear installation, dealing with appropriate evacuation procedures and informing the public and the relevant authorities, especially the emergency services and the local authorities?
  If the Minister does not agree to the notification of a 25-mile radius, will he say what kind of evacuation radius the Government think appropriate and how far around it the relevant emergency services and authorities should be involved?
  I am prepared to accept that the amendment is open to interpretation, but we need to know more than we have been able to discover so far from the Minister. We cannot simply allow the public to accept assurances from the industry—they will not accept them in any case—that we are much safer and better at operating nuclear power stations than are any of our competitors in any other countries and that we do not require further safety procedures. That is the current state of affairs.
  Before the installations are transferred into the private sector we need a clearer statement on what the Government propose to do about emergency and evacuation procedures involving the relevant authorities. I hope the Minister can also give me an assurance that any armed security personnel involved at any nuclear installation will be directly accountable to the Secretary of State and through him to this House.
  Mr. Hardy: Many of the security firms pay very poor wages and I am not suggesting that Lord Chalfont is subject to such wages. I have heard of people on £1·50 an hour—that is reason enough to suggest that Lord Chalfont is not included in that particular group. However, there are social dangers in giving people so little money. I am worried if such firms recruit people on a part-time, casual basis. It might be profitable for employers to leave us in a state of dependency on that sort of casual labour, but that is almost as questionable as some areas of the black economy that are causing concern. The Minister needs to give the House some assurances about that.
  I know it is fashionable to talk about the modern bugging to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred a moment ago. Such bugging may provide massive profits for technologically advanced security firms. I am chiefly concerned about the people who will run the security of privatised nuclear power stations, perhaps for many years to come. For us to be dependent on such outfits gives us cause for concern and may well create a nasty taste in the mouth.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The nuclear installations inspectorate, through its licensing powers under the Nuclear Installations (Amendment) Act 1965, already requires that nuclear generators draw up emergency plans to deal with any nuclear accidents in full consultation with the relevant local authorities and emergency services.
  660
  The lack of formal responsibility on local authorities to produce emergency plans for nuclear installations of the kind that exist under the Control of Industrial Major Accidents Hazards Regulations for hazardous chemical sites has been noted by my Department. It has been decided to deal with this by making use of powers available to the Health and Safety Commission and by placing a legal requirement on local authorities to prepare the kind of integrated off-site plans for licensed nuclear sites for which the hon. Gentleman has properly called.
  The House may like to note that the intention is to go beyond the normal requirements for reference accidents. which is the basis for the existing CIMAH regulations. In the case of nuclear sites, the off-site plans will be required to address the availability of contingency plans to provide for a capability to deal with nuclear accidents which have more widespread effects than the detailed site and off-site plans are designed to cater for. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured on that point, to which his amendment is appropriately addressed. Legislative help is on the way regarding the integration of plans.
  The power proposed in paragraph (IA) of the amendment is already covered by clause 89(1)(a) which enables the Secretary of State to give directions about the security of nuclear power stations. That is a recurring theme of my response to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). However, it would be quite inappropriate for the Secretary of State to undertake wide consultations on matters involving counter-terrorist measures because it would be impossible to preserve the confidentiality of the proposed measures. For that reason, the Secretary of State will have the discretion not to lay directions before Parliament if that would be against the interests of national security. The hon. Member for Gordon conceded the vital importance of preserving power stations from any potential attack by terrorists.
  I shall turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon—addressed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)—that in his view, and this was mentioned in the amendment, there should be no role for private security companies. We cannot accept that. Security matters are the responsibility of those running the power stations, with the proviso that the Secretary of State has the capability to make directions. That fall-back exists throughout the clause; in fact the purpose of the clause is to give him ultimate responsibility to make directions. We do not see why it should not be possible for those with responsibility for security of power stations to use private security contractors should they wish to do so.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth mentioned low wages. The headquarters of one of the largest security companies in the country—Group 4 Total Security—is in my constituency. Therefore, I am aware of the industry's structure, benefits and problems. However, I cannot give the assurances about low levels within the industry which he seemed to seek. Those are a matter for negotiation between the companies and their employees. However, I agree that it is extremely important to maintain the highest standards within those companies, particularly when vetting personnel.
  Mr. Hardy: Does not the Minister recognise that if a security company seeks to behave responsibly, pay reasonable wages, vet and insure its employees properly and do all that a model employer should, it is likely to be outbid by a firm that sticks up notices—of the sort that I

  661
  have seen in jobcentres—offering part-time employment for wretchedly low wages, has no capacity for the proper supervision of its workers, and does nothing more than bank its own large profits?
  Mr. Spicer: If that is the case, such companies would be extremely short sighted, because they will put the security of their businesses at risk by employing cowboy operators of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Therefore, it is sensible for anyone employing contractors for security to ensure they employ those of the highest quality. No doubt, as a result, they will pay them properly for their services.
  I concede the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth that it is extremely important that companies should operate properly. However, we do not want to pass legislation to prevent nuclear power operators from using private contractors should they wish to do so. However, I stress the proviso that the Secretary of State retains—through the operations of the clause—powers of direction and therefore of ultimate responsibility for security.
  On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am still worried about the Minister's failure to reply to one or two points. Those who are involved with or concerned about the safety of nuclear installations—local authorities, for example—are less than happy about the lack of a clear agreed national guideline, and they are still pressing the Department for one. I can genuinely understand—although I do not share this view —that the Government may believe that negotiating with the local authorities and emergency services and notifying the public who live near nuclear installations about evacuation and emergency procedures might create alarm. Against that, however, too many people who live near the installations have no idea of what they are supposed to do in an emergency and no chance of finding out if there is one. Given that a major disaster occurred a few years ago —admittedly, and for this we are grateful, not in this country—I believe that the public would prefer the Government to be more honest and to encourage more discussion of this matter. They would regard it as a greater reassurance——
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is right to pull me up for not answering the point about the 3 km evacuation areas. That distance is not a hard and fast standard. The authorities frequently engage in much wider areas for evacuation exercises. I have taken part in an exercise that covered a much wider area. I can offer the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that assurance. Although I specifically referred to the involvement of local services in an area up to 25 miles away, that is not the point at issue. I accept that there may be reasons for variations in all sorts of circumstances. The lack of a national agreed scheme, however, gives rise to concern. Each installation must make its own plans; those plans are variable, and I am less and less convinced from the evidence made available to me that they are all good and that local authorities and the people living in these areas are adequately informed and involved in the planning process.
  662
  I do not want to tempt providence, but if there were a serious accident in a British nuclear installation, the Government would be found wanting for not having ensured that enough information was given to the public who live in these areas.
  The final point to which the Minister did not respond was my request for an assurance that any armed surveillance that might be required in these installations would be carried out by personnel who were accountable to the Secretary of State. Personal preferences apart, I can accept a legitimate role for private security companies in the security of nuclear installations, but I cannot readily accept the deployment of armed personnel who work in the private sector. It is most unfortunate that the Minister could not give me the assurance that I sought.
  I cannot claim to be particularly happy with the Minister's response. If he cannot give me any firmer assurances, I shall withdraw the amendment, but only on the understanding that the issue will be raised again in another place——
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I understand—if I am wrong, I shall publicly correct myself—that at present only the Atomic Energy Authority police in nuclear installations have the right to carry arms. That right was given them by legislation and will not apply to private companies.
  Mr. Bruce: That was a helpful intervention and I shall not pursue the point further. I have made my point forcefully and clearly. I still believe that the Government should do more, and this matter will come up again in another place. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 12

  NUCLEAR LIABILITIES: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 113, line 19 at end insert—
  '(4) There shall be no grants payable under this Schedule save for expenditure in respect of extra costs that could not have been foreseen by the person concerned as at the date the Act takes effect.'.
  Schedule 12 allows the Secretary of State to make grants or loans to the privatised industry for reprocessing nuclear waste, for storage or disposal of waste or for decommissioning nuclear power stations. The schedule seems to be open-ended in that all the bills for waste and decommissioning could be passed to the Government by the privatised industry. The critical phrase in the amendment is
  "extra costs that could not have been foreseen by the person concerned"
  We are talking about grants and loans up to £2·5 billion and those could be renewed by order up to £1 billion at a time. We know that the costs at the end of the nuclear cycle could be quite heavy. The CEGB has reserves of about £3 billion set aside to meet those costs. The thermal oxide reprocessing plant project will cost £1·5 billion and the decommissioning cost for British Nuclear Fuels installations is about £4·5 billion. That has increased tenfold in the past year.
  The decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations are guesswork at the moment. The Government's guess of the cost is about £300 million. This year is the 10th anniversary of the disaster at Three Mile Island and

  663
  already over $1 billion have been spent trying to clean up that mess. The £300 million that I have mentioned is a minimum figure, but the true cost could be as high as £2 billion per nuclear reactor. There are nine Magnox reactors and seven advanced gas-cooled reactors. That means that 16 nuclear power stations have to be decommissioned. The minimum bill for that is £5 billion, but it could be as high as £30 billion.
  The cost of disposing of waste is also the subject of guesswork. We do not know the cost of disposing of intermediate-level waste, and the technologies for disposing of high-level waste have not yet been developed. In Committee we talked about a figure of £4 billion, but the Government did not provide any figure.
  As I have said, it is clear that the schedule is open ended and all the bills could be passed to the taxpayer. We could have the intolerable situation of the privatised industry being allowed to make a profit and passing the big bills at the end of the nuclear cycle to the taxpayer. In Committee the Minister told us that the provisions referred to unforeseen costs. I have gone minutely through the schedule and can find no mention of unforeseen costs.
  The Government need to specify exactly what costs they expect at the end of the cycle. They should specify the foreseen costs and the unforeseen costs. That should be done in the interests of would-be shareholders in the privatised industry and in the interests of taxpayers, the electorate, whose industry is being privatised.
  We know that there is terrific concern about these issues in the City and the industry. In a newspaper article a month ago, it was pointed out that the electricity sell-off could flop over the nuclear waste issue. The article said that John Bates, the managing director-designate of National Power, which will have responsibility for nuclear power, had suggested that a public chest should be set up to carry the costs of decommissioning. The CBI is so concerned about the problems at the back end of the cycle that it does not want nuclear power to be privatised.
  The purpose of our amendment is to make the Government pin down what costs will be covered by the schedule. We feel that it would be only costs that are not foreseen by the directors of the privatised industry. That was the spirit of the discussion that we had in Committee, and we are asking the Government to put into words the spirit of their reply in Committee. The Government cannot but accept the amendment. They gave us the message that the schedule was meant to cover unforeseen costs. Therefore, not only my hon. Friends but the Government must accept the amendment.
  Mr. Hardy: I shall not make a long speech, although this is a serious matter. It is a pity that only two Conservative Back Benchers are here to listen to the essential contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). I shall repeat a little more briefly the arguments that I advanced in Committee. Conservative Members do not seem to understand that change is accelerating. For example, in the last decade we have seen an intensification of terror in many parts of the world. In the past 15 years, the arrangements and procedures of this building have changed dramatically in response to terror and violence. In 1979, violent crime reached its then highest recorded level. In the decade since then, although the Government have made combating crime their priority, that level has at least doubled.
  664
  With this acceleration, with all the other problems that we face, with the sheer encouragement of greed and the infliction of hopelessness on young people—in this country and in others—how a sensible Government can embark on a 100-year policy with an overwhelming commitment to greed and private ownership, a diminution of state responsibility and disregard of the realities of change, I do not know. In due course, our generation will be accused of having taken leave of its senses. I am pleased that some Conservative Members are here for the debate, but it is of such an enormous and historic dimension that this matter should be debated more fully and freely rather than being witnessed by a few silent Members.
  My hon. Friend has done us a great service. He has pointed to the economic realities, but the Government should consider the social realities as well. They should ask whether the growing levels of inflation and the increasing gravity of our economic condition make it possible for us to enter into a 100-year agreement. We may find ourselves unable to afford that agreement in less than half that time.
  9.30 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: There are many unknowns about decommissioning, such as those of technology. Another unknown is insurance. I understand that £20 million is talked about for that, but that is infinitesimal in terms of the effect on a community which experiences any signs of nuclear activity. Near my constituency a pressurised water reactor is to be built at Hinkley Point. If something happens at Hinkley Point, we shall be in big trouble economically and domestically. Besides the fact that we shall all have to run for it, such an incident will have a dreadful effect upon the local economy. Who will pay for that?
  One of the most critical moments in the life of any reactor—this is the result of any analysis—is when it becomes decommissioned. That is the moment when we start moving radioactive material from a controlled point, from a nuclear reactor. We have all seen the glossy publications that have been produced by the CEGB, which set out the three stages of nuclear decommissioning. The drawings of the first stage show a nuclear station. In the second set of drawings there are fewer buildings around the nuclear station. In the third stage, pictures are drawn of cows grazing on the site of the former nuclear reactor. That is nonsense.
  As I understand it, we are talking of a time scale of between 100 and 500 years. I am assuming that cows will still be supplying our milk 500 years on. There is no talk, however, of economics. What happens if there is even a minor accident at a nuclear station during the decommissioning process? My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has drawn attention to the article which appeared in the colour magazine of The Observer on Sunday. It informed us that the decommissioning or rescue process for Three Mile Island has already cost four times the amount that it cost to construct. Who will pay when it comes to an accident? Will it be the Government or the private owner of the nuclear power station? I will tell the House who will pay. The Government will pay in the end, which means that the customer will pay. The Government are ghettoising the nuclear sector. They are trying to pretend that it will become part of a great new privatised industry. In fact, they are ringfencing it. If anything goes wrong, the public

  665
  will have to pick up the tab, and it will be a considerable tab. The damage to the economy will be irreversible in any area where something goes wrong.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Does the hon. Member agree that under the present system, in which everything is nationalised, all decommissioning costs will automatically be picked up by the public? Within the system are stations that were ordered by the Labour Government.
  Dr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It allows me to say that if there is a benefit to be derived from the nuclear generation of electricity, as the Government say there is, we pick up the profit. However, if something goes wrong in future, we shall not pick up a profit. In addition, we shall have to pay for the damage. Where is the sense in that? I hope that the Minister will be comprehensive in his reply.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: It seems that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) does not like the 100-year idea. He thinks that it is a long time.
  Mr. Hardy: I do not like it within a privatised context.
  Mr. Spicer: In any event, the hon. Gentleman does not like the 100-year idea.
  Were the third stage of decommissioning to be changed by regulation in such a way that meant that it could not be anticipated, that would be cause for public expenditures to be incurred. We had a long debate in Committee on this issue, during which we made clear our policy. We do not think it necessary to put into the Bill the provision that has been suggested by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). That would be unnecessary. It would provide a tremendous bonanza for lawyers. Everyone would come forward to argue that a particular proposal did not fit within the legislation. We are clear about the policy. The industry, and therefore the consumer, will pay for decommissioning unless something happens that was not capable of being foreseen—such as the regulations concerning the environment being changed—and proper provision could not therefore have been made in the accounts.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) had some fun at the end of his speech about who pays. Either the taxpayer or the consumer pays. We make no bones about the fact that the consumer will pay for decommissioning and it is correct that he should. He will pay in the way that is appropriate, through proper provisions in the accounts and with the appropriate charging being made against those provisions.
  In answer to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), the hon. Member for Pontypridd was less than fair in saying that the shareholder would benefit from the industry's profits but the taxpayer would pick up the costs. Because we do not want that to persist, we are making it clear that the schedule will be activated only if there is a change in environmental policies that the industry could not have foreseen. To overcome the reservations that the hon. Gentleman put to the House, I give the assurance that we shall use these powers for England and Wales where the environmental conditions and regulations are changed.
  666
  I hope that the hon. Member for Carmarthen will not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I give him the assurance that that is the Government's policy and we intend to stick to it.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Where is it said in the schedule that the measure will be activated only in unforeseen circumstances? I understand from my reading of the Bill that the schedule can be activated at any stage by any Secretary of State whenever the industry asks for the money, and in that way it could be used to pay for the whole thing.
  Mr. Spicer: I am setting out the Government's policy. The Government would not activate the schedule unless there were unforeseen changes. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not necessary.
  Mr. Morgan: The Under-Secretary of State asked my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) not to press the amendment to the vote. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will press it.
  We are reaching the closing stages of the Report stage and we are still wondering about its purpose. It is not to keep hon. Members from their dinners. It is certainly not to keep the Secretary of State from his—nothing keeps him from his dinner, either here or in Moscow. All of us who have had to work through the Committee and Report stages are interested in what the Government mean when they give an undertaking in Committee. Do they meet it on Report?
  We have tabled amendment No. 162 in precise words to meet the exact requirements set out in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State. We originally tabled an amendment which included the word "foreseeable", but the hon. Gentleman said that he was not happy with it and that it was a little unfair, but he thought that the word "foreseen" was fair. We took out the word "foreseeable" and inserted "foreseen".
  The Under-Secretary of State had another objection in Committee. He said that the amendment was not precise in terms of who would be covered by it. We made it precise and inserted "by the person concerned", which is legal language for National Power, the successor company to the nuclear part of the CEGB.
  If a Report stage means anything, and if the word of a Minister in Committee means anything, I hope that the Minister will say that amendment No. 162 is satisfactory. However, from his remarks, I understand that he will not take that view. I do not know what that says about the Minister's attitude to undertakings he has given. What does he think is the purpose of Report, and does he realise that this Chamber is a Parliament of the British people?
  If the Minister does not agree to the amendment, it means that, having put on a little show of bravado in Committee, he is now saying that he wants some form of riskless private capitalism because one cannot privatise the industry with the nuclear component intact on any other terms. What other industry would have the cheek to ask for all of its unforeseen risks to be covered by the taxpayer? What other industry would say that, although it has capital and reserves, they must not be touched if one of its major waste processors should suddenly increase its charges? Can the Minister name any other industry that exists in the private sector on the terms that if it has any problems with waste disposal the Government will ensure that the share capital owners and the people who have

  667
  gone in for great risk taking in equity investment or the excitement of buying shares will have no problems because the taxpayer will pick up the tab?
  There is another peculiar aspect, similar to the peculiarity of the nuclear levy. The Government have said that it is wise to have insurance against the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries or another miners' strike. The Government say that the insurance of a second source of fuel is needed as cover against any sudden eventualities and that that makes sense. But what other industry can the Minister name which has instructions to spend more than £6 billion on a second source of fuel to cover it against an eventuality such as the possibility of another OPEC monopoly trebling the price of oil or another miners' industrial dispute? Other industries believe that if one owns shares, those shares and reserves are at risk to cover eventualities such as that. The merchant bankers have told the Government that they must realise that they cannot sell nuclear power on such terms. They have also told them that, knowing the problems of waste disposal with nuclear power, there is no possibility of selling the industry with its nuclear power component intact because the risks are far too great.
  For the past 30 years, the nuclear power industry has existed as a big lie. We were told in 1957 that it knew how to solve the problem of its nuclear waste disposal or that, if it did not know this year, it would know next year. Thirty years later, the industry still does not know how to dispose of its nuclear waste. At the Hinkley Point public inquiry the CEGB was asked how it would dispose of the spent fuel rods from Hinkley Point, but it could not give an answer—32 years after the beginning of civil nuclear power in this country.
  The Government have the cheek to tell us that the nuclear power industry is clean relative to coal because it does not cause the problems of the greenhouse effect. The coal industry has serious environmental problems, but they are soluble. For the nuclear power industry, we have been waiting 32 years to find out what they are. The difference can be summarised as follows. When one installs an admittedly very expensive but known technology, which has been in use in Japan for more than 15 years, in which limestone scrubbers are put in the chimneys of coal-fired power stations, one produces a useful building product—plaster—for which there is an immediate sale. I cannot think of any comparable product in the nuclear Industry. Nuclear waste has to be buried under the ground and the sites of old power stations have to be covered with hundreds of feet of concrete for more than 100 years. I shall summarise it briefly. The back end of the nuclear power fuel cycle gives us Nirex; the coal cycle gives us artex.
  The real problem that is causing the Government to insist that the nuclear power station component remains alive is that the Prime Minister has a talismanic faith in the nuclear power industry. She wears her talisman around her neck. After General Galtieri there came Arthur Scargill and she believes that she conquered him. I am told that following a couple of Johnnie Walkers in the evening she sometimes believes that she won back the Falklands by dropping a nuclear power station on Buenos Aires.
  The right hon. Lady's simple belief must be brought to an end. The economics of nuclear power have run their generational cycle and the time has come for us to return to a sensible policy to meet our energy and electricity requirements. The private sector has plainly told the
  668
  Department of Energy that it will not undertake the risks of nuclear power, so poor old muggins, the taxpayer, will have to do the job again.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 249.

  Division No. 150]

  [9.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Foster, Derek

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foulkes, George

  Allen, Graham

  Fraser, John

  Alton, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Gould, Bryan

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Beckett, Margaret

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bell, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Haynes, Frank

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

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Henderson, Doug

  Blair, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Buchan, Norman

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cohen, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leighton, Ron

  Corbett, Robin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cox, Tom

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Dewar, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Dixon, Don

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Doran, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Douglas, Dick

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'1 & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliott

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  669

  Mullin, Chris

  Skinner, Dennis

  Murphy, Paul

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  O'Brien, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Snape, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Turner, Dennis

  Radice, Giles

  Vaz, Keith

  Randall, Stuart

  Wall, Pat

  Redmond, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Robertson, George

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amos, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Durant, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Favell, Tony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boswell, Tim

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bright, Graham

  Franks, Cecil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Roger

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

  Fry, Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gardiner, George

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grist, Ian

  670

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Irving, Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Janman, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knapman, Roger

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Speed, Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mans, Keith

  Thorne, Neil

  Maples, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mates, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Watts, John

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 92

  COMPETITION AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 62, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
  No. 163, in page 62, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 167, in page 63, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
  No. 157, in schedule 13, page 115, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  Government amendments Nos. 91 and 75 to 78.
  Mr. Morgan: This group of amendments relates, in the main, to restrictive trade practices. They raise the question of just how deeply the Government have thought about whether they have produced a competitive regime, and, if they have produced a competitive regime, whether it will be up to them to regulate it or whether it might be up to the European Community as well. Obviously, there is a fairly fluid boundary between the two jurisdictions on matters relating to competition. It certainly occurs to us, having read the comments made by bodies such as the CBI, that there may well be problems for the Government arising from the regulation, by the EEC, of some of the little peculiarities of this Bill. We are thinking particularly of the nuclear levy. Would the Government have a leg to stand on if someone challenged them on that at the European Court of Justice because they were in breach of article 85 by compelling people to buy more expensive power than they wanted? The CBI made that point and we entirely agree that the Government need to persuade us that if the large industries with the resources——
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Electricity Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]
  As amended, further considered.
  Mr. Morgan: The CBI spoke of "the nuclear millstone". It wants to be free of that and the Government must address the matter. Consumers, particularly in the north and in south Wales, could well take the Government to the European Court and challenge them that the north subsidises the south on electricity prices and will do so even more under the Bill because of the increasing burden of the nuclear millstone. Have the Government thought about that?
  We wonder how the Government will handle a proposed foreign takeover of any of the area boards or generating boards. Will not the EEC disallow the Government from keeping the essential sinews of the electricity industry, which we believe must remain in British hands? The water industry is in a similar position. If France or any other European country suddenly took a fancy to a British area board, as happened with the water boards, could the Government stop such a foreign takeover, given the strictures on restrictive trade in articles 85 and 92 of the treaty of Rome?
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have thought about the competitive regime implied in
  672
  the Bill. That is, indeed, when we introduced the Bill. It will have a dramatic effect in ensuring competition in the industry in future.
  The amendments seek to remove all exemptions to restrictive agreements. We cannot agree to that because there must be some such agreements. The industry could not exist without, for example, agreements on emergency planning or pooling arrangements.
  We have had discussions with the Commission on the hon. Gentleman's question about the EEC. We have absolutely no reason to believe that there should be any problems. We are in the forefront of all European countries in providing a competitive regime for the electricity industry. We shall keep the EEC informed about any future developments. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and that the House will accept the Government amendments in this group.
  Mr. Morgan: I shall accept the Government amendments, but not because we are satisfied with the Minister's reply.
  In the EEC, if one calls something public infrastructure and treats it as such, one is allowed all manner of exclusions from the impact of articles 85 and 92. However, if one calls something a straight commercial business and says that one wishes to return all EEC loans because one wants to be on a complete commercial footing, as the Government do, one is in trouble. Therefore, many questions must be answered before we can be assured that the EEC will not find it necessary to interfere on a large scale with the industry. The Government have not thought this through.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 14

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 91, in page 117, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (1)(iv).
  No. 75, in page 128, leave out lines 11 to 14.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 15

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Amendments made: No. 76, in page 129, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
  `(1) Where any application made under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 or section 35 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 is effective on the day appointed for the coming into force of section 33 of this Act—

  (a) the application shall have effect as if made under the said section 33 modified for that purpose by the omission of subsections (2) and (2A);

  (b) anything done before that day in relation to the application (whether under the said section 2 or 35 or under section 33 or 34 of the Electricity Act 1957) shall have effect as if done under the corresponding provisions of Schedule 8 to this Act, and

  (c) the provisions of Part I of this Act shall apply accordingly.'.

  No. 77, in page 129, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
  `(1) Where any application made under section 10(b) of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 is effective on the day appointed for the coming into force of section 34 of this Act—

  673

  (a) the application shall have effect as if made under the said section 34 modified for that purpose by the omission of subsection (2);

  (b) anything done before that day in relation to the application (whether under the said section 10(b) or under section 32 or 34 of the Electricity Act 1957) shall have effect as if done under the corresponding provisions of Schedule 8 to this Act; and

  (c) the provisions of Part I of this Act shall apply accordingly.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 16

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 78, in page 144, line 45, column 3, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert 'Section 44.'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
  Order for Third Reading read—Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified.
  10.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It is probably impossible to present new considerations for the deliberations of the House that have not already been exhaustively discussed at Second Reading, in Committee or on Report. However, I would wish briefly, in order not to detain the House, to emphasise that the Government believe that the deliberations on the Bill have clearly and firmly established the basic propositions on which the Bill was originally commended to the House.
  First, we believe that the Bill is in the interests of the electricity industry. It is significant that the industry agrees with our observation. Perhaps the most important consideration from the industry's point of view is that in future the investment needs and other crucial decisions affecting the electricity industry will not be subject to Government or to politicians of any party. That will place the electricity industry in the same position as other industries throughout the United Kingdom. It can only be beneficial that those aspects of investment and other matters are determined by the industry. I believe that that explains the enthusiasm of the people who work in the electricity industry for the prospects that privatisation will bring about.
  Secondly, I believe that the Bill has clearly been shown to be in the interests of the consumer. That is central to the difference between the two sides of the House. Whereas the Labour party, and those who support its point of view, believe that if one cannot have perfect competition, one should be satisfied with perfect monopoly, the Government believe that it is possible to introduce substantial elements of competition within the electricity industry, that it is in the interests of the consumer to do so and that the Bill will bring that about.
  There will, therefore, be competition in generation, there will be choice for bulk purchasers of electricity and there will be opportunities for exporters, especially for the Scottish electricity industry, which I believe have justified the support for the Bill.
  The Bill is especially important for Scotland where the nationalisation of the electricity industry some 40 years ago meant—as do all other forms of nationalisation in Scotland—the loss of control in Scotland to the Government of the day, whichever Government that
  674
  might be. One never ceases to be amused, as well as unsurprised, at the inability of the Opposition to understand that argument.
  In future the needs of the Scottish electricity industry will be decided by the management of that industry in Scotland, which I believe is of significance. In addition, by the privatisation of the SSEB and the hydro board, we will create two of the largest Scottish companies, which will give a major boost to the development of the Scottish private sector. We will see also exciting opportunities for consumers, employees and financial institutions in Scotland to acquire a significant stake in the industry.
  There are fundamental differences between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition stand for monopoly. They stand for continuing monopoly that they express themselves content with and anxious to preserve. The Opposition also appear to believe that there is a need not for simply a regulatory structure to protect the public interest, but for politicians and for Governments to have a continuing right to interfere in the fundamental decisions affecting this industry, although they have no comparable right in other industries that are crucial to our national economy.
  These are crucial issues of principle and I believe that during the debate my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have been concerned with the detail of the Bill, have manifestly shown the desirability of the Bill and, indeed, the benefits that it will bring to the public throughout the United Kingdom. It is on that basis that I happily commend the Bill to the House.
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Blair: As we are preparing to vote on the Third Reading of the Electricity Bill it is instructive to remember the words of the Secretary of State for Industry who, six years ago, moved the Telecommunications Bill to privatise British Telecom. The Secretary of State for Industry then is the Secretary of State for Energy now, the peripatetic right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). I gather he is now occupied as a travelling salesman somewhere in the Soviet Union. At that time he set up what he believed would be the guiding principle in the privatisation of British Telecom. He promised:
  "It will give customers the choice between different suppliers of apparatus, different suppliers of services and, increasingly, different networks."
  It did not do any of those things. He said of British Telecom:
  "I am convinced that to change British Telecom ownership will bring about a major improvement in BT's accountability."
  It has not. Finally, he said.
  "We offer the millions of BT customers a newly enshrined set of rights"—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 27–38.]
  Tell that to the thousands more who, each year, complain about the standards of service that they receive.
  The truth is that every promise that has been made tonight for the Electricity Bill was made in 1983 for the British Telecom Bill. The Government were wrong then and they are wrong now. We have established that for the consumer, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, there will be no choice of area board, no choice at point of service. There will be little competition ever in this industry and no competition for at least 10 years.
  We have shown that the basic security of supply is at risk because, as Mr. Baker said and the Secretary of State

  675
  could not deny, it will not be the duty of National Power or PowerGen to keep the lights on after privatisation, although they are the only people who will be able to fulfill that duty of supply.
  We have learnt that the area boards with a high proportion of industrial customers will be vulnerable to takeover and bankruptcy if they lose major customers from the system.
  We have revealed that the nuclear industry, quite apart from any other section of the fuel industry, will be ring fenced, given special protection against risk and underwritten by a special tax paid for by the consumer and the taxpayer who will still be liable for the costs of decommissioning even after losing the profit from the industry.
  We know that the national grid, the transmission system, itself a monopoly to be owned by the area boards, will be privatised although no rational case has been made for its privatisation at any time during our deliberations.
  We have exposed the fact that the costs of flotation will be huge and that they may amount to as much as £25 for every household in this country. All that for a privatisation that the people do not want, the nation does not need and that is now incomprehensible in any terms except as a doctrine driven by prejudice.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not the Government's whole stance in relation to this Bill reminiscent of Oscar Wilde who said, after the first night of one of his plays, "The play is a great success, but the audience a failure"? Although the Government are convinced by their own propaganda, has not the Bill been overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate and therefore by the consumers?
  Mr. Blair: My right hon. Friend is entirely right.
  The Government may get their majority tonight in the House, but they have failed miserably to persuade the majority of people in this country that the proposal is good. At the next election they shall pay the penalty for that misjudgment.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Rost: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the courageous manner in which they have introduced this radical Bill and on the skilful manner in which they have handled this complicated and technical reform.
  I welcome the opportunity for competition. Evidence already exists of area boards shopping around and contracting or arranging to contract for cheaper electricity than they now pay the CEGB to supply. The east midlands hoard, for example, is already offered cheaper power than it now buys from the CEGB. I welcome the change of heart on the part of the CEGB, which is already having to rethink its energy strategy and abandon its traditional plans of electricity only large coal-fired stations in favour of lower-cost electricity production. It has had to turn to combined cycle gas turbines and it has realised that, in future, it will have to sell electricity in a competitive market.
  I welcome the nuclear clause because for the first time, by ring fencing the real cost of nuclear energy, it will concentrate the minds of the nuclear industry, which will have to become competitive if it wishes to have a future unprotected by a subsidy which I regard as transitional. I
  676
  welcome the effect that it will have on the coal industry, which will also have to realise that it must improve its competitiveness if it wishes to sell its products. The country will no longer be handicapped by high-cost coal and the high-cost electricity which results from it.
  I welcome the opportunities of wider share ownership, particularly employees shareholding, that will result from the legislation. I welcome the opportunities that will come to the new technologies for electricity production, which the CEGB has preferred to ignore and which will produce cheaper power—the clean coal technologies, the combined-cycle gas turbine. Those will exert downward pressure on prices, as distributors have the competitive incentive to source their supplies from lower-cost electricity. I welcome the incentives particularly for the combustion of municipal refuse, which can be used for fuel instead of land fill and causing pollution.
  I have only one regret, and one reservation, which is that I hope that my right hon. Friends will look again at the need to increase the powers to oblige privatised production companies to sell off their surplus power stations, of which they are hoarding more than 100 at the moment—most of them near urban areas. These redundant power station sites are ideal for the private producers, who want to provide competition. It is important that those sites should be made available on a competitive basis.
  My regret is that the Government have rejected amendments—including my own—that would have strengthened the obligation to produce electricity more efficiently and less wastefully. That is a missed opportunity, which would have encouraged more efficient electricity production, more city combined heat and power district heating, reduced the emissions of greenhouse gas CO, whilst, at the same time, improving energy efficiency and reducing fossil fuel burn.
  The United Kingdom has the highest CO2 release of fossil fuel from energy production per head of population in Europe. We burn more coal and, at the same time, we use only one third of what we put into power stations to convert into electricity. We throw away, in the form of hot water, the other two thirds of the fuel—which other countries increasingly use for space heating, so displacing fossil fuel burn. We should also do that.
  The Government could have given a lead—I hope that they will reconsider this—in promoting more energy efficiency by reducing the greenhouse gases and, at the same time,. reducing the threat of global warming. I predict that within two or three years, because of international and EEC pressure, and the need to reach agreement to reduce CO2 emissions globally, amendments will be made to the Bill in the form that some of us have suggested. I hope that hon. Members of the other place will look again and attend to this most important matter to strengthen the Bill in a way that will give credit to the Government in the longer term.
  I hope that the regulator, when appointed, will prove to be as effective as the regulator of British Gas—the director general of Ofgas. He must be a person of such calibre because his responsibilities will be immense and he will determine whether the Government's proposals for competition succeed or fail.
  The Bill offers a long overdue restructuring of the industry. It will offer the opportunities that are desperately needed for competition and innovation. It will provide a better deal for consumers and for industry, which has

  677
  complained for far too long about too-high energy costs. It will therefore benefit the economy as a whole. That is why I regard this legislation as far more important than any other privatisation measure that we have introduced over the past decade. Indeed, I regard it as the most significant and radical measure of this Parliament.
  In the longer term, this reform will benefit the whole economy and its competitiveness far more than any other measure that we have introduced.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Eadie: I intend to be brief.
  As we have debated the Bill it has emerged that the consumer has been conned by the idea of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. On any objective analysis of our discussions, it is certain that the consumer will pay more because of the measure. But that is not the end of it: the taxpayer will pay a price too.
  It has also emerged in the course of our debates that private capital is not interested in building thermonuclear power stations unless the Government are prepared to give some guarantees. So the Government are presenting private capital with a cheque to try to induce it to build thermonuclear power stations. Only time will tell whether the cheque is blank.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland talked of the great freedom that the Bill would bring about—freedom from interference by the Government. He said that private capital and private industry would determine events. The Bill needs another title—it is not only about the privatisation of electricity; the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the abolition of the Department of Energy. That means the abolition of the pursuit of an energy policy. I predicted six months ago that it was planned to abolish that Department. Ministers and civil servants will become redundant as a result of this Bill. It is a pity that the Under-Secretary of State, who has worked so hard on the Bill, may be one of its casualties.
  The Conservative party was responsible for setting up the Department of Energy. Someone told me the other day that the Conservatives are so busy changing the policies and structures of previous Governments that they are now turning in on themselves and beginning to change policies and programmes that they instituted.
  The abolition of the Department of Energy would be a tragedy for the country. The Government do not even pretend that there should be an energy policy. The signal to abolish the Department of Energy is the signal that energy policy will be left to free market forces.
  It has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the people reject it. We heard earlier that as many as 70 per cent. of the electorate opposed the Bill. The Government are ignoring the wishes of the people. They are using their majority to drive through their dogma.
  The Bill is being speeded to the other place. The Government are not sure how it will work and to some extent it is a stab in the dark. The Government are passing the Bill with a prayer in their heart. Let us hope that lights do not go out as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that the other place will look closely at it because it is not in the interests of the British people.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said, we are now speeding the Bill to the other place. The other House will make amendments that we have failed to have accepted. Even though the Bill is ill-thought out, the Government have accepted virtually no modifications even after 156 hours in Committee and three days of debate in the House. Opposition Members are extremely frustrated that Ministers are not prepared to acknowledge that they have lost many of the arguments and have had to force their will by way of the votes.
  I have made it clear from the start that for many years I have not supported the prevailing status quo in the electricity supply industry. The one area in which I have had some possibility of agreement with the Government is in the analysis that restructuring is necessary. It is much more sensible to liberalise before privatising. That is better than creating a duopoly that will not provide effective competition and assuming that an untested carve-up will produce good results for the consumer, although all the evidence suggests that it will not.
  The Government have resisted attempts to ensure that the Bill will give high priority to the promotion of energy conservation and reduce the impact of the energy supply industry on the environment. In spite of their protestations outside the House, the Government have resisted every amendment on those subjects. The industry is about to be given to a private sector that has no responsibility to increase energy conservation or to reduce the impact of the industry on the environment. That is a damning indictment of the so-called environmental commitment of the Government. Such a commitment does not exist and to them the pursuit of profit is far more important than concern for the environment and the industry's impact on it.
  The way in which the Government have been forced to fix the nuclear component of the Bill has made a mockery of effective competition. The nuclear industry will have to accept that at some time in future it and every other sector of the industry will have to stand up and be counted within a competitive environment. The Government know, because otherwise they would not have structured the Bill in the way that they have, that if that sector of the industry were made to do that it would fall flat on its face. Nobody wishes to invest in that sector. In spite of all the distortions and the fixes that the Government have put into the Bill, all the signs are that the City is still not interested in putting money into the nuclear industry.
  The Government have the audacity to lecture people inside and outside the House about free enterprise and the market economy. Yet they are effectively saying to the City of London and the public at large that the nuclear industry will be offered on the basis that the private investor will take the profits and the taxpayer will underwrite the risk. How can the Government continue to claim that they believe in a free market when they are creating an industry more featherbedded than any other sector of the economy? That is the most absurd component in the Bill.
  In a rare contribution to the debate on the Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that privatisation will be good for Scotland. Apparently the first good thing that Scotland has got out of it is an increase in electricity prices higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

  679
  In Committee we told Ministers that the two specific requirements in the Bill that tariffs should be based on average United Kingdom prices and that, effectively, prices should operate on the basis of return on capital will mean that prices in Scotland will increase faster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Ministers were not able to deny that. That will be particularly true if the Scottish supply industry is not able to dispose of its substantial surplus activity, which it will have difficulty in doing. In those circumstances, the people of Scotland will experience the opposite effect over the next few years as their electricity bills rise well above the United Kingdom average, with consequent increases in hardship.
  The Government have neither succeeded in persuading the House of the virtues of their argument nor, more offensively, even attempted to do so. They have laid back on the size of their parliamentary majority and treated the Opposition with contempt. We can take that because we have become used to it, but, far more important, the Government have treated the British people with contempt. They have shown not the slightest interest in the representations that have been made by a wide variety of interest groups. They have not won any of the arguments, although they will win the vote tonight. They have taken a step that will have to be corrected at a later date by a future Government.
  I hope that the prospectus will contain a notification that if there is a change of Government, there will be a change of environment, the regulator will effectively regulate, and real competition will be brought into the industry, rather than the measures that the Government are proposing.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: The Third Reading of the Bill will see the end of a policy for the electricity industry, the overriding priority of which was to keep the supply going. We have heard a great many statements about how wonderful a private electricity industry will be. No one ever writes to me saying that. On the contrary, I have received an enormous number of letters from constituents who are extremely concerned, as have hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I am sure that even Conservative Members have received such letters.
  We should always remember that, since the formation of the state-run electricity industry, it has met the needs not only of the great cities but of the rural areas. When there were privately run companies, the needs of many of those rural areas were not met. Electricity was not supplied to many of them not because they did not want it but because the companies were not prepared to pay the costs of bringing the supply to them. Now the criterion of profit will be put first.
  Even at this late stage, it is wise to comment on the remarks made by Mr. John Baker, the designated head of National Power. He said:
  "The job isn't about shouldering national responsibilities but about meeting contracts, improving profitability, about seeking opportunities, but only exploiting them if it pays to do so … We need to define ways of running our power stations so that we can exploit our power contracts profitably. Our task will not be to keep the lights on whatever the cost".
  That should be made known to the public.
  I have read the Official Report of the Committee sittings, and have listened to some of the debates in the House. We have heard much about "consumer interests" and "competition". It all sounds wonderful, but there is
  680
  nothing in the Bill to ensure that there is competition. Prices will not even stabilise, let alone go down. They will increase. The Government imposed increases in 1988 and 1989, and they will be the criteria that the private companies use.
  What is most tragic is that, although we are a rich nation, we cannot use our resources without planning over the whole range of electricity policy. But where is any long-term planning provided for in the Bill? Where is real public accountability or consultation enshrined in the Bill? Despite what the Minister has said, nothing of the sort is to be found in it.
  I have raised only some of the vital issues that should have been discussed. As those who were members of the Committee that considered the Bill have said, long-term planning, public accountability and consultation were not really discussed in Committee. The great tragedy is that in the long term it will be the British people who will pay for the folly of the privatisation of our great electricity industry. It was highly profitable when it was state run and it met real needs, whether in large cities or small rural areas. The industry met the needs of the British people. They will not be met when the Bill is enacted.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Hardy: I hesitated before I decided to speak once again on the Bill. It was the contribution of the Secretary of State for Scotland that persuaded me that I should make some brief comments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the electricity industry wanted privatisation. Those who are at the top of the industry, who may see substantial increases in their salaries, may want it. With the contacts that I have in the power industry, I have not detected any wish to embrace privatisation.
  The Government may feel that they can persuade those who work in the industry to accept privatisation when they are offered shares, but more and more of them have come to the conclusion that the offer will leave them with less than 1 per cent. of the equity. Relatively shortly after the shares have been allotted, we shall find that there are larger shareholdings in Tokyo, Bonn, Ottawa, New York and all the other financial centres of the world than among those who work in the industry who do not want privatisation.
  As Conservative Members have boasted, this is the largest privatisation that the Government have proposed. Conservative Members to a man have trooped through the Government Lobby in support of it. Not one of them has ever asked how much the country will get for the privatisation. The Minister knows that the net asset value of the industry is well over £14 billion. He may be able to reduce that figure by writing down capital, but when the industry is sold it will be lucky if the price is half of its real value.
  It was said earlier today that we have already sold the family silver and that now we are selling the family gold. Unfortunately, when the gold is sold it will be at the going rate for silver, not for gold. The interests of the nation will be gravely disregarded. The value of Britain, in terms of the worth of the electricity industry, will be dramatically reduced. The bargain for the consumer will be a bad one. Indeed, the consumer is already paying far more than he should as a result of the sweetening exercise that has taken place since last year.

  681
  The Government will secure the Bill's passage through Parliament, but over the next two years the British people will realise that they have been robbed. They will realise that their assets have been disposed of cheaply. They will understand that to a large extent profits will accrue for only a small minority. The guarantee of supply, which has been the proud boast of the industry in public hands, will not be guaranteed or sustained in the years ahead. The Government will regret the enactment of the Bill, and from that point of view I suppose that we have some cause for rejoicing. The people have begun to understand that what the Government are about is not in the long-term interests of the nation.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I, too, do not wish to detain the House for long, but the Opposition have an obligation to puncture the utter complacency of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who sought to commend the Third Reading. He trotted out the usual slogans that we have heard from the Government on this and other measures. I thought to myself that one slogan was missing because the Government's slogans came in threes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used two, talking about choice and consumers. What about value for money? He did not mention it once.
  We have heard that we are to have thumping big electricity price rises as a sweetener for the industry. Even the slogans that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used are false. We have heard much about competition. What competition? It is impossible to see any way in which the consumer can make an effective choice about the company from which he gets his electricity. The only option is for him to pay the bill, which will be higher than it has been.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues would do well to look again at the recent report of the Select Committee on Energy, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was a member. Two telling comments will haunt the Government following privatisation. The Committee said:
  "Electricity is too important an industry for the country to gamble that everything will come out right";
  and
  "The Government has singled out only two factors to justify its decision; security of supply and party manifesto commitment to a continuing nuclear programme. It has glossed over the industry's economics, ignored the industry's external costs, and still cannot be sure that the favoured PWR technology is the best available."
  Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I am not prepared to give way because my contribution must be short.
  The public and the consumer have been conned, but the voting public at the next election will not be conned.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I am not an economist or accountant. My background is in engineering and my discussion on the Bill has been with engineers in the industry. The engineers—not the management—are critical of the privatisation propositions. One engineer commented, "It is like a bicycle. If the pedals and the
  682
  cranks are taken off the chain and the sprockets on the wheel., the bicycle will not work." That is what is happening with the industry.
  The implication is that the CEGB and the area boards have not been efficient. Having spent some time with the good officers of the North Western electricity board, I refute that suggestion. That board was very efficient. My experience was that it was exceptional. I have links with the electricity board in my area which is aware of the consumers' needs and problems.
  If a problem is to arise with the industry, it will be a technical one. If there is an argument to restore the industry to state control, it will be a technical one which will be irrefutable. The industry started with a municipal electricity supply and links with private electricity suppliers. There was no choice between the wars other than to have a nationalised industry. That argument will be made again, and we shall have to restore the industry to public ownership not for political but for technical reasons.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: As I said in Committee and on Report, the Government have been on the defensive throughout the Bill's proceedings. That has been symbolised by the fact that only one Conservative Back Bencher has spoken on Third Reading. Often in Standing Committee the Secretary of State and Ministers were not just on the defensive but on the ropes—indeed, they were punch drunk at the end of several sittings from trying to defend some of the clauses.
  I find no merit in the Bill. It will create a private monopoly because there will be no competition. Earlier, we challenged the Minister directly about what competition there would be for the individual householder. I think of people such as my mother, who is a widow and a pensioner. Apparently she can opt out and I suppose that she could devise her own supply, but in reality there will be no competition. The Bill also brings threats of price rises—6 per cent., 9 per cent. and much more to come when the shareholders want their cut.
  The Bill provided an opportunity for measures on the environment and conservation, but the Government have pushed all such opportunities to one side. We have seen clearly that their commitment to the environment and green issues is non-existent. The Bill shows clearly the double standards for coal and the nuclear industry. The Government are carrying out a clear vendetta against the coal industry, which dates from the 1970s or even earlier than that. The Government are the descendants of the coal owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Back to 1926."] That is right. The vendetta goes back to 1926 and before, and it has returned with a vengeance in the 1970s and 1980s and as a result of the miners' strike. I come from a part of the country that used to have many coal mines, but there are none left now. When I was elected, there were three just outside my constituency, but the number is down to one. Throughout our debates, we have seen the terrific pressure that will be put on the coal industry by privatisation and the free range of market forces—coal imports and the like. There will be no ring fencing or defence for the coal industry.
  The nuclear industry will be completely ring-fenced under the Bill, with the nuclear quota, the nuclear tax and the pressurised water reactors that nobody wants. There

  683
  will be problems of waste and decommissioning, yet the Government volunteer to take back those problems and to pay the bills. That is an appalling double standard. The public have noticed that fact through the reports of our debates and we shall carry on explaining that to them. They have noticed that one set of principles is applied to coal, whereas the nuclear industry is to be protected.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I want to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. It is curious that the Government have chosen to ring-fence the nuclear industry as a reliable source of energy and electricity, yet they have refused to ring-fence the Nottingham coalfield, which in their books has been a marvellous and reliable source of electricity and energy. It is curious. We own the coal underground in Nottinghamshire, yet we do not own the uranium that we send to our nuclear power stations.
  Mr. Williams: The Government's logic is strange. However, the public have seen what is happening and they do not like the Bill or the privatisation of water. Public opinion is overwhelmingly on our side. We have tried to reflect the views of the consumers, the taxpayers and the electorate. Unfortunately, the Government have not accepted any of our clauses or amendments and they will suffer for that at the hour of reckoning.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief, but it is essential to make several points before this obnoxious piece of legislation leaves the Commons, especially in view of the case put by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is deputising for the Secretary of State for Energy who is yet again swanning round the world.
  Nothing in Committee or on Report has convinced me that I was wrong to argue that we should never have had Scottish legislation dealt with in an English and Welsh Bill. It has made it difficult to put the Scottish case and the Scottish people have not had the opportunity to consider it fully. Of course, it has exposed cruelly the Tory party's total failure to persuade the Scottish people of their case and their inability to conform to the normal constitutional conventions on Scottish legislation in this House because of their disastrous defeat in Scotland in 1987.
  The Bill, like the Tory party itself, has little support in Scotland. Despite what the Secretary of State said, few employees at any level believe that the Bill will do anything for Scotland. Among the consumer organisations, political parties and churches in Scotland, it is difficult to find anyone who is not opposed to the Bill. Its opponents, I may add, include the Scottish CBI. The people of Scotland want their electricity supply industry to remain in public hands, and the Government have a responsibility, which they never fulfil, to listen to their voices.
  My hon. Friends have shown that the Bill will create no real competition in England and Wales. The vertically integrated nature of the new companies in Scotland, with generation, transmission and supply all carried out by one company in clearly delineated geographical areas of Scotland, will deprive Scottish consumers of even a phoney facade of competition. The Bill creates private monopolies which, despite the so-called controls that the licences and regulation are supposed to impose on them, will be able to exploit their position to maximise profit at the expense of Scottish consumers.
  684
  Yet again the Secretary of State for Scotland abdicated his responsibility for the electricity supply industry in Scotland. The headquarters of the South of Scotland electricity board are in my constituency, and most of the board members live in or near my constituency. The headquarters of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are in Edinburgh. If the Secretary of State had read his own press release or had bothered to attend our debates last week, during which I quoted him, he would know that it said that he had issued an instruction to the boards in connection with their financial limits. It was not the Treasury that did that; it was the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  At present, control of the electricity supply industry in Scotland rests in Scotland. The Government have riot given us a single guarantee that after privatisation that control will lie anywhere other than outside Scotland—perhaps even outside the United Kingdom.
  The price of electricity has already been increased by 8 per cent. to fatten up the industry to make it attractive to the new shareholders, as Mr. Joughin, the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board said. If that can happen before privatisation, how much worse will it be afterwards? The Bill will mean higher prices, poorer services for consumers, probably the end of the coal industry in Scotland, a deterioration in the environment and hardship for the poorest members of society. The Bill is unwanted and unnecessary. Its sole purpose is to give fast bucks to the Government's friends in the City, and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting against its Third Reading.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Rather to the Opposition's surprise, we have been happy to join them on what they thought was their chosen ground—the issue of prices—because we know that it must exert a downward pressure on prices if we replace the present structure of the industry under which a monopoly generates its own costs and supplies the industry on the basis of those costs, without intervention.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) designated today consumer day. I told the House that, once the Bill has been passed, every day will be consumer day because every aspect of the Bill is devoted to ensuring that the consumer gets a better deal. That is not only true in relation to prices; there will be a panoply of consumer rights and competitive pressure not only on generation, which accounts for 70 per cent. of the industry's costs, but on the public electricity supply industries. New duties will be placed on the regulator to ensure that the consumer is well cared for. In particular—something that the Opposition have not been willing to concede as a great new benefit—consumer committees will in future be part of the regulatory body rather than merely shouting their views from the touch line.
  In this short debate the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) rightly said that this will be the largest privatisation of all time. Added to the 9 million shareholders—three times the number when we took office—will no doubt be considerably more private shareholders, and many will no doubt be the employees or the industry to whom we shall give special terms.

  685
  One enormous advantage of privatisation will be that the massive investment programme that is due to take place in the industry will be determined not on the basis of decisions——
  Mr. Dick Douglas rose——
  Mr. Spicer: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here——
  Mr. Douglas rose
  Mr. Spicer: No, I shall not give way. It is too late. I am not giving way to the hon Gentleman or to anybody else at this stage because I have promised to be brief.
  Massive investment decisions are ahead. The decisions to invest will be made not on the basis of political infighting in Whitehall or behind beige doors in Whitehall, but on the basis of market conditions, and will be determined by the market place.
  Our reforms of the electricity supply industry, which are undoubtedly radical, are aimed at making Britain's electricity supply industry one of the most efficient in the world. We believe that as the European market opens up in 1992 and transnational common carriage becomes a real possibility, Britain will have the opportunity to become the power house of Europe.
  What we are proposing to do is what some people have argued is impossible—to turn a massive producer-driven public sector monopoly into a series of customer-oriented private companies, many with shares that are owned by their employees and many of which will be competing with one another for business. In future the customer will call the tune, which is something that, despite all the protestations to the contrary, all the rhetoric and all the press releases, is not and never will be central to the beliefs of the Socialist party, the Opposition.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 193.

  Division No. 151]

  [10.57 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Atkinson, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bitfen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  686

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cran, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Curry, David

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lightbown, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Favell, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Forman, Nigel

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mans, Keith

  Franks, Cecil

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gale, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gow, Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gregory, Conal

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Grist, Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ground, Patrick

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grylls, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Page, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heddle, John

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  687

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Stern, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Stevens, Lewis

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ryder, Richard

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts A

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Squire, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Steen, Anthony

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Crowther, Stan

  Alton, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eadie, Alexander

  Blair, Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Buchan, Norman

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buckley, George J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  (L'pool B G'n)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fraser, John

  Clay, Bob

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clelland, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Cohen, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Coleman, Donald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Corbett, Robin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Cousins, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  688

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Nellist, Dave

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, William

  Haynes, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Holland, Stuart

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Reid, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Richardson, Jo

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kitfedder, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lamond, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Stott, Roger

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McLeish, Henry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wall, Pat

  Marek, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martlew, Eric

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Maxton, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morley, Elliott

  Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)

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

  Lord Chancellor (Salary)
  11.10 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
  That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
  The need for this order arises out of the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The independent Top Salaries Review Body recommended in 1983 that the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his position as the head of the judiciary and of his wider responsibilities. The House accepted the principle of the TSRB recommendation, and has successively reaffirmed that with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's salary orders for the years 1984 to 1988.
  An annual Lord Chancellor's salary order is necessary because the Lord Chief Justice's salary is set annually following the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. This year the TSRB recommended a salary of £89,500 for the Lord Chief Justice—a 5 per cent. increase. The Government accepted that that figure be paid from the due date of 1 April 1989.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House quite sure that he has got all his Tory Back Benchers into line on this issue?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
  Mr. Skinner: Already, we have heard the first cuckoo.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a lot of talk in the corridors from Tory Members of Parliament, barristers and others in the legal profession, who are fuming with the current Lord Chancellor—on his big fat salary of £91,500 a year—for trying to introduce those new measures and upsetting their cosy little existence? How many votes does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get tonight if there is a Division?
  Mr. Wakeham: I have been here long enough to know not to count the votes before a Division. I attended the debate in the House of Lords on Friday and I did not see the hon. Gentleman there.
  Mr. Skinner: I was in here.
  Mr. Wakeham: I was in here, too, earlier on. The debate was a much more balanced affair than the hon. Gentleman might have thought.
  The Lord Chancellor has a salary lead of £2,000. The House accepted this figure in 1983 and it has remained at that level since. Its real value has eroded since it was first established, but that is of little significance in itself and is not a valid reason for changing it. The lead exists because the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary, and that makes it right that an appropriate differential should exist between him and the Lord Chief Justice.
  The order establishes the Lord Chancellor's salary at £91,500 from the day it comes into force. It cannot be made retrospective. The salary level derives directly from a TSRB report and embodies a principle established six years ago, which has been accepted by the House on six previous occasions. I hope that once again it will commend itself to the House this year.
  I commend the order to the House.
  11.13 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It may be appropriate for me to comment, as a member of the Scots Bar, about the salary of a Lord Chancellor who appears determined to make alterations to the structure of the law of England that I regard as devastatingly improper in relation to the benefit of the client in England. I feel that I can say so for two reasons. First, as it is not my Bar and it will not affect me, nobody can say, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" [HON. MEMBERS: "He would say that wouldn't he?"] Those hon. Members may know that there is a consultation paper in Scotland that does not make the proposals which have been made by the Lord Chancellor for the law in England.
  I know that the Leader of the House listened to parts of the debate in the other place on Friday. Some of us also heard large parts of that debate, including the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Whatever their language, it was clear to those of us who listened that they did not take the view that the Scottish Lord Chancellor, as head of the English judiciary, had consulted them. From the language of the Lord Chief Justice's speech I should have thought that the order, which provides for the Lord Chancellor to receive a £2,000 lead over the Lord Chief Justice, might have been irked in the circumstances.
  There are three matters that I will put before the House for its consideration. The first is the allegation in the proposals in the Green Paper entitled
  "The Work and Organisation of the Legal Profession."
  that the changes will make it cheaper for the client.
  When the Lord Chancellor was dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland it was suggested that the costs of divorce would be reduced if divorce were transferred from the exclusive right of audience in the Court of Session to the sheriff court. Costs have doubled.
  The Green Paper says that barristers in England face the extraordinary difficulty of being unable to find chambers in the crowded facilities of the Inns of Court. The Lord Chancellor has a flat in the Inns of Court as well as a tithe cottage at the other end of this House.
  Most important of all, if one removes from the people who have to go to law the right to choose a specialist one will not only remove the service that they should receive, but increase the price of that service. In addition, it will destroy what is most special about the difference between specialist advocates and general solicitors. The general solicitor has a symbolic relationship with his client whereas the relationship between the advocate and his client is singular and provides a service of excellence that is infinitely cheaper than would be the case were the system destroyed by the current proposals which have been poorly thought out. They are in contradistinction of the recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor when he was dean of the Faculty of Advocates which spoke of the essential requirement to keep the Bar intact and separate. I say that as a Scotsman. It is an ill-service to the law of England.
  Opposition Members on the funny Benches frequently say that Scotland is being used as a guinea pig for the community charge. I do not like England being used as a guinea pig by a Scottish Lord Chancellor. If he wants freedom of choice and a legal profession that we can all afford, what about if he forgoes his salary until his case is proven?
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The question is: is the Lord Chancellor doing such a fine job that he deserves a salary increase? What a pity that we have only one and a half hours in which to discuss this extremely important matter, because I have enough to say on the subject to make the four and a half hour speech that I dedicated to trying to stop the poisoning of our drinking water by the addition of fluoride seem like the twinkling of an eye. It is also a pity that we have only this golden one and a half hours once a year to exercise any control—or at any rate, any influence—over the Lord Chancellor's discharge of his political duties.
  By what criteria should we presume to judge whether the work of so eminent a legal luminary, so highly regarded a judicial figure, so well-admired and well-liked a political person, is worthy of the accolade that we are asked to give him tonight, expressed in the sordid terminology of money? May I have the temerity to suggest a test? Is the Lord Chancellor going to improve the legal system of the United Kingdom so that it will better serve the people—not the lawyers—of Britain? Is he making the legal system cheaper and more accessible for the consumer? Will it be a service of higher quality for the consumer?
  By these criteria, sadly I have to conclude that many people who know and understand these matters are by no means convinced that—however good, honourable and well-intentioned a man, however brilliant a Scottish lawyer and judge he may have been, however eminent and well loved he undoubtedly is to anyone who has been privileged to know him personally in his work—the Lord Chancellor is the wrong man for this salary at this time.
  No other Lord Chancellor in living memory, perhaps in our history, has succeeded in antagonising almost the entire legal profession throughout the land. Has there ever been a debate in the House of Lords, on a Friday of all days, in which 56 of their Lordships rose—nearly all of them in anger—at his well-meaning but destructive proposals? They will pull up by the roots the legal profession as we know it, which—for all its faults—still works reasonably well and is the envy of the civilised world.
  Are all the greatest legal minds of the land incensed for no reason? These include the Lord Chief Justice of England, two former Lord Chancellors, the Master of the Rolls, all nine Law Lords and a most distinguished former Attorney-General who threatened to resign the Conservative Whip. There is also an impressive list of non-lawyer luminaries—many from the Opposition side —including Lord Benson, chairman of the recent royal commission on legal services, Lord Rees-Mogg, the former editor of The Times, who felt so strongly that he used his maiden speech to speak against the proposals, Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Longford. That is a long list of unquestioned authority and influence from Opposition as well as Conservative Benches and outside Parliament are the——
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose——
  Mr. Lawrence: I shall give way in a moment. Outside Parliament are the High Court and circuit judges, and most of the Bar.
  692
  None of the people in the House of Lords have the slightest financial interest in seeing the proposals defeated and cannot conceivably be said to be speaking in self-interest. It is a great achievement for the Lord Chancellor to have set so many of the people in the land who are best qualified through experience and judgment to assess the likely effects of the proposals against the Government and against their proposals for legal reform.
  Mr. Wareing: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what distinguishes the Lord Chancellor from all the other people he has mentioned is that the Lord Chancellor was chosen by the Prime Minister, and that none of the present Government of yes men and women would defy her? If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be decreased, at least in real terms, should not the same be done to the Prime Minister's salary? Should not the hon. and learned Gentleman direct his wrath against the Prime Minister and the Government, who consult no one?
  Mr. Lawrence: If I raised my wrath against the Prime Minister, I would be called out of order would I not, Madam Deputy Speaker?—as this is a debate about the Lord Chancellor's salary. Since I have no complaint to make about our excellent Prime Minister, who, in every field of her endeavour as leader of the ——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now being called to order. He is straying from the point.
  Mr. Lawrence: It is only out of deference to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I forbear from dwelling even longer on the achievements of our Prime Minister, the great leader of the country, who, in the——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. and learned Gentleman to order. I am sure that he will contain himself now and speak to the order before us.
  Mr. Lawrence: In the matter of the Lord Chancellor's salary, my right hon. Friend is making her first-ever error.
  There are many reasons why the three Green Papers have been so angrily attacked. There are constitutional reasons and reasons of principle. I want to mention one particular sort of harm that will be done—the harm to the ordinary consumer of legal services. The claim that these proposals will be consumer-friendly is about as absurd as the claim that the salmonella scare will boost the sale of eggs.
  Let us consider the cost of legal services under the proposals. If a young man or woman wants to leave university and go into the legal profession now, he or she has the choice of going to the Bar, which will be slow in yielding its returns but which in due course will give the right of audience to the higher courts, the right to become a Queen's Counsel, and the right to become a High Court judge. If the proposals go through, the graduate wanting to enter the legal profession will find all those advantages in becoming a solicitor, because the solicitor will have the right of audience in the higher courts, the right to become a Queen's Counsel and the right to become a High Court judge.
  On top of that, the graduate will be able, if he joins a solicitor's firm, to be guaranteed a pension, holidays with pay, a car, steady work and a roof over his head—the kind of attractions which the Bar does not offer. In those

  693
  circumstances, who in his right mind would choose the risks of the Bar in preference to the absence of risk involved in joining a solicitors' firm? Almost every graduate in his right mind will choose to become a solicitor, and very few—there may be some—will prefer the misery of going to the Bar to the luxury of becoming a solicitor. If such people want to become advocates, they will become solicitor advocates, and the supply of barristers of the independent Bar will dry up.
  At the other end of the profession, there are people at the Bar who have spent 20 or 30 years running around Britain. They are the people who have to wait for two, three or four weeks for another case to come on stream after the case in which they were involved has collapsed. They would leap at the offer of an advocate solicitorship with a leading firm in the City with all the luxuries and the assurance of the steady income that would accrue. At that end of the profession the Bar would be depleted.
  At the end of the day fewer people will come to the Bar, there will be fewer people at the top and a much smaller independent Bar. Anyone who wants to be represented by a Marshall Hall or by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) can go to the cab rank. People can go to the wonderful firm of solicitors of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). Someone seeking legal services can instruct my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross and will get the best barrister in the land instructed by the best solicitor in the land.
  But if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross decided to join the firm of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, people who need the services of a barrister would have to go to that firm in London to get his specific representation in court. The cab rank principle will disappear, one of the achievements of the British Bar and the British legal system will be diminished, and the consumer will suffer.
  If there is a smaller cab rank and the number of independent barristers is reduced, what will happen to the provincial solicitor? I am talking about the small two or three-man firm in the country areas—most of the areas of Britain. Most of our constituents employ small country solicitors who cannot afford to have an advocate partner but instruct barristers to represent the interests of their clients in the most effective and efficient way. If there is no cab rank and those solicitors cannot make a living because their conveyancing work has all gone to estate agents, building societies and finance houses in the high street, they will close down and go to the big towns and cities to make a living.
  The smaller consumer who wants to seek legal advice from a solicitor in a small town will not be able to find one and will have to go to the big towns and cities and pay big city prices. If that is one of the likely results of the Green Papers, who will suffer because of the lack of legal advice and legal services, not just from the Bar but from solicitors? The ordinary consumer, the person who sends us to this House and expects us to vote for salary increases for Lord Chancellors who will improve legal services, will suffer.
  There is also the matter of quality. I accept that solicitors are inherently as capable as barristers. However, they are not specialists and they are not trained in court
  694
  work in the way that barristers are. They are unlikely to do the job as efficiently as barristers. Most of our solicitors deal with divorces, wills and conveyancing and with many kinds of problems, some of which are referred to us in our surgeries. Now and again they go to court and are expected to conduct an adequate defence of someone charged with rape, with running someone down or with killing a citizen through dangerous driving. If they are not doing that kind of work all the time, of course they are not as skilled.
  I understand the points about monopoly and restrictive practices. We have a parallel in the medical profession. We would not expect the general practitioner who is advising Mrs. Bloggins about her cold, her varicose veins, her limp, her tiredness—a thousand different ills—to turn up and do a heart-lung transplant. We would, however, expect a surgeon who does heart-lung transplants, hip operations or lip operations day in, day out to be a skilled operator.
  We do not say, "Let us abolish the rank of consultant" or "Let us abolish the rank of surgeon" because the general practitioner is as able as any surgeon or consultant to operate or give detailed advice. That would be nonsense, and we should adopt the same approach to solicitors and banisters. The barrister is the surgeon who operates in court; the barrister is the consultant. The solicitor is the general practitioner. That is the system which the Lord Chancellor is seeking to overthrow, and that is the reason why we should seriously consider whether his salary ought to be paid at all, let alone increased.
  Mr. David Martin: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain why in Truro and Barnstaple rights of audience are already equal for solicitors and barristers? Are people in those areas getting a poor service from solicitors?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman would not go down that path. The scope of the debate is very narrow. May I remind the House that it should be addressed to the merits of the increased salary levels specified in the draft order?
  Mr. Lawrence: Solicitors do not operate the same code as barristers. Solicitors take statements from——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the scope of the debate. I am sure that he will not ignore guidelines from the Chair.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have those guidelines constantly in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to save time I will not repeat them every time I start a new sentence. I am saying that any changes in the visiting system whereby solicitors can take statements from witnesses and barristers cannot —which means that the present way of conducting criminal trials in particular is the best way of achieving high quality and high representation—should not be changed by the Lord Chancellor. When we decide whether his salary is appropriate, we must give that matter consideration.
  Barristers are forbidden to take statements directly from witnesses. If a solicitor were able to appear in the higher court and take statements directly from witnesses, the temptation to tarnish the purity of a legal system,

  695
  which means that the integrity with which we conduct our criminal trials is of the highest, is a risk simply not worth taking.
  A ruthless professional code maintains the integrity of our Bar. The barrister is watched by the solicitor, and by the judge; he dare not do anything wrong. But no one will know whether the high street solicitor who is taking a statement from the witness is doing wrong or right.
  The integrity of that aspect of the system has nothing to do with the inherent integrity of a barrister and that of a solicitor, but everything to do with a system that encourages the right approach; and that system is under threat. The professionals—the judges in their Lordships' House—know the dangers of the proposed changes.
  Many things are wrong with the legal system. Much could be done to improve it, but tearing the legal profession up by the roots will not solve any of the problems that face our constituents as consumers. They want greater access to legal aid, and to be able to go to a court on a particular day for a particular case and be sure that it will come on. If we want to achieve that, we need computers everywhere, and we need to make sure that the Lord Chancellor's office improves the administration of our courts. Those are the solutions to the problems that concern our people.
  Nothing that is suggested in the Green Papers—whether it is replacing the system of payment by a win at all costs proposal, or stripping conveyancing away from the country solicitors so that they are no longer available, or taking away the independence of the Bar by shrinking it so that it is not available or is available only at increased costs, because those costs have to include pensions, overheads, holidays with pay and a car—will set right what is wrong with our legal system.
  Because the Lord Chancellor is proposing destructive measures rather than such constructive measures as the extension of the legal aid system to those who need it or the improvement of the administration of our courts, I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider carefully whether this is not the moment to show the Lord Chancellor that we are not as enthusiastic about his Green Papers as he appears to be. He is so enthusiastic that precious little time is being given for consultation——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the third time that I have got to my feet to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not a debate on the Green Papers. For the third time, I am telling him that he must contain himself and speak to the order before us, and not stray from it.
  Mr. Lawrence: The order concerns an increase in the salary of the Lord Chancellor. If he is making proposals that will make legal services less available to the consumers and at a higher cost and lower quality, surely we are able to say that he ought not to be entitled to this increase in salary, and so I say.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Not in this debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an extensive speech, and covered a great deal of ground. Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I should be glad if he would refer to the order.
  Mr. Lawrence: I said, "and so I say" and that was the end of my speech.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will have an opportunity to vote against the order, and it will be interesting to see what action he and other barristers in the House take.
  I am not opposed to the order on the ground that the activities of the Lord Chancellor are necessarily wrong. I do not share the view of the vested interest expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am opposed to it because it proposes a salary of £91,500 for an individual, which is far too much. It demonstrates the massive inequality in our society when one bears in mind that, about 12 months ago, the House passed orders cutting housing benefit and income support, and that child benefit has been frozen for two years. Someone who has the patronage of the Prime Minister, who has been endorsed and appointed by the Prime Minister, is to be given such a salary because there must be a differential of £2,000 over the salary of the Lord Chief Justice. What a load of nonsense it is to the millions of people who are suffering under this Government because of cuts in a wide range of supplementary benefits, and because pensioners were so badly hit by the cuts——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is this in order?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall call any hon. Member to order, whether he speaks from the Government or the Opposition Benches, if he or she strays. I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to confine himself to the order that is before the House, which concerns the merits of the proposed increase for the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Cryer: I endorse your view, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I make a comparison between the poverty-stricken levels of benefit that the Government are paying——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oi!
  Mr. Cryer: I am getting back my breath after hearing the rude noises that have come from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has been shouting at you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in what I would describe as an undignified way. I would like to defend you against these incursions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I say with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, while you were quite properly speaking to the Clerk, I was seeking to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was straying vastly from the point? That is what I was seeking to bring to your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Cryer: I was seeking to clarify your useful ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, by referring to the massive inequalities that are imposed on the poorest of our people by the Government. That can he referred to in passing by way of explanation. Having done so, I wish only to say that the Lord Chancellor is not worth £91,500. It is an outrage and a disgrace that anyone who secured his job through patronage should be paid such a sum. The Lord Chancellor's job was not advertised and he did not go through the interview process to which ordinary people have to subject themselves. It is because he happens to

  697
  have the beneficial eye of the Prime Minister upon him that it is proposed to pay a massive sum to keep him ahead of the salary of the Lord Chief Justice. That shows to ordinary people that we are engaged in the economics of the mad house.
  I propose to divide the House on the order when the Question is put. All those, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton, who wish to vote against it will have that opportunity. We shall see what the outcome is.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It would be wrong and deplorable if it were thought by the public that the sentiments of the Bar were adequately conveyed by the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Many members of the Bar support what the Lord Chancellor is attempting to do.
  I have been a member of the English Bar for nearly 30 years during which time there have been five or six Lord Chancellors. Every one of them until the present one has sat on proposals for reform. The Bar knows that reform is urgent and that its privileges rather than its excellence sustain its position and status in society. As time has passed that has become increasingly the position. The only thing that should guarantee the status of the independent Bar of England is its quality and its excellence. It does not need the artificial privileges which it has secured over the years because of the way in which it has been able to persuade Lord Chancellors and other judges.
  It is said by those such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that the Bar is opposed to the Lord Chancellor and what he wishes to do by way of reform. The present Lord Chancellor came to us like a breath of fresh air in a fetid atmosphere. He is proposing to do something which previous Lord Chancellors have not had the courage to do. He is worth every penny of the proposed increase.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Before the Lord Chancellor can be worth an increase in salary, he should put his house in order. I am speaking not about anything to do with the legal profession but about the processes of the courts and of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  The legal profession is sometimes accused, rightly—usually the blame falls on solicitors—of holding up the process of justice. However, many of the most worrying delays in that process are caused in the courts administered by the Lord Chancellor. For example, a constituent of mine, a boy with no previous convictions aged about 19, was convicted of an offence of arson. He applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was 15 months youth custody. By the time his application for leave to appeal had been rejected in what is not much more than a paper procedure carried out by a single judge, he was one month from his parole. It is unforgiveable that such delays should exist in the administration of justice.
  I shall give another example of why, before tearing the profession apart, the Lord Chancellor should rip up some of his procedures in his Department and the courts and start again. In most magistrates courts, because of the blockage of work, both an accused person who chooses, as is his right, to have contested committal proceedings in a
  698
  criminal case, and the prosecution—they are affected equally—will have to wait months for the proceedings to take place.
  What are the consequences? Every case that comes before a jury depends on a question something like, "Who killed Cock Robin?" Who was standing at the bus stop at half-past five on the afternoon in question? Who signed the document in question? What was in his mind at that time? It all depends on the credibility of witnesses. If these cases have to linger before they are heard, how can juries be expected to make reliable judgments on the credibility of witnesses?
  The Lord Chancellor's salary, like, apparently, the salaries of everyone else at which the Government look closely, should be related in some way to his Department's efficiency and performance. Despite the considerable efforts of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Watkins and the judge in charge of the civil lists to hasten proceedings, the efficiency of the Lord Chancellor's Department as expressed through the speed of the courts is not very good and certainly does not justify such a large increase in salary.
  The Lord Chancellor's aim, and presumably the justification for increasing his salary, on the ground that he is becoming more effective, is to make the law more accessible to the consumer. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) started on an interesting little list when he was talking about the provincial solicitor. He said that the provincial solicitor advises the consumer on all sorts of matters—I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned probate, matrimonial law, conveyancing——
  Mr. Lawrence: Divorce.
  Mr. Carlile: Matrimonial law includes divorce. It is a long time since the hon. and learned Gentleman did a divorce case.
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman ran out of subjects. He did so because the Lord Chancellor in his Government is failing in the most obvious method of bringing the law closer to the consumer. The consumer should be able to obtain a solicitor's advice if he is sacked from his job and wants to go to an industrial tribunal. The consumer should be able to obtain a solicitor's advice freely if he has problems with the Department of Social Security. Those are just two examples.
  The consumer should be entitled to legal aid if he has been defamed. We can test the Lord Chancellor's efficiency by the accessibility to the courts that he is giving the ordinary consumer. An obvious way of achieving that, which would earn him a much bigger increase in salary, would be to change the mingy legal regulations that the Government are imposing, rather than tearing up the professions.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not wish to stray from the matter, but I must point out that legal aid provisions are nothing to do with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Matrimonial law is to do with the law of marriage and children and the law of divorce is called consistorial law.
  Mr. Carlile: The Lord Chancellor's efficiency is apparently being judged by his own lights, in the accessibility to the law that he gives to the consumer.
  Now let us assume for a moment that the Green Papers are turned into legislation in some way in the next Session.

  699
  Despite what I have said so far, in that event it seems that the Lord Chancellor will be given far too small a salary increase. If the Green Papers become law, he should be given far more; for look at the extra burden that he is taking upon himself. He is taking control of the ethics of the legal profession. No Government in the history of the country—apart for the Government of Oliver Cromwell, if they merit the name Government—have sought to take control of the ethics of the legal profession. If the Lord Chancellor is to take that responsibility on himself and if the Government intend to destroy the independence of the Bar and other advocates by telling the profession what its professional ethics should be, he probably merits £10,000 more a year in his salary for the extra responsibility involved.
  I venture to suggest that when there has been mature reflection, the Government and the Lord Chancellor—who is a thoughtful man—will decide that it would be a dangerous step for the Government to dictate to lawyers whether, for example, they can cross-examine police officers, or whether they will be able to exercise the independence shown in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during the miners' strike, as independence that barristers exercised so effectively in cases concerning miners. The hon. Gentleman knows that well.
  Mr. Skinner: Name one.
  Mr. Carlile: I can name barristers who stood for the independence of the people whom his union supported in the miners' strike—such as Ms. Lang, a member of my chambers—and who supported by their independent advocacy the miners of his constituency. If the Government take over the professional ethical code of lawyers——
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: No, because the hon. Gentleman has had his shout[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Carlile: If the Government take over the professional ethical code of barristers——
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman if he shows some evidence of listening. If the Government take over the professional ethics of barristers, that is one step down the road of tyranny. It may be a tyranny that the hon. Gentleman's brand of Socialism will welcome. I am very suspicious about it and I am surprised that real Tories are willing to go down that road.
  Mr. Skinner: There used to be a story, which the hon. and learned Gentleman destroyed tonight, if it had not already been destroyed, that members of the old Liberal party were radicals, or "wadicals" as "Woy" used to call them. The hon. and learned Gentleman now says that it is all right to hammer the dockers and every working class group in England but that the lawyers must be left alone.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What have the dockers to do with the Lord Chancellor's salary?
  Mr. Carlile: I do not think that I mentioned the dockers, but let me clarify what I am saying to the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is important to leave the independence of lawyers alone and not to take them under Government control.
  There is another reason why the Lord Chancellor may need an increase in salary. His job as a judge will be that much more difficult. The proposals in the Green Paper would entitle lawyers to full advocacy certificates not on the basis of their competence there would be no test of competence—but because they had stood up in court and done a given number of a particular type of case, however, badly. That is what the Green Paper amounts to: there is no quality control whatever. Judges in this country—the Lord Chancellor earns his salary as a judge, the head of the judiciary—depend upon receiving guidance as to the applicable law from those appearing in front of them. If the quality of those appearing in front of them is not as rigorously controlled, both by competence and the market, as it is at the moment, we shall have a judiciary that is embattled, oversized and probably therefore less competent. The Lord Chancellor's budget will increase exponentially and that, I suppose, will force us to recognise, on that cynical basis, that he will have to be given an increase in salary.
  I trust in what we heard from the Lord Chancellor in the other place last Friday, that if there is to be legislation in the next Session, careful consideration will be given to all the points put before him. If he is to be worth the salary that will, no doubt, be voted to him tonight, he must pay careful attention to those points and, above all other things, to the independence of the law.
  12.3 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I feel compelled to speak because of what I have heard from other barristers on both sides of the House.
  I shall support the order increasing the Lord Chancellor's salary, although I fully agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that there are failings in the Lord Chancellor's Department. I shall support the increase because the present Lord Chancellor is the first since the 1980s to make the people and the legal profession respectively sit up and think about what they want from the profession and how consumers' needs can best be met.
  One important point seems to have been overlooked in the debate. The Lord Chancellor merits his salary because he has written three excellent Green Papers. I hasten to add that they are all green, which means that they are all being consulted upon. It can only be a welcome development for this country to discuss what we expect from our lawyers and how they ought to deliver their services.
  There are many ways in which the present legal system is inadequate. Access to the Bar is at present pitifully small. When I was a young barrister—no, I am still a young barrister. When I was training there were 113 people on my course, but a mere 23 got pupillage. Of those, only four got chambers and those four were sons of judges or banisters who were already in Chambers. We must look at the way in which access to the Bar is awarded. It would be most welcome if people could become solicitors more easily and compete with those whom the

  701
  Bar has selected as being the most appropriate people, so that those who are the best advocates can represent the public.
  Much has been said about the Lord Chancellor not meriting his salary because of the effect of the Green Papers on the Bar. But why is it expected that the Bar will disappear? Have we no confidence in our Bar and in its containing the finest legal professionals available?
  About 80 per cent. of solicitors in this country are in partnerships of fewer than four people. All those solicitors, throughout the country, will need specialists on whom they can call, so there will be a market for the Bar. Why, therefore, is it assumed that all the barristers will be snapped up by big firms in the City? Large firms such as Coward Chance have already said that they are not interested in entertaining the prima donnas of the Bar. They are not interested in paying the sort of salaries that those at the top of the specialist Bar want to command and they are not interested in recruiting those who are not specialists.
  The most important thing about the proposals in the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers has been the welcome fact that for the first time we are talking about the legal system meeting the needs of the consumer. Until recently the word "consumer" never appeared in the legal profession, but surely the whole system should be pointed towards the consumer. Many consumers who come to my surgeries seem to think that the legal process in this country is a lottery in which only the rich or the most determined take part, and I think that they are absolutely right. I hear nothing from my constituents about the legal system, apart from the fact that it is uncertain and that it takes a long time.
  Most ordinary people do not think that the present legal system with its two tiers of solicitors and barristers is meeting their real needs in the best and most appropriate way. We all know that at the junior end of the Bar the consumer is being asked to pay for a two-tier system but is taking delivery of only one tier. When we are instructed to appear in the market towns of England we are given a piece of paper with perhaps little more on it than a chap's name, and we are expected to do what used to be called a "dock brief'—in other words, to find out what the case is about, do the necessary and send the brief back with a suitable fee on it. That is not what the consumer deserves and it is not what the consumer should have. That is why the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers are welcome.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am horrified that the law of England still has barristers who, without proper instructions, nevertheless appear for clients, which is in contradiction of their duty. I trust that my hon. Friend never has.
  I am interested to know whether my hon. Friend receives complaints about the legal profession at his surgery, as I frequently do at mine, and how many he has had from people who feel that they have been let down by a member of the Bar and how many from people who think that they have been let down by solicitors, who will be all that they have if the reforms are passed.
  Mr. Devlin: With the greatest respect, the cases that I have seen are roughly half and half, which is sad.
  Mr. Cryer: It is a yawning chasm.
  Mr. Devlin: It may be unbelievable to hon. Members in various parts of the House, but the fact is that there are complaints about barristers and complaints about solicitors—perhaps more about solicitors. People do not see the present system as delivering the services that they need.
  The Lord Chancellor deserves his salary because he sat down and thought carefully about the future of the Bar. He has made the barristers respond. He has made them think out some good reasons for carrying on in the way that they do. It is very interesting to note, in the Bar's response to the Green Papers, that it is now putting forward a plan for a wonderful new scheme under which a barrister will have to take the next brief, regardless of whether it is a legal aid case, provided that it is within his area of speciality. One Left-wing barrister wrote to me saying how welcome that was. When I was at Bar school —not many years ago—I was told that that rule existed already; it was called the cab-rank rule.
  It is about time that we looked carefully at our legal profession. The Green Papers have opened a welcome debate, and in that respect by itself the Lord Chancellor merits his salary.
  12.12 am
  Mr. Alan Williams: May I say to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that, after 25 years of dealing with constituency cases, I do not pretend to have a statistical breakdown of the grievances against solicitors and the grievances against barristers. However—and in this respect the hon. Gentleman is right —a point of difference occurs to me immediately: most people making complaints against solicitors turn up at my surgery, whereas those making complaints against barristers normally correspond by letter, by courtesy of Her Majesty.
  The first two speeches in the debate—those of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—gave very different perceptions of the Bar. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross gave the perspective north of the border. We recognise his particular knowledge and experience there. All that I as a Welshman can say is that I am overjoyed at the thought that a fellow Celt will do a bit better out of the system than perhaps his predecessor managed to do, though both of them seem to be doing pretty well.
  I know that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton was intended to be dispassionate and objective. That is why he did not declare an interest. Perhaps it is well that we have a special exemption for lawyers during the next couple of months, because it would take up too much of the time of this House if every lawyer speaking had to declare his interest before getting down to what he wanted to say. There is quite a substantial built-in lobby in the House. However, I watched the departures, and, having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman make his case, and having watched that case gradually disappear, I became increasingly convinced of the irrelevance of barristers in a successful court case. I started off far more sympathetic to the cause that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was advocating than I was by the time he had finished his advocacy. Indeed, he put forward some rather novel propositions. I had to pass a tissue to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when the hon. and

  703
  learned Gentleman was talking about all the poor barristers who will be homeless. The solicitors will have roofs over their heads, and they can have cars, but the poor barristers will be under the arches.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, in those cardboard boxes.
  Mr. Williams: That is right, under the arches, in cardboard boxes.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The point is that, under these Green Paper proposals, the cost of a barrister will rise to pay for overheads—cars, pensions, holidays with pay—so that the cost to consumers will rise. The barristers will be in clover because they will be working for firms of solicitors, with steady, substantial incomes guaranteed against inflation. That is the point. It is much more in our personal interests to have the Green Papers than not to have them, but it is in the interests of the country not to have them.
  Mr. Williams: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the fact that he managed to convey, in his second presentation of his case, a degree of clarity that he failed to achieve in his first presentation. Indeed, on the first occasion he became so preposterous that he could even envisage a situation in which someone would ask for the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross before the courts. I should have thought that that was self-evidently irrelevant, in that such a person could get off on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
  The basic proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Burton was strange. He said that the Lord Chancellor should not have an increase in salary because he was upsetting the legal profession. I hope that tomorrow when my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), always aware of the mood of the House, table a motion that the Secretary of State for Health should have a reduction in salary because he is upsetting the doctors and a motion that the Secretary of State for Education and Science should have a reduction in salary because he is upsetting the teachers the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the third person to sign them.
  There will not be an official Division on this issue, but we are an independent-minded party. The Lord Chancellor has been berated by his honourable colleagues because he is trying to attack the restrictive practices in his profession. In the 1970s a commission was set up to look into restrictive practices in the legal profession. It is recorded in the minutes that the secretary of the Law Society came before it and said that all the restrictive practices were in the public interest. Imagine if the National Union of Mineworkers or the Transport and General Workers Union put forward such an outrageous proposition.
  The Lord Chancellor deserves some credit for opening up issues that need to be discussed. At least he has opened a public debate, not one in a closed group or for a small select commission. We all have a right and an opportunity to take part. We shall be convinced even further of his genuineness if he now gets rid of another restrictive practice, the strange one that we are debating here tonight.
  There seems to be no logic whatever to defend the principle that the Lord Chancellor should have £2,000 more than the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice. The argument is that it is necessary because he is the head of the legal system. The Prime Minister is head of the Civil
  704
  Service, yet she receives £21,000 less than the permanent secretary, or the official head of the Civil Service. The Secretary of State for Defence is the ultimate decision-taker for the military services, yet he receives £34,000 less than the Chief of the Defence Staff. Any Secretary of State receives far less than his permanent secretary. Where, then, is the logic?
  I remember when I was Minister of State at the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and the head of my private office was leaving. The morning he was leaving he said, "I have not dared tell you previously, but tomorrow, when I take up my new job as a senior principal, I will be receiving £600 a year more than you are receiving as Minister of State."
  Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Secretary of State for Defence does not lead the troops in battle, but the Lord Chancellor sits as a judge. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that? He is a judge and assists as a judge in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Williams: I do not remember—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remind me—when the Chief of the Defence Staff has led any troops into battle. The moment that the hon. Gentleman can convince me that that is the case I will concede that he has made a point. It is absurd that the Lord Chancellor receives £37,000 more than the Speaker of the House, who also has responsibilities—within his salary payment—as a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Cryer: Our usual experience of defence chiefs of staff is that they lead their cronies into the board rooms of companies that supply the Ministry of Defence with very large contracts.
  Mr. Williams: The fringe benefits are considerable, but one can do even better if one is a failed Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Cryer: There is one coming up now.
  Mr. Williams: That is right. There is another one in line. The City of London pays them very well and, indeed, ex-Secretaries of Defence. Lazards could not get its hands on one quickly enough.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the hon. Gentleman probably wants an answer to his question, I can tell him that I believe that the last Chief of the Defence Staff to lead his troops into battle was Butcher Cumberland, who did us such harm in Scotland.
  Mr. Williams: In that case, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will concede that the argument put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) hardly has much relevance in today's circumstances.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the question of relating the pay to productivity and performance. No one will pretend that there is an easy measure, but let us look at the simple fact that in the past five years—since December 1983—the Lord Chancellor, with this increase, will have received increases in his salary of 56 per cent., 11 per cent. a year. We all know that throughout that time the conditions in our prisons, especially of remand prisoners, have been getting worse and the delays in having cases dealt with have been getting longer.

  705
  Until last year the explanatory note used to contain the following sentence:
  "The salary quoted represents a maximum and may not be the actual salary claimed."
  In other words, some previous Lord Chancellors did not claim their full salary. I believe that, in the mood of the Lord Chancellor's proposals for a complete review of the restrictive practices within the legal profession, it would be suitable for this Lord Chancellor to say that he, too, would not accept, even though it has been granted—as his predecessors reserved the right to say—the increase until the waiting lists have been eliminated.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 110, Noes 7.

  Division No. 152]

  [12.22 am

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Atkinson, David

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Durant, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Favell, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fearn, Ronald

  Brazier, Julian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  706

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayward, Robert

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rost, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maclean, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mills, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skiner.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Nellist, Dave

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

  Medicines (Fees and Charges)
  12.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
  That the draft Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
  The order is made under section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987. Its purpose is to provide the legal basis for making regulations to enable the full costs of the licensing agency to be charged out to the industry through licence and other fees.
  To that end the order lists in schedule 1 the functions of Ministers to be taken into account in fixing fees. The schedule refers to the relevant parts of the Medicines Act 1968 that set out the powers and duties in question. Broadly speaking, they cover the licensing functions, including pre-licensing clinical trials, and also post-marketing surveillance, inspection, enforcement, the regulation of advertising and labelling, and the classification of medicines—that is, whether a drug is available only on prescription.
  Schedule 2 to the order sets out the matters which can be taken into account in setting fees. The objective is to secure that all the costs of discharging the functions in schedule I can be taken into account in fixing fees. This includes the power to take account of deficits in fee income against expenditure so that a deficit in one year can be recouped in a subsequent year. It is intended that Ministers should also be able to take into account surpluses, so that any excess income can be offset by lower fee income in a subsequent period.
  The fees regulations—the Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Regulations 1989—were laid before the House on 10 March 1989, and are not the subject of debate tonight. They set out the definitions of the various types of licence applications and inspections and the levels of fees which are prescribed. The new fee structure is considerably more complex than the one it replaces. The new range of fees is very wide, from £40,000 for a major new drug application through to £50 for administrative modifications to licences involving no professional assessment. Some new fees have been introduced and some existing fees have been split so as to reflect the different workloads involved in assessing the different types of application.
  One major change in the new structure is the abolition of the requirement on companies to pay an annual fee related to turnover. The annual fees have in recent years amounted to about 85 per cent. of the total fee income. We argue that their abolition is necessary because of the Government's view that self-funding public bodies should charge fees that broadly reflect the costs of the services or other activities for which the fee is charged. In the case of annual fees related to turnover, any correlation is regarded as insufficient in a timely sense. That is because the fees are paid over a number of years.
  Abolition of the annual fees necessarily means that there has to be a very considerable increase in the application fees to make up the shortfall as well as provide the extra resources necessary to cover the whole rather than two thirds of the costs of the agency. The fee levels proposed are intended also to strengthen the staffing of the agency to enable it better to tackle the heavy workload,
  708
  including the very considerable backlog in the handling of product licence applications that has built up. The total costs of the agency in 1989–90 are expected to be about £11·5 million.
  The new fees set out in the regulations have been the subject of statutory consultations with the industry. The increases in fees proposed are not welcome to some parts of the industry and particularly to the smaller firms. I recognise fully their concerns and understand them. However, I ask them to remember that the increase in application fees is partly the result of the abolition of the annual turnover fees. Looking to the longer term, I believe that the decision that the funding of medicines control should be met by the industry through fees will prove to be strategically the right choice. It provides a basis on which this work can be resourced separately from the rest of the work of the Department.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the increase in fees will be met by a commensurate reduction in the waiting time for the processing of applications?
  Mr. Freeman: I cannot give that assurance in as direct a form as my hon. Friend would want, simply because there was a substantial increase in the number of applications before the end of the last financial year by companies seeking to take advantage of the lower fees that then prevailed. It will take some time to work through that case load. However, because those applications were being brought forward from this financial year, we anticipate that the level of applications this year will be slightly lower than anticipated, so we shall clear the backlog fast.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the principle of increasing fees to cover the costs involved and increasing fees to cover the costs of a 10 per cent. increase in staff in the Medicines Control Agency should eat into the backlog, about which I am as concerned as he is.
  Achieving real improvements in the time taken to deal with licence applications will represent a good investment for the industry. While it inevitably has to put the money up front before better performance can be attained, the new arrangements certainly hold out better prospects than hitherto for delivering improvements. I commend the order to the House.
  12.39 am
  Ms. Harriet Harman: I should like to ask the Minister six questions and the first is about the openness in practice. Obviously we welcome the fact that the scale of payments will be made public. Will the accounts of such payments be made available every year in sufficient detail to allow public and parliamentary scrutiny? That would give us the assurance that the new scheme is effective and that the funding is sufficient to allow the proper implementation of the appropriate regulations.
  My second question is about what will happen in 1992. If payments fall drastically in that year, following the introduction of unified EEC drug licensing arrangements, and payments go to Brussels rather than to the Medicines Control Agency, will money still be directed to the agency so that it can carry out the essential policing duties that the Minister has mentioned?
  Thirdly, it is clearly the intention that the phamaceutical industry will pay for the order and that the changes will

  709
  save public money. How much does the Minister anticipate will be saved and to what ends will the savings be put? Will they be used for research or will they simply drift back to the Treasury?
  Fourthly, it has been said that, because the regulatory agency will be directly financed by the pharmaceutical industry, he who pays the piper will be able to call the tune. Is the Minister satisfied that the agency will be sufficiently independent even though it will be entirely financed by the industry that it is regulating?
  Fifthly, will the industry be able to set against profits the payments that it makes to the agency for the purposes of the industry's returns under the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme? The Government are asking the industry to give money to the agency and if they then subsidise the industry for that payment through the mechanism of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, I am not sure where that leaves us in terms of saving public money.
  My sixth question is about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and the savings that the Government intend to make under the indicative drugs budget. As the House will know, there has been much concern among GPs about the savings that the Government intend to make in the indicative drugs budget. Will not whatever marginal savings are made by GPs by paring at the edges of their drugs budget be clawed back by the drug companies through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and will not the companies be able to show that their guaranteed level of profit has not been met? Will the Minister say how much he expects to save in the indicative drugs budget? Will there be a net saving or will the saving be clawed back under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme?
  12.43 am
  Mr. Peter Rost: I speak on behalf of the manufacturers of herbal medicines represented by the Natural Medicines Group to which I am a consultant. I also speak as joint chairman of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) apologises for not being present for the debate. He is in Europe on parliamentary business and has asked me to say that he supports what I shall say.
  The manufacturers of herbal medicines are mostly small companies. They each have many thousands of licensed products which they bring to market, but most of them have a modest turnover. Even the largest herbal manufacturer in the United Kingdom, Weleda (UK) Ltd., employs about 200 people even though it has been growing very fast. Again I declare an interest because that company is in my constituency. Nevertheless, it markets some 5,000 different medical products. It says that the proposed fees are intolerable, and unfair to the smaller manufacturers.
  The regulations, as proposed, are not opposed by any responsible manufacturer of herbal products. Such manufacturers support regulation on safety and all other grounds: that is not at stake. They say, however, that the basis of the fixing of fees must be fairer than is at present proposed. One manufacturer says that MLX 175—the
  710
  proposed scale of fees—represents an increase of between five and eight times the present fee. That is completely unacceptable.
  Let me quote from a desperate letter sent by Potter's (Herbal Supplies) Ltd. of Wigan to my hon. Friend the Minister, dated 31 March. It is not the first letter that that company has sent to him.
  "your Department has placed before Parliament two vital documents, S.I. 418 and Fees and Charges, both of which will undoubtedly have unprecedented and detrimental effects on smaller pharmaceutical firms—a rise in fees of between five and eight times those paid today proposed in MLX 175 will destroy small businesses … It would seem then that as a company that has made safe herbal medicines for over 176 years, the most serious threat to our existence comes from the Department of Health. The effect of these fees on top of the hugely exaggerated requirements of review to new E.C. standards will result in job losses and lack of competitiveness —leaving the U.K. market place for 'green' natural medicines to our European partners.
  We hope that as Minister responsible, you will make time to understand our problems by seeing members of our trade organisations before enacting these statutory instruments."
  I expressed concern to my hon. Friend on 25 February. He replied most courteously, confirming that a joint consultative group had been set up to administer the proposals. The members of the manufacturing group of the Natural Medicines Group, however, say that they have not been consulted, although the Minister has confirmed that their pleas have been taken into account—or so we are told. If "taking their pleas into account" means imposing increased fees of between five and eight times their existing fees, that is a form of consultation that they do not regard as entirely satisfactory, and I think that the House will agree with them.
  The chairman of the largest manufacturer of herbal products in my constituency, Weleda, also wrote to my hon. Friend, on 30 March. The letter reads:
  "Whilst I note that in your letter you state that 'the Agency has no wish to close down small companies', I am gravely concerned that the implementation of Statutory Instrument No. 418 will indeed have that effect on Weleda (UK) Ltd. This is because we, as a small company, will be required to pay a greatly increased level of fees for the specialised products we manufacture, which do not have large turnovers.
  Closure of Weleda (UK) Ltd. would not only mean the loss of over 100 jobs in a area which has suffered high unemployment, but also, because Weleda is the sole manufacturer in the U.K. of anthroposophical medicines, it would mean that there would no longer be any source of supply of these medicines for doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and the general public.
  I therefore write to ask for your assurance that the regulations as laid down in Statutory Instrument No. 418 are not implemented until there has been further consultation with small, specialised pharmaceutical manufacturing companies such as Weleda (UK) Ltd."
  My hon. Friend the Minister has yet to reply to that letter. That is understandable—it is dated 30 March.
  The proposed structure of fees is unacceptably unfair. We hope that the quango that has been set up to administer the fees will be properly regulated by my hon. Friend the Minister. I was not re-elected to the House to support a radical Government, whose policies have, on the whole, been aimed at reducing red tape and encouraging enterprise and small business, to find now that we are moving in a reverse direction with these smaller entrepreneurial companies. They appear to be setting up a bureaucratic structure, which perhaps my hon. Friend has not had the time to investigate fully to assure himself that we are doing this the right way. I urge him to have another look at this to make sure that there is not a better way to

  711
  organise this that would be fairer to the small manufacturers. They should be consulted and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to help with those consultations.
  It is easy enough for the larger pharmaceutical groups to face these fees. Proportionately, the fees are much smaller for them, so they are quite happy. No doubt they were consulted. They have huge resources, huge profits, far bigger sales and fewer products. The scale of fees is not being based on turnover, as we were originally assured that they would be, so the larger pharmaceutical groups will come out better off than they were. Smaller manufacturers —I am speaking only of the herbal manufacturers, as I do not know about the others—are coming out far worse.
  I have a final quote from the Natural Medicines Group, which represents the herbal manufacturers. This letter asks me to make representations on the group's behalf. It says:
  "we need to modify this S.I., failure to do so will cause more harm to the herbal industry than almost any other requirement so far. It is of course even more dramatic because many small companies now being asked to increase their payments have also had their most expensive last couple of years, trying to satisfy the unrealistic requirements of review.
  As you know, the Natural Medicines Group and its members are dedicated to a sensible licence structure and the public protection that this gives. The result of this 'last straw' in increased fees will result in many products being taken out of licensing and what then for consumer protection?!!"
  I urge my hon. Friend to allow further time for consultation, particularly on the way that the fees are to be implemented and their allocations, so that we can devise a fairer system that will allow the smaller manufacturers of pharmaceutical products—again I speak only about those I know—to survive without being so unfairly penalised.
  12.53 am
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The order relates to the
  "Fixing of Fees Relating the Medicinal Products for Human Uses".
  Following the questions asked by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), I have several questions. What human reaction has there been from manufacturers and from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain? It seems that this is a cost-efficiency exercise, which shows that fees have increased greatly above the rate of inflation. How can that be justified?
  I realise that there was some sort of ploy in producing first a licence fee for a new product of £50,000, which was then reduced to £40,000. Was there a reason for taking that course, which was a doubling of the present rate? Surely that is inflationary and something that will add to the drugs budget of the National Health Service.
  Perhaps the Minister will explain what is meant by a "variation of licence", which will cost much more than hitherto. I believe that he talked of £50. Will the alteration of a label be classed as a variation? What is meant by a "complex variation licence", which will now cost £1,250? If a product's colour is changed, is that classed as a complex variation? The parent Act and the order are far from clear on these matters and perhaps there should be clarification now.
  Is the order not a restraint on innovation? Will a producer stop marketing or not bother to market a product which has only a relatively small sale? I shall be grateful if the Minister will give assurances to meet the issues which I have raised.
  712
  Finally, can the Minister not envisage that in the end the losers must again be consumers, to whom the increased licence fee costs will undoubtedly be passed by the manufacturers?
  12.56 am
  Mr. Freeman: This has been a brief but well-informed debate. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) asked me six questions and I shall try to answer them as briefly as I can. The hon. Lady asked whether reports and accounts would be published. The answer is that they will be published annually. They will cover the fees, costs and performance of the Medicines Control Agency.
  The hon. Lady asked what will happen in 1992. Additional responsibilities have been placed on the licensing authority through our membership of the European Community. Under Community rules, there is now provision for companies to apply for product licences under the so-called multi-state procedure. In essence, it requires the member states of the Community to reach a common view on licence applications, though, as yet, any such consensus is not binding on member states which remain sovereign in licensing matters. Participation in European Community work is a growing aspect of the work of the licensing authority and will continue to be so, especially as 1992 approaches. The EEC Commission has not yet published its proposals for the completion of internal markets and medicinal products. Proposals could involve national authorities continuing some licensing activities, and these would continue to be financed by fees. If the EEC proposes taking over licensing on a supranational basis, the Commission will have to include some method of financing. Possibly companies would have to pay fees to new supranational agencies for EEC licences as well as some payment to national authorities.
  The hon. Member for Peckham asked me about savings being ploughed back. Income in the past financial year went to the Treasury, and the Department of Health bore on its own votes the expenses of the licensing authority. In this financial year the revenue will come to the Department of Health and offset the expenses of the agency. We expect these sums broadly to match each other. As the fees being charged will be greater than hitherto, because we are increasing the charges to reflect more accurately the costs involved, additional fees will be raised from the pharmaceutical industry. These will amount to about £5 million per annum. This sum will go back into the NHS and improve services for patients and, more broadly, for all those who are provided with some form of service by the NHS.
  The hon. Member for Peckham asked me whether the piper would call the tune. The new agency, whose new director—Dr. Keith Jones—was appointed today, will be answerable ultimately to Ministers in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is Ministers who determine levels of fees and control the agency.
  The hon. Lady asked me whether the licence payments could be set against the profits for pharmaceutical price regulation scheme purposes. The answer is yes; it is a perfectly appropriate revenue expense.
  The hon. Lady also asked me about indicative drug budgets. The purpose of our White Paper proposal for indicative drug budgets, which will apply to all general practitioners, is to bring downward pressure to bear on

  713
  prescribing. It is undoubtedly true that some doctors overprescribe, measured simply against the average rates of prescription for patients. I cannot give the hon. Lady an estimate because we have made none. We aim to eliminate wasteful prescribing; the objective is not to save a specific sum of money.
  I appreciate the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) plays in the Natural Medicines Group in his constituency. He raised points about consultation. The order that we are debating is different from the one that sets the fees, and my hon. Friend will have noted that that order was laid before Parliament on 10 March. In December, the Department of Health wrote to every licence holder and we received a substantial number of representations. The fees are being set for one year only and I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will take into account the experience in the first year. I am not sure that I agree with his estimate of the fees being some five to eight times more than would have applied under the old regime. We are abolishing the annual fee related to turnover and collapsing that fee into the initial up-front fee. In looking at an increase in fees, one must compare apples with apples. There is certainly not a five to eight times increase. There is a joint consultative group which will take representations into account.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash with great interest and care. I am prepared at a time convenient to him to meet him and representatives of the Natural Medicines Group to take into account their concerns and fears. I shall get in touch promptly with my hon. Friend to arrange such a meeting, which I hope will be timely.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked me about representations received from the industry. We have received 78 replies to our letters which were sent out last December, making 121 apparently representative points. We took them into account in setting the fees laid down in the draft order.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the increases in the rates. Last year and in previous years we were charging or recovering two thirds of the costs of the licensing agency. We now propose to increase that to 100 per cent. and to include in the costs to be recovered a much broader category of costs. We think that that is economic. We shall provide also for recovery of an increase in staff of about 10 per cent. to deal with more applications. The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of other detailed points. I shall read them tomorrow in the Official Report and write to him.
  I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

  Housing and Planning Act 1986
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dorrell.]
  1.3 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I apologise for keeping you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister up so late tonight, but the subject of the debate arises from a serious problem in my constituency which I understand occurs elsewhere and requires stronger action by Government and local authorities. I have been fortunate in the results achieved by my previous Adjournment debates, and I hope that this debate will prove to be successful in drawing attention to and doing something about this problem. It is ironic that, at a time when everyone is so concerned about amenity and the environment, I should have to raise a matter of deliberate dereliction.
  A constituent of mine, Mr. Robert Horrocks, is a property developer. The filed accounts for his companies are not all up to date, but there is no doubt that he must be one of the wealthiest property developers in the country. Through one of his companies, Metrolands Investments Ltd., he controls a shopping precinct in Harwood, which is in most other respects a very pleasant part of my constituency. The precinct was developed 25 years ago by Metrolands, the freehold being owned by the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society. Development approval was given by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1963 to provide what Metrolands called
  "much needed shopping facilities, where these facilities are virtually non-existent."
  The precinct opened in 1965, when it was described as "a housewife's dream". At the time of my election in 1983, it contained about 30 different shops as well as a library. Deficiencies in the structure of the building led to disputes between the tenants and the developer. Those disputes became worse after the freehold was sold in January 1984 by the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society to Metrolands, accompanied by rumours of redevelopment as the new landlord acted in anything but a friendly way to the tenants.
  Later that year, residents in the adjacent Lynwood grove came to see me about the rapidly deteriorating state of the precinct and the provocative and high-handed way in which they were being treated about rights of way at the back of their properties, where boards with sticky black paint had been erected.
  On 10 August, I sent the first of many letters and telephone calls to Metrolands. I also wrote to the council and the police. I received a reply from the police, but not from Metrolands.
  The following year, the condition of the precinct continued to deteriorate. The traders were refused extension of leases, despite the acknowledged lack of alternative premises. Mr. Horrocks ignored my repeated requests for a meeting. I asked the council for its help in setting up a meeting, again with no response from Mr. Horrocks. I wrote to Mr. Horrocks again in May 1986, referring to compulsory purchase of the precinct. He did not reply, but called without notice here at the House on 21 May, when I was in Bolton for mayor making. I wrote yet again to him on 1 October asking to meet, again with

  715
  no reply. Later that month, the council granted an application for outline planning permission for redevelopment, with an additional 2,300 sq ft supermarket.
  Early in 1987, I received further complaints from shopkeepers who were concerned about the increasingly neglected state of the area. They were also especially concerned about efforts to obtain vacant possession of the shops by the landlord. Notices to quit were being served on traders whose leases had expired. I endeavoured to obtain a meeting with Mr. Horrocks, but yet again with no success. I then arranged a public meeting in April 1987. Over 200 people attended—but not Mr. Horrocks.
  As my hon. Friend knows, following that public meeting, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 14 May, and I quote from that letter:
  "Metroland Developments have put in a planning application to redevelop part of the site, but are not prepared to give any assurances to the existing tenants that they can have continuity of trading in the new development, nor are the owners prepared to give any assurances to the community at large that the provision of services such as a post office and a chemist will be able to continue.
  Please find enclosed copies of newspaper articles from the Bolton Evening News for the 15th and 16th April which indicate the concern expressed by the people of the town.
  I should be grateful if you would see a delegation of Councillors and traders in order to discuss the need for some change in legislation or other assistance in order that the traders themselves can have some assurance for their future livelihood, and the residents some equal assurance about the provision of future services.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Horrocks has not been prepared to meet anyone to discuss this issue which has led to demands for a change in the law".
  After the general election on 11 June I received a reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) in his capacity as Minister responsible for planning. He declined to see a delegation, maintaining that these were commercial matters rather than land use planning matters and that his Department could not, therefore, intervene.
  I was disappointed by his reply, since the commercial arrangements between landlord and tenant in the scheme are clearly not satisfactory. I have a copy of a lease dated 13 August 1968 between Metrolands Investments Ltd. and a tenant of a shop in the scheme. The lease is full of legal obligations binding the tenants. Any transgression threatens retribution. On the other hand, there is no specific obligation on the landlord to maintain the area, only a provision under clause 1 for the tenant to pay an annual service charge towards
  "the costs and expenses of maintaining, cleaning and lighting the service roads and pedestrian ways, yards, garden areas and common space included in the Harwood shopping centre."
  It is patent that the arrangements for maintenance are implied, but it is equally obvious for all to see that they are not being complied with. For a shopkeeper to take action to prove that the landlord has a legal obligation would be slow and costly, with no certainty of success.
  The possibilities of legal and commercial action by the occupiers are tenuous. For neighbouring residents they would seem to be non-existent. Since Metrolands obtained the freehold of the land five years ago, there is now no superior interest to which an appeal could be considered. We have to consider whether any avenues for action are available through the current planning Acts, despite the Minister's claim that land use planning matters are not involved.
  716
  A section in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 may be relevant to this case. Section 46 of that Act expands section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Section 65(1) gives the local planning authority powers to serve a notice on owners and occupiers of land and buildings where it appears that the amenity of an adjoining area is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area.
  Such a notice should set out steps for remedying the situation and a time scale for complying with the requirement. I would welcome the Minister's clarification of whether the clause applies to all land within a local authority's overall area or only to land that it owns. If local authorities have power to take action under that legislation, they should do so. If the powers in that section are not wide enough, as Bolton council has previously feared, I urge the Minister to extend them to cover these appalling and unacceptable circumstances. Could he ascertain whether that can be done by order or, if not, by inclusion in the earliest relevant Bill?
  If not, can he legislate for improved rights for tenants whenever planning permission for a redevelopment is granted? Should compulsory improvement and purchase powers be extended? Twenty-one years ago, in April 1968, the then Bolton Conservative councillor, Robert Horrocks, said:
  "If the voluntary system fails, improvements should be enforced by the making of compulsory improvement orders. This would prevent areas being spoiled by odd houses being allowed to decay."
  Late last year, I succeeded in meeting Mr. Horrocks. appealed to him not to underestimate the strength of local feeling about the state of the precinct, and to pay proper regard to the wishes of tenants and residents. He told me that he was doing all that he could to make progress on the matter.
  Unfortunately, my constituents still do not see any sign of progress. After a lone shopper, Mr. Norman Lockton, suffered a severe injury after falling into a large hole which put him off work for seven weeks, the editor of the Bolton Evening News published an open letter to Mr. Horrocks, entitled "Precinct Disgrace". He said:
  "Derelict, dilapidated and defaced, it is a scandalous monstrosity in one of Bolton's prettiest districts."
  In 20 years, the housewife's dream has turned sour. The editor went on to say in his open letter:
  "Harwood Precinct these days is a desolate deserted ruin. Premises are boarded up, windows are covered with graffiti. It is gaining an unwanted reputation as a haven for glue sniffers and people are afraid to walk through it at night. If a district such as Harwood is to retain its identity, shops and business must be allowed to prosper. People should be encouraged to shop locally rather than be forced into Bolton. Harwood precinct is at the heart of the community and should be thriving, yet it is being slowly strangled to death."
  Constituents gathered to meet me at the precinct last Friday. They impressed on me their disgust that one man could so flout the wishes of the community by preventing shopkeepers from trading in premises for which planning permission had been granted. The most seriously inconvenienced are the elderly and the handicapped, who chose to live near the shops, never dreaming that they would then be forced to shut, leaving no immediate facilities.
  I should like to know what Mr. Horrocks would have to say to three of my constituents—Mrs. Cummings, Mrs. Styles and Mrs. Fairbairn. Those three mothers have severely handicapped children and went to live near the shops but they are now in considerable difficulties because

  717
  of the lack of shops. What has Mr. Horrocks to say to the 30, 40 or more people who have lost their jobs as a result of the traders being evicted?
  Bolton metropolitan college sends parties of building students to see how a building should not be put up. Perhaps students of psychology should go to ponder over why one wealthy man should so wish to hold the community in which he lives to ransom, and students of politics go to see such a glaring example of failure of public policy.
  I call on the Government to do all in their power to end this scandalous dereliction, to seek new powers if necessary, and to give local authorities the strongest possible directions.
  I call on Mr. Horrocks to end this war of attrition in which he is using his wealth as a battering ram. I appeal to him to remember his own words as a councillor 20 years ago which I have just quoted, and to heed the words of the Prime Minister in May 1979:
  "The Britain I want is a land which cares for the weak, the old and the sick."
  Perhaps he might then gain the respect which he fought for, and lost, in the House of Lords 15 years ago.
  Must the Government stand by while developers taint their gains with the suffering of the weak, and say that it is just a private matter between landlord and tenants? Is this what the Government gave approval for in 1963? The Minister may say that this is just a little local problem, but that is not how my constituents see it.
  1.16 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of his constituents and I am aware that his success in securing Adjournment debates and action as a result of those debates has been the subject of recent well-deserved favourable comment in the Bolton Evening News. In that context, I congratulate him on once again achieving an Adjournment debate and on raising a subject that is of concern to many of his constituents.
  For reasons which I know my hon. Friend appreciates, I am unable to discuss the details of this particular case. But what I can do is to set out generally the powers which exist under both section 46 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, part II.
  Section 46 of the 1986 Act is the subject of the debate. Section 46 was merely a vehicle for substituting a new version of section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The latter is the substantive provision and I shall therefore refer to that, rather than to section 46.
  Section 65 of the 1971 Act enables local planning authorities to secure the tidying-up of land which is adversely affecting the amenity of a neighbourhood by serving a notice on the owner and occupier obliging them to
  "remedy the condition of the land".
  Such provisions have their origin in Acts of local application and have been incorporated in general legislation since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The intention has always been to enable authorities to deal
  718
  with unsightly, small plots of open land—seriously overgrown gardens, vacant plots, fly tips and perhaps sprawling scrap yards and the like.
  The wording of the provision was widened in 1986 to overcome difficulties in enforcement, but this did not affect the basic intention that the provisions were to be used in respect of small, untidy plots of land and a circular on the 1986 Act explained that the changes had been made in response to difficulties experienced in enforcing notices served under the previous powers; and expressed confidence that authorities would continue to use the powers with discretion, as a means of dealing with relatively isolated, severe cases of neglected or unsightly land.
  There are two particular features of section 65 and its supplementary provisions which I should mention. First, the law requires notices to be served on both the owner and the occupier of the land; and secondly there are grounds for appeal to a magistrate's court against a section 65 notice, including the ground that the condition of the land is attributable to, and such as results in the ordinary course of events from, the carrying on of operations or use of land which is not in contravention of planning control. In other words, it provides a protection for the reasonable effects of activities or land uses which have planning permission, whether expressly granted or deemed. That is in accord with the respect which planning law generally accords to existing and established users.
  Central Government have never monitored the extent to which local authorities have used these provisions. Given the limited scope of the provisions, there has been no need to do so. We are not talking about large sites of strategic importance, and the tidying up of gardens or small vacant plots has properly been considered a matter of purely local significance.
  It is entirely for local authorities to decide where and when to use the powers of section 65. It is not for me to say whether those powers have any relevance to the situation which my hon. Friend has described. If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the possible use of section 65 powers he should approach the local authority.
  Representations made in the context of a current departmental review of derelict land policy have suggested that a new power might be introduced to allow local authorities to improve or reclaim derelict land themselves and to charge the owner. Such a change would amount to a strengthening and wider use of authorities' existing powers to take action themselves in default of compliance with a section 65 order. The idea will be considered, along with other ideas which have come forward, in the derelict land review.
  We will need to bear in mind, however, that a power limited to clearing up situations other than those reasonably resulting from activities covered by planning permission would be little different from authorities' existing default powers in relation to section 65 orders; and a power which extended to clearing up the reasonable incidential effects of activities with planning permission would obviously impinge on the long-held respect of planning law for existing users. Such a power would therefore need very strong justification.
  It may also assist my hon. Friend if I explain that my Department is responsible for the policy on landlord and tenant business lettings. The main legislation concerning the rights and obligations of business landlords and tenants is set out in part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act

  719
  1954. Under the 1954 Act, business tenants have security of tenure and a right to apply for a new tenancy. Unless the tenant has failed to pay the rent, or broken some other condition of tenancy, the landlord can bring the tenancy to an end at or after the end of the current tenancy only if he is entitled to possession of the property. The Act specifies a limited number of grounds for entitlement to possession; these include demolition, reconstruction and redevelopment.
  In addition, under the Act, special forms and strict time limits apply if the landlord wishes to seek to end the tenancy. The tenant has the right to request a new tenancy from the landlord and, thereafter, to apply to the court, using special forms and following the time limits laid down by the Act. If the landlord can satisfy the court that he is entitled to possession on one or more of the specified grounds under that Act, the court must grant him possession. If he cannot do so, the court must order a new tenancy for the tenant.
  Having listened to my hon. Friend's comments, I have the impression that it is around enforcement and implementation of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act that much of this dispute arises. The landlord wishes to obtain possession so that he can undertake redevelopment. From what my hon. Friend says, it appears that some, or all, of the tenants either are holding out for new tenancies, because they do not believe that there will be development, or wish to remain where they are for other reasons. In the meantime, with some of the tenancies terminated, there are a number of boarded-up properties and general deterioration in the environment.
  But I have to say to my hon. Friend that that happens when a large number of tenancies are reaching the end of their period, and the landlord seeks repossession for purposes of redevelopment. It happens in particular when tenancies do not all expire on the same day so that the landlord takes possession over a period.
  My hon. Friend may be familiar with what is happening in Horseferry road at present. I refer to Great Westminster house, where a number of shops have been closing down
  720
  over a period of several months. That is an example of the effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act in practice. If my hon. Friend is asking us to change that Act to provide a different balance between tenants' interests and landlords' interests, I have to disappoint him. As recently as 1985 we carried out a review of the working of the Act, with particular reference to small business men—both landlords and tenants—and we concluded, after wide consultation, that the Act continues to work well, protecting both tenant interests and landlord interests, and maintaining the balance between landlord rights and tenant rights enshrined in the Act.
  If, as it appears from what my hon. Friend is saying, this is largely a dispute over the terms and conditions of tenancies, that must be a matter between the landlord and his tenants. If the tenancy agreement does not contain sufficient provision to protect the quality of the environment until the expiry of the tenancy, that is unsatisfactory. It is not something that the Government can become involved in. It is for the individual landlord and the tenant to negotiate.
  I hear what my hon. Friend says about the state of affairs that pertain in this particular part of Bolton. I sympathise with him and his constituents, but I cannot offer any Government solution. I know that my hon. Friend believes that, if there is a problem, the Government should be able to solve it, but I must disappoint him. This is a private contractual problem, not one which the Government can solve.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend's speech will have brought this issue to the attention of a larger audience in Bolton. If Mr. Horrocks is not listening to the debate today, he will certainly hear of it. It may well result in pressure being put on him, as my hon. Friend wishes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue, but I have to disappoint him in saying that the Government cannot solve this problem.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Pensions (Retail Prices Index Error)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met or had correspondence with each of the Civil Service pension organisations that are awaiting the payable order awarded to them following an error in the calculation of the retail prices index about this matter; and when he expects Parliament to approve payment of the supplementary estimate for funds for those three organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department wrote to each of the organisations awaiting awards from the RPI error funds on 16 March enclosing a payable order for the sums due.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the introduction of DNA testing for the purposes of the immigration rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received various representations from Members of Parliament and others concerning the possible introduction of DNA testing into the entry clearance process, and the operation of the immigration rules in relation to reapplicants previously refused entry clearance. We hope to make an announcement on both these matters in the relatively near future.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend visited Her Majesty's prison Wandsworth on Monday 6 February 1989.

  Press Council
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the Press Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Hurd
  I last met the chairman of the Press Council on 18 January. We discussed the chairman's recent appointment to the council, the forthcoming review of the council's role and procedures and the issues raised by the Right of Reply Bill and the Protection of Privacy Bill.

  Prison Quarters
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison quarters remain unusable.
  322
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Only a few prison quarters which are structurally unsound or substandard are considered to be unusable. National figures are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the number of such properties on the Isle of Wight is seven.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the electronic tagging of offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the last 12 months 26 letters have been received, including nine from Members of Parliament, together with a number of representations from interested individuals and organisations. One of the objectives of the forthcoming field trials involving the monitoring of defendants remanded on bail will be to enable decisions to be reached on the use of electronic monitoring in respect of convicted offenders.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with interested parties regarding the introduction of electronic tagging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have consulted the magistrates courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the three areas where we propose to conduct field trials of electronic monitoring. We shall shortly be arranging meetings at which the procedures envisaged can be explained to local legal practitioners and others with an interest. A meeting has also been arranged with representatives of the probation services in the areas concerned.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been brought and how many convictions obtained for hiring or selling video recordings to young people below the relevant minimim age classification in the last 12 months.

  (2) how many prosecutions for hiring or selling unclassified video recordings have been brought (a) in the London borough of Newham (b) in the City of Westminster and (c) in England by trading standards officers in the last three months.

  Mr. Renton
  The latest information available centrally, which may be incomplete, relates to 1987. This indicates that in England and Wales there were six prosecutions under sections 9 and 10 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 for hiring or selling video recordings containing unclassified video works and two prosecutions under section 11 for hiring or selling video recordings to persons below the minimum age specified on the classification certificates issued in respect of works contained in the recordings. None of these prosecutions was in the City of Westminster; one under section 10 was in the London borough of Newham. The extension of enforcement powers to trading standards officers from September 1988 will result in far more prosecutions. I understand in several hundred cases already the British Board of Film Classification has been asked to certify (as evidence for use in criminal proceedings) whether works have been classified and, if so, under what classification.
  323
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has received representations from the British Videogram Association about delays in classifying video titles by the British Board of Film Classification; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when his officials last met representatives of the British Board of Film Classification to discuss delays on classifying video titles.

  Mr. Renton
  I am not aware of any recent representations from the British Videogram Association about delays at the British Board of Film Classification in classifying video works. Home Office officials are in regular contact with the board about the administration of

  Police forces in England and Wales

  31 December 1988

  Chief Constable1

  Deputy Chief Constable2

  Assistant Chief Constable3

  Chief Superintendent

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  14

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  7

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  3

  13

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Durham

  1

  1

  2

  7

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Essex

  1

  1

  3

  11

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  6

  27

  Gwent

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  10

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  8

  Kent

  1

  1

  4

  10

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  3

  13

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  4

  19

  Metropolitan

  1

  16

  38

  158

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  3

  13

  North Wales

  1

  1

  1

  7

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  South Wales

  1

  1

  3

  14

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  1

  11

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Surrey

  1

  1

  2

  7

  Sussex

  1

  1

  3

  12

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  3

  12

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  10

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  5

  21

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  4

  20

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Total

  48

  58

  128

  565

  1 Includes ranks of assistant commissioner and above in the Metropolitan police and commissioner in the City of London police.

  2 Includes deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police and assistant commissioner in the City of London police.

  3 Includes commanders in the Metropolitan police and the City of London police.

  Child Safety
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to extend local authority access to police records to enable checks to be made on the background of all staff to be employed in areas where they have substantial access to children.324
  the Video Recordings Act 1984 and discussed with its officials on 22 March the length of time taken to issue classification certificates for video works.

  Police (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has for each police force of the number of officers of chief superintendent level and above, and as to the number of black and Asian officers holding such posts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is set out in the table. There are no black or Asian officers in these ranks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Local authorities are already able to seek the disclosure of information from police records about all those seeking employment in posts with substantial access to children.

  Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek to change the law on the availability of surveillance and counter-surveillance equipment.

  Mr. Renton
  No, for the reasons given in my response to the debate on electronic surveillance devices initiated by my hon. Friend on 13 March at column 183.

  Policing (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the measures to improve policing in Lancashire for 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that among the measures taken in 1988 by the chief constable and his police authority are the civilianisation of 52 posts previously occupied by police officers; successful operations against crime, including one focusing on crimes committed mainly against the elderly by persons posing as officials; a number of schemes to streamline administrative procedures; the trial use of a computerised custody office system; and a number of successful community and crime prevention initiatives.

  The chief constable would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend these and other examples of effective and efficient policing in Lancashire.

  Suicide (Leeds Prison)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the deputy director-general of the prison service of his inquiry into suicide at Leeds prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The report was written as a guide for action within the Department rather than as a public document, but my right hon. Friend announced its main recommendations and his acceptance of them in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 7 March at columns 45–6.

  Independent Television
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to include in legislation a timetable for achieving 25 per cent. independent television production; if he will make it his policy that once this target is reached he will seek to increase it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We have sought and received a commitment from the BBC and IBA that, subject to satisfaction in cost and quality, 25 per cent. of original television output will be commissioned from independent producers by the end of 1992. There are no plans to include that target in legislation, but we attach great importance to its achievement and are in close touch with broadcasters and independent producers to monitor progress.

  Our White Paper on broadcasting proposes that from 1993 there should be a statutory requirement on all Channel 3 and 5 licensees for a minimum of 25 per cent. of original programming to come from independent producers. We will discuss with the BBC in due course the appropriate level of their commissioning from independent producers from 1993.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the established staff for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; by how many the actual staff is below that figure; and what steps he is taking to reduce the delays of the board in dealing with claims.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 3 April 1989, the board had 312·5 whole-time equivalent staff (7·5 whole-time equivalent staff below its complement of 320), including 31 casual staff engaged as part of the gradual relocation of about 100 posts from London to Glasgow. We have increased staff by about 100 since 1987 to meet the increase in workload, and with the board we are reviewing administrative procedures with the aim of reducing the time taken to resolve claims.

  Amusement Arcade Burnings
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the identity of the victims of the recent amusement arcade burnings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metroplis that the persons who died were Mr. Kandiahkanapathy Vinayagamoorthy, who was born on 2 June 1960 in Sri Lanka and Mr. Ambikaipahan Anapayan, born on 13 February 1968 in Sri Lanka. The injured persons were Miss Deborah Bernadine Alvares, born 20 August 1962 in east Africa, and Mr. Yurev Alejandro Gomez, born 25 November 1965 in Chile.

  Gambling (Young People)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the new evidence on the harmful effects on children and young people of the addiction to fruit machines and similar gambling practices and on Her Majesty's Government support for local authorities which are trying to control these activities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The results of the Home Office research study "Amusement Machines: Dependency and Delinquency" published last year showed that very few young people are at risk of becoming dependent on amusement machines and there is no clear evidence of any association between the playing of machines and delinquency. We have received no reliable new evidence to contradict these results or to throw doubt on the conclusion we reached that further legislative controls are therefore not justified.

  The Government fully support local authorities in their efforts to ensure the proper control of amusement-with-prizes machines. We issued a circular to all local authorities on 18 November to remind them of the considerable powers already available to them under the Gaming Act 1968 to regulate such machines in their areas. We have also consulted the local authority and trade associations on draft model byelaws controlling, among other things, the opening hours of amusement arcades and it is expected that model byelaws will be available for adoption in the summer.

  Mrs. Nighat Nisar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mrs. Nighat Nisar, Ref A 412514 and IMM/90791, applied to the British post in Islamabad for permission to join her husband in the United Kingdom; on what date her application was referred to him; and when he expects to take a decision on this application.

  Mr. Renton
  Mrs. Nisar applied for entry clearance on 20 July 1987. She and the sponsor, Mr. Ahmed, were interviewed in Islamabad on 28 October 1987 and the application was referred to the Home Office on 16 December 1987. It was found necessary to interview Mr. Ahmed further in order to establish where he was domiciled at the time the marriage was celebrated; this was undertaken by the entry clearance officer in Islamabad on 2 June 1988. Mrs. Nisar's application was refused on 14 March 1989 because her husband did not meet the domicile requirements for the marriage to be valid under English law. Mrs. Nisar has been informed of this decision and her right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities. This was not a straightforward case, but I regret the considerable delay in deciding it.

  Rape Victims
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on measures to protect the anonymity of rape victims in civil cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, as amended by section 158 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to publish or broadcast the name or address or a still or moving picture of a woman after an allegation has been made that she has been the victim of a rape offence, if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify her as an alleged victim of such an offence. The prohibition applies during the whole of the woman's lifetime, unless the courts make a specific direction to the contrary, and it applies whether proceedings follow or not; if they do, it applies in relation to civil as well as criminal proceedings. It is, however, a defence that the woman has given written consent for the matter to appear, provided that no person has unreasonably interfered with her peace or comfort with intent to obtain the consent. Prosecutions require the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The maximum penalty is a £2,000 fine.

ENERGY

  Roof Insulation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the amount of energy that would be saved by the implementation across the United Kingdom housing stock of the recommendation of the Building Research Establishment on the thickness of roof insulation.

  Mr. Peter Morris
  Where loft insulation is one inch or less, installation of an extra four inches could lead to an annual energy saving of some 0·73 million tonnes oil equivalent. However, householders are likely to want to opt at least in part for greater warmth rather than simply saving energy.
  328
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the tonnes of oil or coal equivalent that would be saved if 10 inches thickness of roof insulation were installed in every domestic property in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is estimated that installation of 10 inches of insulation in all domestic buildings with accessible lofts would lead to a potential annual saving of 2·6 million tonnes of coal equivalent (1·5 million tonnes of oil equivalent). However, insulation to that thickness would not be cost effective.

  CEGB
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman of the CEGB to discuss matters of common interest.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will invite the right hon. Member who was the Secretary of State for Energy when the Government gave planning permission for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to open on its completion in 1992.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion which I have passed on to the chairman of British Nuclear fuels plc.

  French Energy Minister
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met his French opposite number; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met his French opposite number very briefly in December 1987 to discuss the fast reactor.

  AGR Stations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the dates of full commissioning to their design capacity of the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations at Dungeness B, Hartlepool and Heysham I and II.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. The board informs me that both reactor units at Heysham II have operated at their design capacity and the station is expected to be commissioned in 1989. The reactor units at Hartlepool, Heysham I and Dungeness B have operated at substantial load but have not reached their design rating. The CEGB intends to declare interim capacities for these units during 1989.

  West Burton Power Station
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the date when the
  329
  Central Electricity Generating Board, or either of its successor generating companies, will submit a planning application for the proposed West Burton 1800 MW coal-fired power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB submitted an application last year for my right hon. Friend's consent to construct a new electricity generating station at West Burton.

  My right hon. Friend is awaiting confirmation from the Nottinghamshire county council, the Bassetlaw district council and the CEGB that agreement has been reached between them on certain outstanding matters before proceeding with his consideration of the application. These matters relate to access to the proposed site during construction of the station.

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the effects of increased energy prices on pensioners and the low paid.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of representations, amounting to 38 cases raised by hon. Members during the last three years and in the same period an average of one letter a week from the general public. However, over the past five years the fuel bills of pensioners and the low paid have fallen in real terms by 15 per cent., while pensions have risen in line with the retail price index.

  Power Station Capacity
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the size of the ordering programme for new power station capacity to the year 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In evidence to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry the Central Electricity Generating Board estimated that an additional 15·5 GW of generating capacity would be required by the year 2000.

  Small Mines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to amend the legislation governing the operation of small mines.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Such plans will form part of our privatisation programme in the next Parliament.

  European Market (Competition)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the possible effects of the European Commission initiative announced on 9 March demanding greater competition in Europe's electricity and coal markets.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The European Commission has publicised an intention to make proposals on these matters. However, none has yet been received by Her Majesty's Government. We would welcome effective moves towards greater competition in the Community's coal and electricity markets.

  Standing Charges
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the revenue total in 1989–90 according to British Gas and to the 12 area boards and two Scottish boards in the electricity supply industry from domestic standing charges.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Forward estimates of revenue from standing charges are not available to my Department. They are matters for British Gas plc and the electricity boards.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals are being considered for an employee share ownership scheme following privatisation of the electricity industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We shall make sure that special terms are available to enable employees to purchase shares in their companies. However, no decision on the type of offers that will be made to employees has yet been taken.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the direct cost of privatisation to the two Scottish boards and the 12 area boards in the electricity supply industry in 1989–90 when compiled on the same basis as the £76 million proposed to be shown in the accounts of the Central Electricity Generating Board and its successor companies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the two Scottish boards. The costs of preparing for the forthcoming privatisation, incurred by any of the 12 area boards or the two Scottish boards, are the responsibility of the boards themselves.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals are being considered for customer rights following privatisation of the electricity industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Bill currently before Parliament provides customers with a whole range of new rights which they have never had before, including a new system of guaranteed standards of performance with automatic compensation for failures to meet these standards, special consideration for the elderly and disabled and help for those who have difficulty in paying bills. The Director General of Electricity Supply will have the key role of protecting the consumers' interests, and he will be advised on all issues affecting the consumer by the new regional consumer committees.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the impact of privatisation on the number of employees employed by the electricity supply industry for 1988, 1990 and 1992.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Manning levels after privatisation will be a matter for the industry, as is the case now.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about how much an average householder's fuel bills could be reduced if tried and tested measures of energy conservation were adopted.
  331
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The scope for improvements in energy efficiency in individual dwellings varies considerably, depending on such factors as existing installations and the lifestyle of the occupants. However, over the country as a whole the scope for cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in the domestic sector estimated to allow savings of at least 20 per cent.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the electricity supply industry trade unions; and whether he will discuss the future of Marchwood Engineering Laboratories and the other research and development activities of the boards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the electricity supply industry trade unions from time to time. The future of Marchwood Engineering Laboratories is a matter for the CEGB and its successor companies, which have said that the decision to vacate this site would have been the same, whichever successor company Marchwood had been allocated to. I have been assured that this will in no way prejudice essential research into nuclear safety matters, which will either be completed or transferred elsewhere before the site is closed.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the impact on the average pensioner of fuel price increases over the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Between 1983 and 1988 the fuel bills both of pensioners and of the low paid are estimated to have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period, the state pension has risen in line with the retail price index.

  Low-energy Domestic Appliances
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the 12 area board chairmen and the chairman of the Electricity Council; and whether the future of the research work at the Capenhurst laboratory into low energy domestic appliances was discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the area boards and the chairman of the Electricity Council regularly to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, Baroness Hooper, has recently visited the Capenhurst laboratory and we appreciate the value of the work carried out there.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost of decommissioning the Magnox nuclear power stations(a) in the shortest technologically feasible time and (b) by the lowest book-keeping cost technique.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decommissioning Magnox nuclear power stations is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member about the estimates of cost.

  Wind Parks
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what would be the estimated size of a wind park with an output capacity of 1200 MW; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Michael Spicer
  It is estimated that the land area required for a wind farm with an installed capacity of 1200 MW might be between 110 and 140 square miles although there is still considerable uncertainty about this. It is likely that the machines required would be grouped within smaller wind farms, however. Currently, within my Department's research and development programme on wind energy, we are examining the environmental implications and public acceptability of wind farms. The programme is also examining constraints on the United Kingdom's total wind energy resource that would be imposed by such significant environmental factors as national parks, areas designated as being of outstanding natural beauty and urban land.

  Deep-mined Coal (Scotland)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board with regard to the future of deep mining coal burn in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently announced that British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board have been able to make substantial progress in their negotiations on a new coal deal. Negotiations on the details of an agreement, including the question of price, are however continuing, and are matters for commercial agreement. Pending completion of the detailed negotiations, the South of Scotland Electricity Board has confirmed that it will continue to take supplies from British Coal at the rate of 2 million tonnes per annum and British Coal has confirmed that it will continue to supply at this rate.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the impact on the retail prices index of the 1989–90 increases in domestc electricity prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The reported average increase of 6·4 per cent. in domestic electricity prices will add one sixth of 1 per cent. to the retail price index.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of where domestic electricity prices in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland will stand in 1989–90 in the league table of such prices in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Council undertakes an annual survey of electricity prices in 20 countries. This includes domestic electricity prices. On the basis of the latest comparison at 1 July 1988, prices in England and Wales were in the mid-range of domestic prices in the developed world generally. Domestic prices in Scotland are slightly lower than those in England and Wales.
  333
  On current projections of international prices, the United Kingdom will remain in the mid-range of prices after the 1989 tariff revision.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the changes in real terms of(a) domestic and (b) industrial prices between the periods 1974 to 1979 and 1983 to 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In the last five years of Labour Government, between May 1974 and May 1979, domestic electricity prices rose by 9 per cent. and industrial prices by 6 per cent. in real terms.

  In the last five years of Conservative Government, between December 1983 and December 1988, domestic electricity prices fell by 9 per cent. and industrial prices by 12 per cent. in real terms.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications he has received for the 11th offshore licensing round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A total of 125 applications were received for the 212 blocks on offer from groups involving 84 companies. In terms of the number of applications received, this was a large response and has been exceeded in only one other licensing round in the past 25 years. I hope to announce awards later this year, probably in the early summer.

  British Coal
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Alternative Energy
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to further encourage the private sector to research sources of alternative energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Energy paper 55, published in June 1988, laid out a strategy for encouraging the private sector to become involved in research, development and demonstration activities and eventually take these functions over from Government. The strategy is aimed at ensuring the full and timely commercial development of those renewable technologies shown to be economic, environmentally acceptable and capable of making a contribution to United Kingdom energy supply. It envisages a collaborative programme to the late 1990s involving Government and the manufacturing and energy supply industries to achieve the twin aims of encouraging and promoting the commercialisation of those technologies which are economically attractive, and reducing the uncertainty in the economics of those technologies currently classed as promising but uncertain so that, where possible, they become economic and confidence is created in them.

  Already 20 per cent. of the cost of our programme is met by external contributions and we expect this proportion to grow over the next few years as the private sector increases its involvement.

  Electricity Bills
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the percentage of all quarterly electricity bills sent out by estimation without a meter reading in 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member with the information requested in respect of England and Wales. The question of estimated electricity bills in Scotland should be pursued through my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further action he plans to take in order to increase his departmental contribution to alleviating the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has effective research and development programmes in energy efficiency and renewable energy. There is to be a new campaign to improve energy efficiency within Government and the public sector generally. Electricity privatisation will encourage greater efficiency, will maintain the level of non-fossil generation and will encourage the introduction of new, more efficient and less polluting technology including CHP and combined cycle gas turbines.

  Such actions, alongside funding of some of the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, are prudent now. When scientific understanding of this complex topic improves we, in conjunction with the wider international community, shall be in a position to undertake further appropriate action.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made by his Department in exploiting new and renewable sources of energy following the publication in 1988 of "Renewable Energy in the U.K.: The Way Forward".

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Since the publication of energy paper 55 in June 1988, 70 projects committing a further 14 million have been initiated as part of our strategy to develop economically attractive and environmentally acceptable renewable sources of energy. These include a number of collaborative projects with industry aimed at encouraging and promoting the commercialisation of those technologies which are economically attractive, and improving technical performance and reducing capital cost for those technologies currently classed as promising but uncertain.

  A comprehensive range of promotional literature is now available directed at both lay public audiences to raise general awareness about the prospects for renewable energy, and target professional audiences in particular market sectors to stimulate greater interest in the development of these technologies. Technology transfer plans are now being developed for each technology classed as economically attractive. Over the next year or two, increased effort will be placed on stimulating increased

  335
  industrial and commercial involvement in both the R and D programme and the uptake of economic technologies by industrial and commercial concerns.

  Redundant Miners
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on any proposed changes to the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) earlier today.

  Steel Industry (Electricity Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost of electricity supplied to the steel industry in England and Wales; what is the EEC average; and what is his latest estimate of the position of England and Wales in the EEC league table of electricity prices supplied to the steel industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information is not available in the detail sought.

  The latest Electricity Council survey of electricity prices in 20 countries, including the EEC, indicates that for a typical high voltage industrial customer electricity prices in England and Wales at 1 July 1988 were in the mid-range of prices in the EEC States and the developed world generally.

  Current estimates of industrial electricity prices internationally indicate that England and Wales will remain in the mid-range of prices in the EEC after the 1 April tariff revision.

  Electricity Demand
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by what percentage he expects demands for electricity to increase over the next five years; how this compares with five, 10, 15, and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In evidence to the Hinkley Point public inquiry, the CEGB estimated that electricity demand would rise by 2·1 per cent. per annum over the period to 1997, which represents a capacity requirement of 53·6 GW. This figure compares with peak capacity demands in 1984 of 41·9 GW; 1979–42·2 GW; 1974—40·9 GW and 1969—37·8 GW.

  European Community Energy Commissioner
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the EEC Commissioner for energy; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Commissioner Cardoso e Cunha on 16 March in London. Discussions covered arrangements for common carriage of electricity, prospects for coal in the United Kingdom, the JET project, the renewables and energy efficiency programmes and the Community directive on gas burn in power stations.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Inquiries)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will indicate the criteria used in determining when a public inquiry should be held into an application to build a nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Before reaching his decision on any application for his consent to construct an electricity generating station my right hon. Friend is obliged to hold a public inquiry into the application if a relevant local planning authority has objected to it.

  Even if there is no objection from a relevant local planning authority, my right hon. Friend can still call for a public inquiry to be held, if he thinks it appropriate, in the light of other objections received.

  Integrated Reactors
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the proposed Anglo-American consortium plans for a safe integrated reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Last December the Atomic Energy Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with Rolls-Royce Associates and others to proceed with the design and development of a 300 MW pressurised water reactor known as the safe integrated reactor. The Department is continuing to keep itself informed of developments.

  Fossil Fuel Imports
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the level of fossil fuel imports for the year 1990.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department does not publish forecasts of fossil fuel imports.

  Tidal Barriers
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the nation's energy requirements could be met by tidal barriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 30 January at column 88.

  EC Competition Commissioner
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the EEC Commissioner for competition; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have met the EC Commissioner for competition since his appointment.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the contribution of renewables to the supply of electricity in Britain by the year 2000 and 2010.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Renewable energy technologies are at an early stage of development and there is great uncertainty about future projections. The most recent estimates of the contribution that could be made by each renewable energy source in the year 2025 have been published in energy paper 55, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. Energy paper 55 estimates that by the year 2025 renewable energy might provide up to the equivalent of around 24 per cent. of supply electricity requirements if the technologies can be proven and applied commercially. No estimates are available for the years 2000 and 2010. It is Government policy to encourage the maximum exploitation of renewable sources of energy wherever they have prospects of being economically viable and environmentally acceptable.

  Sellafield (Visitors Centre)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of people to have visited the visitors centre at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nearly 145,000 people have visited the visitors centre at Sellafield since it was opened in June 1988.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the director general of Ofgas to discuss implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on gas prices.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend is due to meet the Director General of Gas Supply later this month when they will discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Tritium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current stockpile of tritium in the United 338
  Kingdom intended for (a) fusion energy reseach and (b) luminosity use; and what information he has of the amounts of tritium stockpiled and used for non-military purposes in other OECD countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is no stockpile of tritium in the United Kingdom for fusion research. No central records of commercial stocks of tritium are kept, but users have to be registered under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and are limited in the amount of tritium they are allowed to store on their premises. Their records are subject to regular inspections by the Department of the Environment. I have no information concerning overseas stockpiles of tritium.

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the date of the start of work on the oscillating water column project on Islay, the date of the completion of civil construction work on that project; and the date of the formal signature by his Department of the papers authorising this work.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department announced the construction of the shoreline wave energy project in Islay on 1 July 1987.

  Construction work was started at the beginning of August 1987. The construction and preliminary monitoring phase was successfully completed by the end of March this year. I announced to the House on 23 March that the next phase of the project, to install an air driven power turbine and generator, will now proceed, subject to contract, on the basis of the data acquired so far.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list the number and amounts of payments for work on wave energy in which settlement of the invoice by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was more than a year after the submission of the invoice; and if he will give the length of the delay in each case;

  (2) if he will list those contracts on wave energy research in which final signatures of the papers by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority officials was more than a year after the start of the contract; and if he will give the length of the delay in each instance.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dungeness B
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the cost, in terms of repairs and lost output, of the minor accident at Dungeness B nuclear power station on 5 February, in which a fuel rod fell into the reactor from the refuelling winch; and for how long the reactor will be out of service.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB and I have asked the chairman to reply diret to the hon. Member.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give the projected figure for the import of coal from the Soviet Union for each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement;
  339
  (2) if he will give figures for levels of coal imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal imports from the USSR since 1984 have been as follows:

  thousand tonnes

  1984

  11

  1985

  23

  1986

  48

  1987

  89

  1988

  375

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  In 1988 these imports accounted for 0·3 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for coal. The Government do not make projections of these coal imports.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sum of the grant-in-aid to the Medical Research Council was specifically directed to the study of the problems of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis in the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council did not support any research specifically concerning myalgic encephalomyelitis in 1988–89. It did, however, support some work on immune responses to muscles, nerve cells and related structures which may be relevant to the understanding and treatment of this condition. The Medical Research Council is always ready to consider soundly-based scientific proposals for funding of new research, in competition with other applications.

  Education Reform Act
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Government intend to issue orders under section 222 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government intend to make an order under section 222 of the Education Reform Act towards the end of May this year.

  Marine Engineering
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which universities, polytechnics and colleges of technology had departments of marine engineering in 1968 and in 1988; and how many undergraduate and postgraduate students each department had in 1968 and 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. In 1987–88 there were no postgraduate or first degree students studying marine engineering at polytechnics and colleges in England, although there were 471 sub-degree higher education students; information for 1968 is not available. Published statistics for university students studying mechanical engineering include students studying marine engineering and are shown in the following table. Comprehensive information for individual departments of marine engineering is not readily available.
  340

  University students studying mechanical engineering1

  1968–89 United Kingdom universities

  1987–88 Great Britain universities

  Full-time

  Postgraduate

  698

  875

  Undergraduate

  5,100

  5,872

  Part-time

  Postgraduate

  445

  461

  Undergraduate

  38

  20

  1 Includes marine engineering.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what safeguards exist under the provisions for delegated schools budgets to ensure that governors do not misuse their positions in respect of the placing of contracts with private companies.

  Mr. Butcher
  Governers are free to place contracts with whichever company offers the service which best meets their school's needs. There are a number of safeguards: the Education (School Government) Regulations prevent individual governors from participating in any decision in which they have a pecuniary interest; governors acting in bad faith over the placing of contracts, whether for gain or otherwise, would not be protected from personal liability; and the use of improper influence in the placing of contracts would also constitute grounds for the withdrawal of delegated responsibility.

  Student Unions
  Mr Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what arrangements he intends to make for consultation on the forthcoming publication of Government proposals on student unions;

  (2) when he intends to publish the Government's proposals arising from its survey of student unions; and what form the publication will take.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has prepared a factual analysis of responses to the survey of student unions announced by my right hon. Friend in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on 18 April 1988 at column 292. The analysis will be sent shortly for comment to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, the Standing Conference of Principals, the Association of Principals of Colleges and the National Union of Students. Thereafter, it will be published. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 17 February 1989 at column 415, the Government will now consider what action might be taken and in due course will consult all those concerned. The form of the consultations will depend on the nature of the conclusions reached.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average rise in salary for each of the last 10 years expressed in relation to the rise in average professional earnings for(a) scale 1 primary school teachers, (b) the average primary school teacher and (c) the heads of primary schools.
  341
  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Increases in average full-time primary teachers' salaries [relative to increases in professional earnings]

  Annual percentage increases:

  All Primary teachers1

  Relative to professional earnings2

  Scale One3

  Relative to professional earnings2

  Heads

  Relative to professional earnings2

  As at 1 April

  1980

  36·9

  + 8·7

  36·0

  + 7·9

  40·2

  + 11·2

  1981

  9·0

  -7·7

  9·9

  -6·9

  6·0

  -10·2

  1982

  7·6

  -0·2

  8·0

  + 0·2

  7·4

  -0·4

  1983

  5·8

  -2·3

  6·7

  -1·5

  3·9

  -4·1

  1984

  5·7

  -1·1

  6·3

  -0·5

  5·1

  -1·7

  1985

  7·3

  + 0·5

  7·7

  + 0·8

  6·8

  0

  1986

  7·3

  -2·1

  7·7

  -1·7

  7·1

  -2·3

  1987

  16·5

  + 7·4

  —

  —

  19·9

  + 10·6

  1988

  4·2

  -6·3

  —

  —

  4·2

  -6·3

  19894

  7·2

  —

  —

  —

  7·5

  —

  1 Based on the database of teacher records and relevant salary scales. Figures take account of salary drift and incentive allowances, and include the salaries of heads and deputies.

  2 Data is from the average gross earnings of full-time employees for combined occupation groups II, III & V, new earnings survey. Data for 1 April 1989 not yet available.

  3 Scale One teachers were incorporated on to the main scale on October 1987.

  4 Assuming adoption of the recommendations in the second report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average primary schoolteacher's rise in salary for each of the last 10 years in absolute cash terms, in real terms and in relation to the rise in average earnings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Increases in average full-time primary teachers' salaries

  Annual percentage increase:

  actual1

  in real terms2

  in relation to average earnings3

  As at 1 April

  1980

  36·9

  12·5

  +11·4

  1981

  9·0

  -2·7

  -3·9

  1982

  7·6

  -1·6

  -1·6

  1983

  5·8

  1·7

  -2·6

  1984

  5·7

  0·5

  -2·2

  1985

  7·3

  0·4

  0

  1986

  7·3

  4·2

  -0·6

  1987

  16·5

  11·7

  + 8·2

  1988

  4·2

  0·3

  -5·1

  19894

  7·2

  —

  —

  1 Based on database of teacher records and relevant salary scales. Figures take account of salary drift and incentive allowances, and include the salaries of heads and deputies.

  2 Derived from the retail price index. Data for 1 April 1989 not yet available.

  3 Data is from the average gross earnings of full-time employees (all occupations), new earnings survey. Data for 1 April 1989 not yet available.

  4 Assuming adoption of the recommendations in the second report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the estimated number of people graduating with first degrees in each of the years 1989 to 1995; and what number and what proportion of these 342
  totals for each year will need to be recruited into teaching to maintain current pupil to teacher ratios, on the assumption that relative pay and wastage continues at current levels.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: The latest available projections of the total numbers of first degree graduates in Great Britain, including Open university and overseas graduates, were published in the Government's expenditure plans 1989–90 to 1991–92 (Cm. 612). The numbers are shown below.

  Thousands

  1989

  133

  1990

  135

  1991

  136

  1992

  138

  The proportions of these graduates who will need to be recruited into teaching in order to maintain current pupil-teacher ratios will depend in part on the number of recruits from sources other than newly trained graduates.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid (Environmental Factors)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations has he received regarding the attention paid to environmental factors in the aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Environmental aspects of aid, including our commitment to sustainable development and such specific matters as rain forest conservation, are frequently raised by hon. Members and members of the public, as well as by the non-governmental organisations with which we have regular contact.

  Forestry
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support for forestry is provided under the overseas aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have committed about £80 million to forestry projects currently underway. We are encouraging aid recipients to direct more of our aid to forestry and we are increasing our support through British charities and for forestry research. We shall also encourage other donors, including multilateral agencies, to give more support to forestry.

  British Undergraduate Fellowship Scheme (South Africa)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future plans for the British undergraduate fellowship scheme, South Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are increasing the number of awards available for undergraduate level studies by disadvantaged South Africans, some of whom will continue to be sponsored on courses in this country under the British undergraduate fellowship scheme.

  Namibia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria will determine(a) which organisations in Namibia may receive development aid and (b) the amount of development aid available to Namibia in the run-up to the independence of that country.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  From 1 April 1990 we expect to provide aid to Namibia on the same basis as to other independent countries. In the meantime, we plan to continue with the existing programme and to make preparations for future activities. In the financial year just ended disbursements on our Namibian programme amounted to about £1·5 million.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I visited Sri Lanka in March 1988, when I signed a £20 million reconstruction grant for projects and programmes in the north and east of the island.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to Dr. John Proctor and the forest regeneration team at Maraca on their work on management of regeneration where rain forests have been destroyed and abandoned and on why rain forests end abruptly and give way to natural savanna.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since 1987 the ODA has committed £80,500 in support of the forest regeneration team which forms part of the Maraca rain forest project organised by the Royal Geographical Society.
  344
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies he is financing in the Maraca project or elsewhere to help stem forest destruction by better understanding of the significance of different soil types.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The soil studies of the Maraca project, which the ODA helps to fund, are directed to this end by, for example, helping to understand the relationships between the forest and the soil in the critical boundary zone between the rainforest and the savanna woodland. Examples of other ODA activities include the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute's land use work in Belize, Cameroon, Indonesia and Sri Lanka and the ODA-supported land use studies being carried out by the World Wide Fund for Nature in Cameroon and Nigeria.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to monitor the work of the joint Brazil—United Kingdom research project on Maraca Island in the Amazon.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODA's forestry and environment advisers have been monitoring the project on the basis of regular reports from the research team since April 1987. A review conference took place in Brazil from 3 to 5 April; we expect a report from the Royal Geographical Society.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given, pursuant to the statement on 13 March Official Report, column 170, to the report of Mr. Philip Morrice on fire-fighting and related equipment for saving the Amazon forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Mr. Morrice reported that the Brazilian authorities needed aircraft, vehicles, patrol boats and telecommunications equipment for fire fighting. I understand that the Brazilian Government are formulating an environmental project, which would cover fire fighting equipment, for consideration by the World Bank. We are discussing with the Brazilians what technical cooperation we could offer in the area of rain forest management and protection.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) multilateral and (b) bilateral research with Brazil on rainforest problems.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Multilateral assistance for research in the Brazilian rain forest has been provided over a number of years through the FAO. Additional proposals are being considered by the International Tropical Timber Organisation and the World Bank. Bilaterally we are currently considering with the Brazilian authorities how and where we might provide further support for their programmes of research on rainforest problems.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the statement of 13 March,Official Report, column 172, to what debt-for-nature swop the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), was referring following his visit to Bolivia; and what lessons have been learned.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My hon. Friend was referring to the arrangement agreed between the United States charity,
  345
  Conservation International, and the Bolivian Government in July 1987. I understand that Conservation International bought $650,000 of Bolivia's commercial bank debt at an 85 per cent. discount. In return for cancellation of the debt the Bolivian Government undertook to implement conservation measures in the Beni Biosphere reserve in northern Bolivia. Although it is too early to judge the outcome of the scheme, we believe that this type of market based debt reduction mechanism can play a modest but useful role in augmenting the resources available for conservation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what request he has received from the Brazilian Government for(a) further technical co-operation and (b) co-operation to understand the genetic potential of the Amazon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  During his visit to London in March, the Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked us to suggest further work under the aid programme to help cope with problems of the rainforests. We shall be writing shortly offering assistance in one or more of several areas: genetic resources, social forestry and forestry management and further help for research projects like the Maraca project. The Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry of the Interior called on me on 6 April and undertook to send proposals for additional aid projects in this area. We offered help in training and institutional links. I hope to send out professional advisers shortly to discuss the details with the Brazilian authorities.

  Ethiopia and Sudan (Aid)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom aid to Ethiopia and the Sudan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We maintain a small technical co-operation programme for Ethiopia, but the bulk of our aid has been in the form of emergency and relief assistance (more than £21 million in 1988 through bilateral and European Community channels).

  In the case of Sudan, we have a substantial development aid programme, totalling about £18 million in 1988. We also gave an additional £14·4 million last year, through bilateral and European Community channels, in emergency and relief aid.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Reform
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many local prosecutors have issued instructions to their staff not to comment on the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers on legal reform; and whether he has issued such an instruction.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has reminded all members of the Crown prosecution service that, in accordance with standard Civil Service practice, they should not comment publicly on matters of current political controversy. The director has expressed the view that if members of staff wish to make comments on issues raised in the Green Paper, the most appropriate course is to send them to the working party 346
  which has been set up under the chairmanship of the deputy director-chief executive to consider the Department's response to the Lord Chancellor's proposals.

  All chief crown prosecutors have taken steps to ensure that their staff are aware of the director's views. In addition, one chief Crown prosecutor has informed staff that he will forward their views to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that they are not otherwise to comment, and one chief Crown prosecutor has issued instructions that his staff should consult him before commenting.

  I have not issued any such instruction.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the savings to clients in the cost of provision of legal services which would arise from the Lord Chancellor's proposals for the legal profession.

  The Attorney-General
  The purpose of the Government's provisional proposals is to ensure that the public are provided with the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economical price. No assessment has yet been made of the potential savings to clients.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received on the Green Paper proposals on reforming the legal system with respect to their effect on the constitutional relationship between the Government and the judiciary.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 31 March 1989 a total of 72 such responses had been received.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Land Registry to become an agency.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry's candidacy as an agency has been announced, but no date has yet been fixed for it to assume agency status.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many qualified lawyers are employed by the Crown prosecution service; and how many of these are also qualified as barristers.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest figures available were given to the hon. Gentleman in my written answer of 16 March 1989. On 31 December 1988 the Crown prosecution service had 1,539 qualified lawyers in its employment, of whom 549 were barristers.

  Appeals
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his estimate of the costs to the Crown prosecution service of employing barristers in Crown court appeals againt sentence or conviction and committals for sentence in(a) Greater London and (b) Manchester at the latest available year.

  The Attorney-General
  Barristers employed by the Crown prosecution service do not have rights of audience in the Crown court. The average fees paid to counsel instructed to appear on behalf of the CPS in such cases for the period 1 April to 31 December 1988, the only period for which such information is available were:
  347

  £

  Appeals against sentence

  72

  Appeals against conviction

  121

  Committals for sentence

  74

  The information given is for the three London Crown prosecution service areas, whose boundaries extend beyond Greater London. Separate figures for Greater London are not available.

  The equivalent figures for Greater Manchester are:

  £

  Appeals against sentence

  81

  Appeals against conviction

  132

  Committals for sentence

  84

  Public Defender System
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will arrange for an experiment with a public defender service as recommended by the Hughes royal commission.

  The Attorney-General
  The experiment recommended by the Royal Commission on legal services in Scotland (Cmnd. 7846) was limited to the Scottish jurisdiction. There are no plans to examine the case for a public defender service in England and Wales.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the serious fraud office; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  On Monday 3 April. We discussed matters of departmental interest.

  Legal Profession (Complaints)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received on the case for renewing the procedure for making complaints against members of the legal profession, and for dealing with such complaints more effectively.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 31 March a total of 56 such responses had been received.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  On 3 April. We discussed matters relating to the Department.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters will be discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  On 27 April. We intend to discuss a variety of matters of departmental interest.

  Incitement to Murder
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received regarding the range of penalties available to the court for incitement to murder.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  "Fighting on Two Fronts"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the legal implications of the forthcoming publication of the book entitled, "Fighting on Two Fronts", by Fred Holroyd.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the appeal on behalf of Mr. Shaukat Ali (Ref: IMM/82875) into the refusal to grant him entry clearance into the United Kingdom for marriage is expected to be heard in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  The appeal papers were received at the immigration appellate authorities headquarters on 25 January 1989. There has been a delay in processing the papers, but they have now been sent to the IAA's office in Leeds. They will be forwarded to the appellant's representatives in the United Kingdom and to the respondent within the next few days. Thereafter, when both parties indicate their readiness to proceed, the appeal will be listed for hearing in Leeds within six weeks.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Relief Agencies
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage voluntary giving to relief agencies.

  Mr. Lilley
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to charitable relief agencies. If so, I refer him to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 16 March at columns 300–1.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for single persons, one-earner married couples and two-earner married couples above and below pension age the number of tax units in each revenue band of £1,000 to £15,000, £2,500 to £25,000 and in available bands thereafter, together with the forecast revenue from income tax in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provisional estimates for the 1989–90 tax regime, based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes, are given in the table.
  349

  Number of tax units and tax liability by range of total income 1989–90

  Single

  Married couple with wife's earnings

  Married couple without wife's earnings

  Total income (lower limit (£pa)

  Number of units paying tax ('000s)

  Tax yield (£ millions)

  Number of units paying tax ('000s)

  Tax yield (£ millions)

  Number of units paying tax ('000s)

  Tax yield (£ millions)

  Tax units under 65

  2,000

  140

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  790

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  740

  300

  —

  —

  60

  10

  5,000

  790

  500

  10

  1

  150

  40

  6,000

  900

  760

  20

  10

  230

  90

  7,000

  910

  880

  40

  10

  230

  140

  8,000

  810

  950

  90

  40

  210

  130

  9,000

  580

  790

  80

  40

  270

  230

  10,000

  1,080

  1,910

  290

  240

  590

  690

  12,000

  1,070

  2,460

  740

  970

  880

  1,540

  15,000

  700

  2,060

  1,460

  3,130

  860

  2,240

  20,000

  350

  1,520

  1,690

  6,200

  560

  2,310

  30,000

  90

  760

  700

  5,020

  230

  2,030

  50,000

  30

  850

  180

  3,920

  100

  2,650

  Tax units aged 65 and over

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  120

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  220

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  200

  100

  10

  1

  40

  1

  6,000

  170

  130

  20

  1

  80

  20

  7,000

  100

  100

  20

  10

  120

  60

  8,000

  90

  110

  30

  10

  100

  70

  9,000

  50

  70

  50

  30

  80

  80

  10,000

  90

  160

  90

  90

  90

  120

  12,000

  70

  190

  90

  160

  90

  190

  15,000

  70

  250

  100

  260

  80

  240

  20,000

  50

  250

  130

  570

  50

  250

  30,000

  20

  210

  60

  520

  30

  300

  50,000

  20

  430

  20

  490

  20

  500

  1 Less than £5 million or 5,000.

  Schedule E Taxation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in salary bands of £20,000 to £30,000, £30,000 to £40,000, £40,000 to £50,000, £50,000 to £6,000, £60,000 to £70,000 and £70,000 upwards are assessed on an accounts basis rather than an accruals basis for schedule E purposes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of higher rate taxpayers on Schedule E and their average income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1989–90, about 1·2 million tax units (single people and married couples) whose main source of income is schedule E are liable to higher rate income tax. Their average income is just under £45,000 per annum. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and is provisional.

  London Tax Districts
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many London tax districts are being moved from London under the exit London programme; to which locations they are being moved; and how many staff are involved in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under the exit London programme, nine London tax districts have already moved 350
  and a further 12 are planned to be moved in the next two years. The receiving locations are Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol and Solihull and the approximate numbers of posts involved are 16, 35, 23, 33, 26 and 33 respectively.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by the Inland Revenue 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 Inland Revenue in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The amount spent by the Inland Revenue in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases was £14·6 million.

  The Inland Revenue awarded the following consultancy contracts in 1988:

  Arthur Young—Financial Systems

  Panacea—Projects Support

  ICS (Sales) Ltd—Development of local systems

  Compass Ltd—Capacity planning

  Coopers & Lybrand—Review of Payroll System

  BIS Applied Systems—Contingency Planning

  Industrial Society—Assistance with "Team Briefing"

  Inforam—BROCS Project Office consultancy

  Expertech—Expert System development in Information Centre

  351

  F1 Group—Leeds Underwriters unit development

  Nicol, Jones & Lomax—Matheson House Planning

  Oasis—Customer support activities

  The Plan—Matheson House planning

  Humphrey & Associates—Review of cost control package

  NRPB—VDU radiation survey

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) 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;

  (2) what was the total amount spent by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Motivation Strategy Limited

  Non-cash incentives.

  Moody International Developments

  Materials handling.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Assistance with GAD Management Review.

  ICL

  Computer Software Modification.

  Scicon

  Computer Software Modification.

  B Toyn

  Preparation of CUP guidance on planning and progress monitoring in relation to capital expenditure contracts.

  M N Pickett

  Advice on contracts and contract conditions and preparation of CUP guidance on de-briefing.

  M W King

  Preparation of CUP guidance on contracting out of departmental purchasing activities.

  F Griffiths

  Preparation of CUP guidance on the appointment of consultants, engineers and architects.

  P A Gee

  Preparation of CUP guidance on stock management and computer systems for purchasing and supply.

  A N Fegent

  Preparation of CUP guidance on stock control.

  R Davidson

  Production of CUP guidances on quality assurance—principles and terminology; quality systems; project sponsorship—planning and progress monitoring; and project sponsorship—role of project sponsor and relationship with PSA.

  D S Collins

  Advice on CUP guidance on good buying practice and model conditions of contract.

  I Billson

  Production of CUP guidance on Performance Measurement.

  C D Boylan

  Advice on issues relating to the introduction of project sponsorship and "untying" of services from PSA.

  Treehouse International Ltd.

  Production of Standards and Quality Assurance Procedures.

  Treehouse International Ltd.

  Infrastructure Library Presentation Design Study.

  Treehouse International Ltd.

  Information Systems Strategy Guidelines.

  Computer System Architects

  Provision of a Systems Consultant.

  Castel Computers and Systems Telecommunication Ltd.

  Verification of Electronically Reproduced Data in Court (VERDICT).

  R M O'Connor

  IT Standards Catalogue updates and enhancements.

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  Consultancy for Information Systems Evaluation Guides.

  Praxis System Plc

  Technical Writing and Production of Information Systems Guides.

  352
  list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr Peter Brooke
  [holding answers 4 April 1989]: Total Treasury expenditure in 1988 was some £6·0 million (including some £5·6 million by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency). Figures given include the cost of development studies, which in turn included the cost of associated hardware and software; the latter items are not separately identifiable.

  The following management or computer consultancy contracts were awarded by Her Majesty's Treasury in 1988. With the exception of the first 15, all were placed by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
  353

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Proteo Software Inc.

  Study on User System Interaction Tools and Techniques.

  Rede Group Consultancy and Training

  Audit Procedures for Quality Assurance.

  Batalas Ltd.

  Quality Review

  Rede Group Consultancy and Training

  Development of Government Quality Management Systems.

  Rede Group Consultancy and Training

  Development of Audit Procedures for Quality Manual (Phase 2).

  Rede Group Consultancy and Training

  Study on Quality Standards.

  Rede Group Consultancy and Training

  ISO 9001 Certification work.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Study of the Feasibility of developing a Computer Based Tool to aid the development and exposition of Methods.

  Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd.

  Comparison of Quality Standards.

  Digitex Ltd.

  Production of Infrastructure Management Guides.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Production of Honeywell Bull Profile.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Production of Digital Equipment Company Profile.

  SIA Ltd.

  Provision of a Systems Consultant.

  British Telecom plc

  Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) version 4.

  Babelease Ltd.

  Study of the role of Standards within the Architecture of Infrastructure Management Tools.

  Babelease Ltd.

  Information Model for Infrastructure Management Support Tools.

  Protocol International Ltd.

  Technical and Quality Assurance Consultancy.

  Yale Data Management Consultants Ltd.

  Provision of a Systems Consultant.

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Assistance with Government IT Infrastructure Management Methodology (GITTIMM) Network Management Module.

  Arthur Andersen & Co.

  Government IT Infrastructure Management Methodology (GITTIMM) Development Study—Quality Assurance Module.

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  Government IT Infrastructure Management Methodology (GITTIMM) Development Study—Software Control and Distribution Module.

  Computer Sciences Co. Ltd.

  Development of Government IT Infrastructure Management Methodology (GITTIMM) Modules.

  BIS Applied System Ltd.

  IT organisation and Change Management.

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  Government Data Network (GDN) Evaluation Contract.

  Amtec Consulting Ltd.

  Consultancy for providing a Catalogue of Standard.

  EOSYS Ltd.

  Consultancy support for the Network Management System (NMS) Project.

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.

  SSADM/CRAMM Compatibility Study.

  Deuce Computer Systems Ltd.

  Support and Production of CRAMM User Guide.

  Deuce Computer Systems Ltd.

  Production of PEIPS Documents.

  Touche Ross

  Provision of a System Consultant.

  PE Computer Services Ltd.

  Provision of a Systems Consultant.

  Sergent Baker

  Production of Information Systems Guide A4.

  Insight International Ltd.

  Adaptation and extension of Plexus Software for incorporation into IMSE Demonstrator.

  354 355

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Logica Consultancy Ltd.

  Consultant for Documentation of draft Requirements for Infrastructure Management Support Tools.

  System Designers Scientific

  Public Domain Expert Systems Methodology.

  The Instruction Set Ltd.

  Common Applications Environment for Government Study.

  Electronic Facilities Design Ltd.

  Consultancy for the Revision of MEVIOTS—Method for Evaluating the Impact of Office Systems.

  Logica Communications and Electronic Systems Ltd.

  Development Study into Network Service Access Point (NSAP)— address allocation requirement in Government.

  Kermon Associates Ltd.

  Government Data Network (GDN) Strategic Planning.

  Ultracomp Ltd.

  Development of a Service Level Agreement Manager.

  Metron Technology Ltd.

  Development of a Computer-Based Link between GITTIMM support tool and SSADM support tool.

  Martin Ashley Design Associates

  Symbol Design for the Advanced Technology Group.

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Development Contract for SSADM Conformance Scheme.

  CAP Industry Ltd.

  Study into the practicalities of harmonising SSADM and MERISE.

  Babelease Ltd.

  Development Study to produce a generic Model of Expert System Tools.

  British Telecom plc

  CBX System Design Study.

  Stage 3 Solutions Ltd.

  Completion of Must 3.

  Software Sciences Ltd.

  Development of ECLIPSE Software.

  International Computers Ltd (ICL)

  Computer Aide Support Environment (CASE) phase 2 and Phase 3.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the effects on British industry of increased interest rates over the last six months.

  Mr. Major
  Inflation is the greatest threat to corporate prosperity. British industry will greatly benefit from the Government's firm anti-inflationary policy.

  EC Finance
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out Britain's net payment to the European Community for each of the financial years 1980, 1984 and 1988, with the equivalent figures for France and Germany in constant money terms.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The information requested for the United Kingdom is set out below. Equivalent figures for other member states are not available.

  Net contributions to the EC budget

  (£ million)

  Year

  Cash Value

  At constant 1988 prices1

  1980

  706

  1,138

  1984

  656

  802

  21988

  1,362

  1,362

  1 Constant prices have been constructed using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  2 Provisional figure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Lord Chancellor in Washington, United States of America, to members of the United States legal profession represented Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the right of silence.

  The Prime Minister
  Government policy continues to be that there is a strong case for substantial changes in the law of England and Wales, but that their precise nature will be decided in the light of the recommendations made by the Home Secretary's working group, whose report is due shortly.

  Ministers (House of Lords)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister how many government Ministers were members of the House of Lords; and what percentage of the total those ministers represented in(a) 1959, (b) 1964, (c) 1966, (d) 1970, (e) 1974, (f) 1979, (g) 1985, (h) 1986 and (i)

  The Prime Minister
  The figures are as follows:

  Number of Ministers who were Members of the House of Lords

  Year1

  Total number of Ministers

  Ministers in the House of Lords

  Percentage

  1959

  89

  19

  21

  1964

  97

  24

  25

  1966

  110

  20

  18

  1970

  99

  17

  17

  1974

  99

  21

  21

  1979

  108

  16

  15

  1985

  106

  20

  19

  357

  Year1

  Total number of Ministers

  Ministers in the House of Lords

  Percentage

  1986

  107

  21

  20

  1987

  107

  21

  20

  1 Figures relate to 1 January in each year.

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the duties and responsibility of Mr. Charles Powell in January 1986 and the position he has since occupied in her office.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Powell was appointed to my office in June 1984 as my private secretary responsible for foreign affairs.

  Sir Leon Brittan
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of Sir Leon Brittan's recent remarks, she will make a further statement on the approval which was given by her office for the leaking of the then Solicitor-General's letter regarding the Westland affair.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the many answers given in statements and in reply to questions on this subject.

  Mr. B. Ingham
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will now transfer Mr. B. Ingham from her office.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Namibia
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Secretary General of the United Nations informed her that his report to the United Nations Security Council on Namibia should be kept confidential.

  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said during business questions on 6 April 1989, I was not aware that the document in question was confidential until after I referred to it in the House on 4 April 1989.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Turkish authorities about the persistent abuse of human rights in Turkey;

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government will urge the Turkish Government to take specific measures against the use of torture in their country, including limiting the length of incommunicado detention, rejecting as evidence in court confessions extracted under torture and reforming the Turkish penal code to allow full freedom of expression and association;

  (3) when he will next meet representatives of the Turkish Government to discuss the concern raised by hon. and right hon. Members about the human rights situation in Turkey.
  358
  Mrs. Chalker
  As I informed the House on 7 and 8 February, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed human rights with the Turkish ambassador on 1 February, as I did the following day. We urged him that his Government should respect and abide by the terms of the international human rights conventions to which Turkey is a party. The Turkish ambassador readily accepted this point, and reaffirmed the determination of his Government to secure further improvements. We also expect Turkey to live up to internationally accepted standards concerning the treatment of prisoners. We have no immediate plans to meet any other representative of the Turkish Government.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised with the Palestine Liberation Organisation the implications for the peace process in the middle east of the statement in call number 37, broadcast by PLO Central Radio on 31 March, that 5 April was to be a day of violent struggle involving knives, axes and large stones pushed from rooftops and 8 and 9 April were to be devoted to violent militant activities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The Palestinians are already aware of our view that the intifada should be pursued with the utmost restraint.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount for each of the last four years spent by the European Parliament on Members of the European Parliament's private expenses, broken down into(a) secretarial, (b) hotel and accommodation, (c) travel and (d) other expenses; and what was the average amount in each category per Member for the last available year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested is not immediately available. A further reply will be given in due course.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he will make to the European Parliament report containd in document A2–425/88 which calls for the merging of the European Community and Western European Union.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The report in question is a Committee report which has not been debated at a European Parliament plenary session. There are no plans for such a merger.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to request the Council of Ministers of the European Community to draw to the attention of the European Parliament and its Committees the exclusion of defence matters from their competence.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. The European Parliament is an independent Community institution. It is not for the Council to determine what the Parliament may discuss.

  Namibia
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom
  359
  contribution to the European Community grant to promote democracy in Namibia; and if he will make a statement on how it is to be distributed to the parties concerned in the forthcoming elections.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have checked with the European Commission, which is not aware of any such grant. Provision for measures in preparation for Namibian independence was written into the Community's 1989 budget, but no money has yet been allocated to that budget line.

  European Community assistance to Namibia to date has consisted of support for non-governmental organisations, food aid and assistance to Namibian refugees.

  Sugar
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom Government will support proposals to maintain the price of sugar imported under the sugar protocol from African, Caribbean and Pacific states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The guaranteed price paid to the ACP for imports of sugar under the Lomé sugar protocol is related to the level of support prices for EC-produced sugar. The latter are set annually as part of the CAP price fixing exercise. Discussions are continuing in Brussels on this year's prices.

  European Assembly
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent decisions have been taken by the European Economic Community Council about the attendance of ministers and officials of national Governments at meetings and committees of the European Assembly.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Apart from normal presidency contacts with the European Parliament, representatives of EC Member states may accept invitations to attend and speak at plenary meetings and committees of the European Parliament.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mrs. Shahnaz Akhtar, (ref: IMM/96739), who was born on 5 July 1966 was not given a re-entry visa at the British port at Islamabad to return with her husband to the United Kingdom where they have both lived for some years, after their recent holiday in Pakistan; why was she told she would have to apply for entry clearance to the United Kingdom and issued with an entry clearance reference number; why her husband was told to send various documents to the post on his return to the United Kingdom; and if he will compensate Mrs. Akhtar and her husband for the inconvenience and distress caused by their separation as a result of the refusal of the post to assist Mrs. Akhtar to return to the United Kingdom with her husband.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member when a full report is received from the embassy in Islamabad.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mrs. Rubina Kausar,360
  who was born on 3 March 1968, applied to the British post in Islamabad for entry clearance to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and when a decision will be taken on her application.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Embassy in Islamabad is unable to trace an application for entry clearance from Mrs. Kauser. If the hon. Member can supply the immigration section file reference number and date of application I will ask the embassy to make a further search.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Abdul Sattar (ref: IMM/77322) applied to the British post in Islamabad for entry clearance to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and when a decision will be taken on his application.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Sattar re-applied for a settlement entry clearance at the embassy in Islamabad on 13 May 1987 and was refused a visa on 9 August 1988. Mr. Sattar appealed against the refusal and the entry clearance officer's explanatory statement was forwarded to the appellate authority on 8 February 1989.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Shaukat Ali, ref: IMM/82875, applied to the British post in Islamabad for entry into the United Kingdom for marriage; when his application was refused; and when the British post sent a statement to the United Kingdom appellate authorities explaining why his application was refused.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Ali applied for an entry clearance at the embassy in Islamabad on 17 September 1986. His application was refused on 25 April 1988 and the entry clearance officer's explanatory statement was sent to the appellate authorities on 12 January 1989.

  Semtex
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received to requests made to the Czechoslovak Government to ensure that future production of Semtex is given a readily readable signature to assist in the fight against air terrorism.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As part of a wider initiative for an international convention on the subject the Czechoslovak Government have expressed willingness to mark Semtex. We are currently discussing with them how to take this forward. Both we and the Czechoslovak Government were represented at an expert meeting under ICAO auspices from 6 to 10 March. The Czechoslovak Government have informed us that they have never knowingly supplied explosives to terrorists and ceased all exports of Semtex in 1982.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by the Government since 1979 in fighting cases before the European Court of Human Rights up to and including the hearing of 28 March; how much has been paid for the instruction of lawyers; what are the estimated costs in employees' time, travelling and accommodation costs of officials involved in these cases; how much has been paid out in costs or expenses and compensation by the
  361
  Government following rulings by the court; and if he will list the sums involved in each case which has reached a ruling stage.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This information is not immediately available. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dip
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an amnesty scheme whereby farmers can return to his Department's offices partly used or unused containers of sheep dip of a lindane base.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no plans to do so. Farmers wishing to dispose of such chemicals are advised to consult a reputable waste disposal company.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revise his booklet, "Guidelines for the Disposal of Unwanted Pesticides and Containers on Farms and Holdings", especially in regard to sheep dip.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In consultation with the working group on the disposal of pesticides, my Department is reviewing and revising the guidance available to farmers. A revised code of practice on pesticide use should be available at the end of the year. Sheep dips are veterinary medicines and are being considered separately. Any changes in the guidance offered to farmers will be reflected in the labelling of sheep dips, in the code of conduct for the safe use of veterinary medicines on farms and in my Department's leaflets and booklets on sheep dipping.

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in(a) England and (b) Wales received annual incomes from farming of (i) less than £4,999, (ii) £5,000 to £7,499, (iii) £7,500 to £9,999, (iv) £10,000 to £14,999, (v) £15,000 to £19,999 and (vi) £20,000, respectively, for the latest convenient year.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that this information is not available in the precise form requested. The farm business survey does, however, allow estimates to be made of the proportional breakdown of full-time farm businesses by income band. Information relating to the latest available year, 1987–88, is shown in the table.

  Percentage distribution of full-time farm businesses in England and Wales by net farm income: 1 2 All types of farm—1987–88

  Level of net farm income

  England

  Wales3

  Below £5,000

  40

  38

  £5,000 to £7,499

  8

  13

  £7,500 to £9,999

  9

  6

  £10,000 to £14,999

  11

  14

  £15,000 to £19,999

  9

  9

  £20,000 and above

  21

  19

  All income bands

  100

  100

  1 Figures are derived from data collected in the farm business survey by universities and agricultural colleges in England and Wales.

  362
  2 Net farm income represents the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on tenant type capital in livestock, crops, machinery etc. but excluding land and buildings. It is calculated before the deduction of interest on any farming loans. All farms are treated as rented in the derivation of net farm income and an imputed rental value for owner-occupied land is charged as an expense in the accounts.

  3 Figures for Wales relate to all dairy and livestock farms only.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from local authorities concerning their powers to accept other than the lowest tenders for sea defence schemes constructed of tropical timber, in order that the timber can be obtained from sources that can be guaranteed to be sustainable and non-destructive of tropical rain forests; and what advice has been given to any such authorities.

  Mr. Ryder
  There has been one occasion when a local authority has wished to accept a tender, which was other than the lowest submitted, utilising timber obtained from a sustainable source. On this occasion, it was possible for the purposes of Ministry grant aid to the scheme to agree to the council's wishes, as this was justified on both the longer-term durability and economic advantage of the preferred timber, and also on the grounds of ensuring, where possible, that timber is obtained from sustainable sources.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the advisability of abolishing the Potato Marketing Board;

  (2) what plans he has to meet members of the Potato Marketing Board to discuss its future;

  (3) when he expects to announce the action to be taken by his Department as a result of the recent review of the Potato Marketing Board;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government's consultation paper on future potato market policy was issued on 6 September 1988 and invited comments by 31 December 1988. By the closing date, 93 individuals and organisations (including the Potato Marketing Board) had commented, and I have received numerous representations since then. In addition, I met the chairman, vice chairman and chief executive of the Potato Marketing Board on 8 March. We are now considering what conclusions to draw from this exercise, and an announcement will not be unduly delayed.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy concerning the irradiation of food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 21 February at column 600.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of cattle currently incubating bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Any estimate must be tentative. However, the report of the Southwood working party on BSE estimates that by 1993, the cumulative total of confirmed BSE cases may be about 17,000 to 20,000.

  Edible Dormice
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions during each of the last three years he has issued licences to trap edible dormice; to whom those licences were issued; and what information he records about the number of animals so taken.

  Mr. Ryder
  Licences to trap glis glis (edible dormouse) were issued under section 16(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on four occasions in the last three years. The licences were issued to occupiers of commercial forests where this non-indigenous animal was causing serious damage. It was a condition of each licence that the numbers of glis glis taken should be reported to the Ministry. Details are as follows:

  Year

  Number taken

  1986 1 Licence

  4

  1987 lst Licence

  43

  2nd Licence

  14

  1988 1 Licence

  6

  Committee on Food Safety
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he intends to appoint some independent consumers to his committee on food safety;

  (2) when he intends to announce the membership of the committee on food safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on 23 March at column 771.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is currently funding into organic farming.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following projects are currently being funded by my Department:

  1. Winter wheat: disease control in crops grown to organic standards (ADAS).

  2. Winter wheat varieties and seed rates for organic systems (ADAS).

  3. The nitrogen cycle on organic farms. (University College of Wales—Aberystwyth).

  4. The use of under sown forage legumes in cereals for nitrogen accumulation in organic arable systems. (Elm Farm Research Centre).

  5. The availability of water insoluble phosphate and potash sources in organic farming systems. (Elm Farm Research Centre).

  364

  6. Mixed cropping of cereals and grain legumes (in organic farming). (Reading University/Elm Farm Research Centre).

  In addition, other research funded by my Department is relevant because it is directed at reducing the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, or improving the use of organic wastes from animals and crops.

  Farming Industry
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the Government's long-term intentions for the British farming industry, separately for each sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government continue to provide substantial direct and indirect financial support to the agriculture industry.

  The Government's intention is that the United Kingdom agriculture industry should be soundly based and competitive in marketing its products. In particular, the industry needs to prepare itself to take full advantage of the opportunities and challenges which the completion of the single European market of 320 million consumers will bring.

  In EC negotiations and domestically the Government will continue to:

  promote the role of the market as the key determinant of farmers' choice of action;

  press for measures which bring supply and demand into better balance;

  seek to reduce further the role of institutional support; demand fair competition with no discrimination between member states.

  The Government also advocate policies aimed at helping to achieve a better balance between agricultural production and the needs of the rural economy and environment as a whole.

  A number of new initiatives have been introduced to encourage farmers to consider ways of utilising their assets to augument their income in ways which reduce surplus production. These include set aside, and the farm woodlands and diversification schemes.

  Grain Supplies
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days' supply of grain are currently in store in the United Kingdom(a) in intervention storage and (b) in all storage.

  Mr. Ryder
  Current United Kingdom intervention stocks of wheat and barley represent around 21·5 days' supply of grain. Information on the quantity of grain currently in commercial storage is not available.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the latest estimate of the stocks of grain which will be in store in July 1989(a) in Britain, (b) in the European Economic Community and (c) in the world, expressed in tonnes and days' supply;

  (2) what is the latest estimate of the stocks of grain at the present time (a) in Britain, (b) in the European Economic Community and (c) in the world, expressed in tonnes and days' supply.

  Mr. Ryder
  Estimates of stocks of grain in store are only available for the end of the cereals marketing year. For the Community, the marketing year ends on 30 June
  365
  and the latest estimates for the United Kingdom and the European Community as a whole at the end of June are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Days' supply

  United Kingdom

  5·6

  105

  EC

  39·4

  106

  The International Wheat Council's estimate of world stocks of grain is an aggregate of national figures based on different definitions of marketing years and therefore does not relate to any particular month. The council's latest estimate for world stocks for the end of the 1988–89 crop year is 228 million tonnes or around 60 days' supply.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policy is followed by his Department to help small horticultural companies sell into the markets of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food backs the export efforts of horticultural companies of all sizes. Small companies can benefit particularly from the help we give for the establishment of co-operatives and from half price plant health services.

  My ADAS export technical adviser provides free advice to exporters. Food from Britain, whose establishment costs are met by my Department, develops and promotes export opportunities in the Community, and gives exporters advice and help. It also acts as our agent in the administration of the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme, under which we provide non-capital grants towards formation and initial management costs of new marketing co-operatives and capital grants on a range of buildings and equipment. My officials in the horticultural marketing inspectorate provide advice on the Community quality standards which apply to most horticultural produce and issue export certificates free of charge. My Department also provides a number of plant health services for companies selling within the Community, including provision of the necessary phytosanitary certificates; small exporters are eligibile for a half price concession on these services. My officials also provide for exporters a summary of the plant health requirements of member states, and have set up the voluntary export nursery approval scheme which facilitates the export of high quality produce.

  In addition, my Department tries to help horticulturists to respond to specific challenges. They recently held a conference on horticulture and the single European market to promote awareness of the EC Commission's 1992 initiative, and its implications for all aspects of horticultural businesses.

  "Nuclear Accidents and the Farmer"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by location the farmers who have received his Department's leaflet, "Nuclear Accidents and the Farmer"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 20 March 1989 at column 472 to the hon. Member
  366
  for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Our initial distribution was to holdings in England in the vicinity of nuclear power stations operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, licensed nuclear sites of British Nuclear Fuels plc and the various nuclear facilities run by the Ministry of Defence, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Amersham International plc. Large numbers of copies have also been distributed at meetings held by my officials and in response to individual requests. Distribution has been carried out principally through my Department's regional organisation and no central record has been maintained. Further copies remain available free of charge on request from any of my Department's regional offices.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reasons other than at the request of he workers involved for not pursuing arrears of wages underpayment were discovered by the wages inspectorate in the midlands in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Specific information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in the small minority of cases where the inspectorate does not pursue arrears the decision is taken only after careful consideration of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of success bearing in mind such factors as the employers' ability to pay and the adequacy of evidence.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of arrears of pay has been discovered by the wages inspectorate as not pursued at the request of workers; what assessment he has made of the reasons which lie behind the requests of workers not to recover their arrears; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988 arrears of pay amounting to £295,746 were not pursued by the wages inspectorate at the request of workers. No comprehensive record is kept of the reasons given by workers for requesting non-pursuance. However, the decisions typically reflect the good personal relationships between employer and worker, concern about the viability of the business, contentment with the rate paid prior to the inspection, or the fact that the underpayment resulted from ignorance or inadvertance. Inspectors must, however, inform the worker of the sum involved and must satisfy themselves that the worker's decision not to pursue payment is made voluntarily.

  It is also made clear to the worker that a request not to pursue arrears at a particular time does not prevent them obtaining the inspectorate's help in seeking payment at a later date.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments were found by the wages inspectorate to be underpaying in(a) north Staffordshire and (b) the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area; what percentage this was of all checked; how many workers were covered; and what was the total and weekly pay involved in the latest year for which figures are available.
  367
  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions, of which the midlands is one. Information on the midlands for 1988 is as follows:

  Information

  Number of establishments found underpaying

  747

  Percentage of all establishments checked found underpaying

  14·9 per cent.

  Number of workers found underpaid

  1,425

  Total arrears of pay assessed

  £190,698

  No statistics are kept on weekly underpayment.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 worst cases of underpayment of wages by midlands employers discovered by the wages inspectorate in 1988, setting out both the weekly and total amounts involved.

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

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give his reasons for reducing the number of job clubs; and why the job club in Paignton is under threat of imminent closure.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 27 January 1989 at column 810, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Employment service regional directors are currently considering how the job club network should be reshaped so as most effectively to achieve the objective of increasing numbers of people helped while making more efficient use of resources. There is spare capacity at present in the network in Paignton, Torquay and adjoining areas. This will be taken into account in reaching decisions about its future shape, together with the need to maintain access to the programme for longer term unemployed people in these areas.

  September 1978

  September 19811

  September 1983

  September 19841

  September 1988

  Males

  Females

  All

  Males

  Females

  All

  Males

  Females

  All

  Males

  Females

  All

  Males

  Females

  All

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels (class 11)2

  76·4

  3·3

  79·8

  76·2

  3·3

  79·5

  68·0

  3·0

  71·0

  63·3

  2·9

  66·1

  31·9

  1·5

  33·4

  Iron and steel industry (activity heading 2210)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37·5

  3·9

  41·5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26·1

  2·1

  28·2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Steel tubes (activity heading 2220)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·5

  0·2

  0·7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·5

  0·1

  0·6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Drawing, cold rolling and cold forming of steel (group 223)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5·8

  1·1

  6·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4·4

  0·8

  5·2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Railways (activity heading 7100)2

  18·5

  1·5

  20·0

  16·8

  1·4

  18·2

  15·2

  1·2

  16·4

  14·6

  1·2

  15·9

  13·3

  0·8

  14·1

  1 Census of employment data.

  2 Sub division of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  n/a—Not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time working women for each year since 1979 in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what was the annual percentage change.

  Mr. Lee
  For the dates specified the only available information about female full and part-time employment in regions is for employees in employment. The latest date for which estimates are available is September 1988. The information is as follows:

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of mothers with children aged under five years go to work in(a) each of the EEC countries, and (b) Sweden; what is the average number of hours worked by mothers of children aged under five years in (a) each of the EEC countries, and (b) Sweden; and what is the comparable information for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cope
  It is estimated from the preliminary results of the 1988 labour force survey (LFS) that in spring 1988, 36·4 per cent. of women in the United Kingdom with at least one child aged under five were in employment and their average total usual hours worked were 23·5 hours per week.

  Comparable information for other countries is not available in my Department.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people employed in(a) the mining industry; (b) the steel industry and (c) on the railways for the Yorkshire and Humberside region, what was the comparable figure five years and 10 years ago; and if he will break down the answer by sex.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information for the mining industry and railways for the dates specified is given in the following table. The figures are subject to considerable potential estimation error as the monthly and quarterly employment surveys carried out between censuses of employment are based on samples which are not large enough to provide reliable estimates at regional level for individual industries. Comparable regional estimates of employment in the steel industry are available only from the censuses of employment held in September 1981 and September 1984, and these are included in the table.

  Female employees in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside region

  Thousand

  Full-time

  Part-time

  September each year

  Number

  Percentage change since previous September

  Number

  Percentage change since previous September

  1979

  457

  -1

  356

  4

  1980

  441

  -4

  353

  -1

  1981

  418

  -5

  347

  -2

  1982

  404

  -3

  349

  1

  1983

  403

  0

  352

  1

  1984

  408

  1

  361

  3

  369

  Full-time

  Part-time

  September each year

  Number

  Percentage change since previous September

  Number

  Percentage change since previous September

  1985

  411

  1

  373

  3

  1986

  410

  0

  387

  4

  1987

  427

  4

  391

  1

  1988

  452

  6

  395

  1

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been out of work for over(a) 12 months, (b) two years and (c) three years for the most recent date for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for similar dates in 1984 and 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of changes in the coverage of the count. The following is the available information, which is also obtainable from the Library.

  Unemployment by duration in the United Kingdom

  January 1979

  January 1984

  January 1989

  Duration of unemployment

  Unemployed registrants1

  Unemployed claimants

  Unemployed claimants

  Over 1 year

  354,204

  1,188,040

  821,419

  Over 2 years

  n/a

  616,411

  544,507

  Over 3 years

  n/a

  332,199

  410,667

  1 In October 1982 registration at jobcentres became voluntary, necessitating a change to counting claimants at unemployment benefit offices.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in East Anglia during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In February 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in East Anglia was 37,100 compared with 57,200 in February 1988, a fall of 20,100 or 35·1 per cent.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in Cleveland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available employment estimates for the county are from the September 1984 census of employment. There were then 183,600 employees in employment in Cleveland. This compares with a figure of 207,000 in September 1981 when the previous census of employment was taken.

  More up-to-date county employee estimates, from the September 1987 census of employment, will become available later this year.

  Re-start Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress on the re-start scheme in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Lee
  From 28 March 1988 to 24 February 1989 just over 12,000 interviews have been carried out in Doncaster, of which 91 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made. Nearly 4,000 interviews have been carried out in Mexborough, of which 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made.
  370
  The re-start programme now offers interviews at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been unemployed for six months or more. In addition, certain clients are now offered follow-up interviews in order to provide further guidance and support.

  Since September 1988 the programme has delivered the Government's guarantee to people aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months, of the offer of a place on employment training, in a job club or on the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of single parents on employment training schemes on(a) 28 February and (b) 31 January in (i) the south Tyne area, (ii) the north Tyne area, (iii) the Gateshead local authority area and (iv) the Newcastle local authority area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications he has received for compensation during 1988 under the provisions of the 1979 Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act; how many of these were approved and what is the total money paid out for these cases; how many applications were rejected; and how many are still waiting to be determined.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During 1988, 108 applications were received for compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Of these, 50 were approved, totalling £443,257 in compensation payments, 53 were not accepted and one was withdrawn; four of the 1988 applications are still awaiting determination.

  Low Pay Unit (West Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to visit the West Yorkshire low pay unit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Labour Statistics (East Midlands)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average monthly fall in the number of unemployed in the east midlands during the last quarter for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In the quarter ending February 1989, the average monthly fall in unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands was 3,600. Unemployment in the east midlands has fallen by 35,300 or 22.8 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Self-employed
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase in the number of self-employed since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  371
  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1987 and September 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there was a net increase of 156,000 in the estimated number of self-employed people in Great Britain. It is estimated that nearly 3 million people are now self-employed and the number is still rising. The numbers of self-employed people have risen by over 60 per cent. since 1979 and they now represent almost one in nine of the work force in employment.

  Birds Eye
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss the closure of the Birds Eye factory at Kirkby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans. The decision to close the factory was made by the company on commercial grounds and I cannot see that such a meeting would serve any useful purpose.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss his Green Paper on the closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans for such a meeting.

  Labour Statistics (South-East)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the rise in the number of people in employment in the south-east since June 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1987 and September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there was an increase of 363,000 in the civilian work force in employment in the south-east region. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes. Comparisons of data for June 1987 and September 1988 are affected by seasonal variations. Seasonally adjusted employment estimates are not available for regions.

  Labour Statistics (West Midlands)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in the west midlands during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In February 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the west midlands was 186,800 compared with 253,100 in February 1988, a fall of 66,300 or 26·2 per cent.

  Labour Statistics (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Merseyside.
  372
  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In February 1989, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants in Merseyside was 98,188, a fall of 19,438 over the last 12 months.

  Tourism
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be able to make an announcement about the outcome of the review on tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  The tourism review report is still under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects unemployment to begin to fall faster in the three London Docklands boroughs than the average rate for London.

  Mr. Lee
  There is a very large number of new jobs in prospect for London Docklands which should have a beneficial effect on unemployment in the area. However, my Department does not make estimates of future levels of unemployment.

  Training Agency (Staff)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of staff in post in(a) the Inner London, North, (b) the Inner London, South, (c) the East London Training Agency offices and (d) the Docklands liaison group, during each of the past two years and currently.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average numbers of staff-in-post for Inner London, North, Inner London, South and East London Training Agency area offices for the last two years and currently are listed in Table 1.

  When first set up in September 1987 the work of the Docklands liaison group was undertaken by Training Agency East London area office staff. It is not therefore possible to give precise numbers of staff engaged on that work. The group became self contained in April 1988 and the average number of Employment Department staff in post during that year was 10·5. The same number of staff were in post on 31 March 1989.

  Table 1

  1987

  1988

  Current (31 March 1989)

  Inner London North

  98

  110

  110

  Inner London South

  74·5

  83

  85

  East London

  58

  67

  65·5

  Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average payment of benefit, plus the additional £10, per employment training place.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average weekly training allowance including the training premium is estimated to be around £50 per trainee on employment training.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the labour force in the tourist, hotel and catering industry consists of foreign nationals.

  Mr. Lee
  According to preliminary results from the 1988 labour force survey, 8 per cent of all persons in employment in hotels and catering and other tourism-related industries are foreign nationals.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the principal

  Persons in employment in construction industry1—occupational analysis Great Britain, Spring each year

  Thousands

  CODOT major groups

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  I Professional and related supporting management and administration

  32

  29

  31

  43

  56

  49

  40

  44

  II Professional and related in education, welfare and health

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  III Literary, artistic and sports

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  IV Professional and related in science, engineering, technology and similar fields

  90

  71

  98

  106

  132

  119

  130

  113

  V Managerial

  96

  91

  100

  107

  106

  101

  107

  121

  VI Clerical and related

  116

  101

  109

  129

  138

  132

  142

  149

  VII Selling

  13

  12

  15

  14

  16

  15

  17

  15

  VIII Security and protective service

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  IX Catering, cleaning, hairdressing and other personal service

  11

  13

  3—

  13

  13

  12

  15

  15

  X Farming, fishing and related

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  XI Materials processing, making and repairing (excluding metal and electrical)

  174

  177

  175

  191

  195

  187

  169

  167

  XII Processing, making, repairing and related (metal and electrical)

  353

  305

  310

  295

  268

  262

  330

  326

  XIII Painting, repetitive assembling, product inspecting, packaging and related

  158

  128

  155

  158

  155

  142

  145

  153

  XIV Construction, mining and related not identified elsewhere

  590

  549

  604

  619

  584

  592

  625

  670

  XV Transport operating, materials moving and storing and related

  103

  85

  83

  82

  66

  70

  82

  72

  XVI Miscellaneous

  35

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  14

  11

  3—

  All occupations

  1,782

  1,575

  1,699

  1,774

  1,753

  1,705

  1,828

  1,861

  1 1979: SIC '68, order XX 1981–88: SIC '80 division 5.

  2 Preliminary estimates (1988 only).

  3 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  4 Includes inadequately described/not stated.

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  Trade Union Ballots
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many work forces balloted in 1988 by their trade union on whether to take industrial action voted against the proposal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no statutory requirement for a union to notify such a ballot, or details of its result, other than to those given entitlement to vote. I understand, however, that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is aware of 23 union ballots in 1988 asking members whether they were willing to take part in, or continue with, industrial action which resulted in a majority against doing so.374
  differences between regulations and restrictions on part-time work in European Economic Community countries other than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department does not have comprehensive and up-to-date information on this subject. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the size of the occupational categories for the construction industry for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates from the labour force survey (LFS) of persons in employment in the construction industry in Great Britain by occupation, for LFS years since 1979, are as shown in the following table:

  Marine Fish Farms
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections of marine fish farms have been made in each of the last five years by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were conducting preventative inspections on the following dates: 6 June 1988, 7 September 1988 and 23 January 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Factory inspectors in the Health and Safety Executives area office are not employed solely on
  375
  preventive inspection but also make visits in response to accidents or other incidents, complaints, inquiries or to follow up previously identified shortcomings.

  Staffing figures are recorded on the first of each month. The numbers of factory inspectors in area offices on 1 June 1988, 1 September 1988 and 1 February 1989 were 520, 522 and 533, respectively.

  Children (Injuries)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 373–4, he will place in the Library anonymised summaries of the circumstances of (a) fatal, (b) major and (c) over three day injuries to children in 1987–88; and if he will make it his policy to make such summaries available in future years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The cost would be disproportionately high.

  Unique Fresh, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why there has been a delay in paying the protective award of four weeks' pay agreed by a tribunal in February to workers made redundant by Unique Fresh in Swansea in August 1988; and when his Birmingham office will ensure that payment is made.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Because the firm is insolvent the amount of the protective award is payable from the redundancy fund subject to the various limits specified in part VII of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. My Department is awaiting the insolvency practitioner's statement of the amount due. When this is available we shall pay the employees as soon as possible.

  Benefit (Suspensions)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claims for unemployment benefit have been received since the increase in the maximum number of weeks' suspension of unemployment benefit from 13 weeks to 26 weeks at unemployment benefit offices in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; in how many of these cases the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied by the adjudication officers; in how many cases where the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been applied the length of suspension has been reduced on review of the case; and in how many cases where the 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied, the suspension has been reduced on appeal.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: The table shows, for the period April 1988 to February 1989, the number of claims for unemployment benefit that were received for the locations requested.

  Information is not available on how many of these claims were disqualified by the adjudication officer, nor on the numbers where the maximum period of disqualification was imposed or reduced on review or appeal.
  376

  Locations

  Number of claims taken for period April 1988 to February 1989

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  6,788

  Strathclyde

  177,619

  Scotland

  456,063

  Departmental Advertising, Publicity and Publications
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Departmental budget for 1989–90 for spending on general publicity, including(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising (c) newspaper advertising, and (d) other promotional material; and what are the equivalent figures for the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The information on my departmental budget for 1989–90 for spending on general publicity, to include that for the Training Agency, will be found in table 7.29 on page 25 of the "Public Expenditure" White Paper, column 607, published January 1989.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media group for 1989–90 as requested have not yet been taken.

WALES

  River Quality
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent the new regulations for classifying the quality of rivers will specify requirements as to the substances that are to be present or absent from the water, and the concentration of such substances, for the purpose of ensuring the conditions needed for the survival of certain aquatic plant and invertebrate communities.

  Mr. Grist
  Regulations for classifying the quality of rivers have not yet been prepared. We will be consulting widely on proposals for possible revisions to the classification systems later in the spring. This represents the first stage in developing new systems of classification for rivers and estuaries which can, in due course, be embodied in regulations. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a copy of the consultation paper when it is issued.

  Accidents in the Home
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to place a duty on Welsh district councils for each authority to appoint a home safety officer to tackle the problem of accidents in Welsh homes.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Home safety officers who are appointed by local authorities make an important contribution to accident prevention, but it is for an individual local authority to decide whether such an appointment is appropriate for any accident prevention strategy in its own area.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he plans to place a mandatory duty on Welsh local authorities to devise preventive measures to reduce the level of accidents in Welsh homes.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Welsh local authorities already have a statutory duty to enforce the safety legislation. They also
  377
  engage in other accident prevention initiatives but decisions on what is appropriate or desirable in each area should be taken by the local authority itself in the light of local circumstances.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what education or training initiatives he is planning to reduce the level of fatal and other serious accidents in Welsh homes.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has run a series of safety awareness and education campaigns throughout the United Kingdom. These have included child safety initiatives; electrical safety awareness and, in particular, promoting the use of RCDs (residual current devices) and the publication of a guide to producing better instructions and warnings for consumer products. In Wales these campaigns have benefited greatly from the support of the Welsh local authorities. Some of the campaigns will be extended or repeated and over the next few months a number of further safety initiatives are planned.

  South Beach Hotel, Tenby
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects CADW to announce a decision on the appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by Mr. P. T. Harris in respect of the South Beach hotel, Tenby.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Mr. Harris has submitted four appeals in respect of the South Beach hotel. The appeals, made under section 88 and section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 are being considered concurrently.

  My right hon. Friend is aware of the need to reach speedy decisions on all planning matters which come before him and decisions on these appeals will be issued as soon as possible.

  Hospital Referrals
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospital referral rate per 1,000 of population for each family practitioner committee in Wales in the latest available year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Prescribing Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the per capita prescribing cost for each family practitioner committee in Wales for the latest available year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information which relates to prescriptions submitted for payment during 1988, is shown in the following table:

  Average total cost per person on NHS prescribing lists

  £

  Clwyd

  53·31

  Dyfed

  51·94

  Gwent

  53·77

  378

  £

  Gwynedd

  57·15

  Mid Glamorgan

  58·08

  Powys

  50·07

  South Glamorgan

  48·47

  West Glamorgan

  54·97

  Set-aside Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State For Wales how many farmers in(a) Pembrokeshire and (b) Wales have applied for set-aside payments; and what is the total acreage for which claims have been made and the total amount claimed in each category.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Fifteen farmers from the Preseli Pembrokeshire and South Pembrokeshire districts have applied to join the scheme, entering a total of 295 hectares. The figures for Wales are 35 farmers involving 1,008 hectares. Since payments are made annually in arreas, no claims are yet due.

  Farmers (Income)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the total income of farmers in Wales, in the latest year for which figures are available, from(a) farming and (b) other activities; and what were the comparable figures for 1984 and 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Based on the Inland Revenue's survey of personal incomes, details of which are to be published shortly in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" the total incomes of self employed individuals in agriculture in Wales assessed for tax were as follows:

  £ million

  Income from Agriculture and Horticulture

  Income from other activities

  Total Income

  1985–86

  160·1

  94·9

  255·0

  1984–85

  159·3

  111·6

  270·9

  Figures for Wales for the year 1979–80 are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Patients (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in Gwynedd receive treatment for ileostomy, colostomy and urostomy; and if he will give the number in each category on a constituency basis.

  Mr. Grist
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  The available information on operations performed on residents from Gwynedd as in-patients or day cases at Welsh hospitals is shown in the following table. The information relates to 1987:

  Op Code/Description

  Number

  453 Enterostomy (ileostomy)

  0

  454 Anastomosis of intestine (including ileocolostomy)

  2

  460 Colectomy and resection (including colostomy and ileostomy)

  64

  462 Primary colostomy

  4

  464 Colon by-pass

  1

  379

  Op Code/Description

  Number

  533 Anastomosis of pancreatic duct (including ileo-pancreatostomy)

  0

  591 Urinary diversion to bladder

  2

  592 Urinary diversion to bowel

  0

  593 Urinary diversion: anastomosis

  1

  594 Urinary diversion: other

  1

  595 Repair of urinary tract

  2

  Total

  77

  Note: These figures include six Gwynedd residents treated in Clwyd and four Gwynedd residents treated in East Dyfed.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will be publishing supplementary working papers on the future organisation of the National Health Service in Wales; what programme of consultation with which organisations will be undertaken; and how the general public will be informed of the details not included in the White Paper itself.

  Mr. Grist
  In addition to the working papers on the implementation of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working For Patients" which the Welsh Office has already circulated to interested bodies in the NHS in Wales, further guidance will be issued during the course of the year as appropriate.

  We have already had discussions about the White Paper with the Wales TUC and are shortly to meet the chairman of district health authorities, family practitioner committees, and the statutory advisory committees and representatives of NHS staff organisations and health care professions. In addition, officials of the Welsh Office are engaged upon a round of discussions with a range of NHS interests.

  We have already announced that there will be public consultation later this year to provide clearer and more focused representation of consumer interests. We shall announce decisions on the details of particular proposals as appropriate.

  Report (Bristol University)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish the commissioned report of the School for Advanced Urban Studies, university of Bristol, made for his housing department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We are still awaiting the final report from the School for Advanced Urban Studies.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each area of Wales the number of people who are dependent on their local authority providing them with bed and breakfast.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of households accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation at 31 December 1988 under part III of the Housing Act 1985 in each district authority is given in the following table. The number of persons in those households is not available centrally.
  380

  Number of households accommodated in bed and breakfast at 31 December 19881

  Number

  Aberconwy

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  Arfon

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  Brecknock

  1

  Cardiff

  23

  Carmarthen

  1

  Ceredigion

  1

  Colwyn

  —

  Cynon Valley

  —

  Delyn

  1

  Dinefwr

  2

  Dwyfor

  —

  Glyndwr

  —

  Islwyn

  1

  Llanelli

  —

  Lliw Valley

  —

  Meirionnydd

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  Monmouth

  —

  Montgomery

  —

  Neath

  —

  Newport

  —

  Ogwr

  —

  Port Talbot

  —

  Preseli

  8

  Radnor

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  Rhuddlan

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  3

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  Swansea

  —

  Taff-Ely

  —

  Torfaen

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  —

  Ynys Môn

  —

  Wales Total

  41

  1 Under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend of 27 February,Official Report, column 19, concerning expenditure provision of £9 million in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement to cover the cost of implementing the poll tax, what proportion of that sum the actual cash grant will represent.

  Mr. Grist
  Rate support grant is paid to all authorities in Wales in support of their expenditure generally and is not hypothecated. It is not therefore possible to calculate a notional allocation of grant to any particular function.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools there were in Wales in 1979; and how many there are in the current year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of Schools in Wales

  January 1979

  January 1989

  Nursery

  70

  56

  Primary

  1,930

  1,744

  Secondary

  244

  232

  Special

  74

  64

  381

  January 1979

  January 1989

  Independent

  171

  65

  Total

  2,389

  2,161

  1 Includes three direct grant schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers there are in Wales(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in the current year; and what were the corresponding numbers in May 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information available relates to January 1979 and September 1988. At those dates the numbers in full-time equivalent terms, of teachers in Wales is shown in the following tables:

  January 1979

  September 1988

  Primary Schools

  13,581

  11,724

  Secondary Schools

  14,413

  12,504

  These figures must, of course, be considered in the light of falling pupil numbers as follows:

  January 1979

  September 1988

  Primary pupils

  298,196

  255,869

  Secondary pupils

  241,662

  192,803

  Pupil: teacher ratios have improved over the period as follows:

  January 1979

  September 1988

  Primary pupils/teacher

  22·0

  21·8

  Secondary pupils/teacher

  16·8

  15·4

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals have been closed in Wales since may 1979; how many hospital beds there were in May 1979 in Wales; and what is the number for the present day.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1 May 1979 the number of hospitals which have closed, and are still closed, is 22. However during the same period seven hospitals (including four district general hospitals) have opened.

  The available information on the number of staffed beds allocated, as at 31 March, is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  23,693

  1988

  21,242

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May 1979; what is the total value of the houses sold since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 66,593 local authority dwellings were sold to sitting tenants between April 1979 and 382
  December 1988. The value of these dwellings is not available. The capital value (net of discount) of the total of 66,875 dwellings sold during that period, which includes sales other than those to sitting tenants, was however £564 million.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been built since May 1979; what is the estimated value; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 17,662 local authority dwellings have been built since May 1979. Information on the value of these buildings is not available centrally.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people currently on the waiting lists of Welsh housing authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of people on housing waiting lists is not held centrally.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homeless persons there are estimated to be in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The normal measure of statutory homelessness is given by cases accepted by local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985. The number of persons in households accepted as homeless during the third quarter of 1988 (July–September) was 4,534.

  Bristol Channel (Sewage)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Welsh Water Authority's intention to build a sewerage outlet one mile out into the Bristol channel from Swansea; if planning permission has been given; and if he will make a statement on the anticipated environmental effect of raw sewage flooding into the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh water authority has proposals for improving the quality of Swansea bay, which currently fails to meet the standards of the EC bathing water directive. Whilst the provision of a long sea outfall is likely to form part of the improvements, planning approval for which would not be required, details have yet to be finalised.

  Sewage discharged to sea is treated through the disinfecting action of salt water, sunlight and waves which together break down the bacteria as effectively as inland treatment. That is why the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded in its 10th report that with well designed sewage outfalls, the discharge of sewage to the sea was not only acceptable but environmentally preferable in many cases to alternative means of disposal.

  "Roads in Wales"
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish the new editions of "Roads in Wales".
  383
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am pleased to say that it has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office, and have also been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Firearms)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the conditions with regard to the carrying of firearms which have to be observed by Royal Ulster Constabulary officers whilst in the territory of the Irish Republic for the purpose of discussing anti-terrorist co-operation with their counterparts in the police force of the Republic.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Authorisation for the carrying of firearms by officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary whether on or off duty is confined to Northern Ireland.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1988–89 by the Northern Ireland Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what is the 1989–90 budget for each of these categories of spending.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the latest figure for the estimated spending on all advertising and other promotional material for my Department in 1988–89 is £4,782,821. The estimated budget for 1989–90 is £4,777,950.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Northern Ireland Office; and what is the proposed complement for 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: At present 50 staff are employed in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The full complement, including vacant posts, is 52. The proposed complement for 1989–90 is 51.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest figure for(a) the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations during 1988–89 and (b) the budget for 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The latest figure for the total estimated expenditure on press and public relations during 1988–89 is £1,174,402.

  The total budget for 1989–90 is £1,310,700.

  RUC Traffic Division
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary traffic division in each year since 1980 to the latest available date; and whether there are any plans to increase it.
  384
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information requested is not readily available prior to 1985 and could be obtained only at disproprtinate cost. The available information is as follows:

  Year

  RUC Traffic Division (Strength)

  31 December 1985

  401

  31 December 1986

  363

  31 December 1987

  361

  31 December 1988

  316

  20 March 1989

  312

  The operational strength of the RUC's traffic division is a matter for the chief constable.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants investigated in the inquiry into the Kincora boys' home in 1982 by Sir George Terry are still employed by his Department.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 4 April 1988]: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 26 February 1988 at column 322.

  Information Units
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which parts of the information policy unit, the information liaison unit and the information planning unit are still in operation; and what was the status of each such unit within the structure of his Department at the time it was most recently in existence.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 23 May 1988 at columns 36–37.

SCOTLAND

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the withdrawal of funding for the Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council by the social work services group.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am considering a number of representations made by and on behalf of the Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council against the recent decision not to award it a training grant under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The council will be informed of my decision as soon as possible.

  Nurses (Grading)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of appeals against regrading which have been received in each Scottish health board area; how many have now been assessed; and how many have resulted in a subsequent upgrading of the nurse's grade.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 6 April 1989.

  Water Rates
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations he has had regarding the commercial effects of increased water rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations expressing concern about the effect of increased water rates have been received on behalf of 12 trade and business associations, eight companies and one community council group.

  I would refer to the answers I gave the hon. Member on 15 February at columns 218–20.

  Suicides
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish what information he has on the number of suicides and attempted suicides which have occurred in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is as follows:

  Number of Suicides1

  Number of in-patient discharges for self-inflicted injury or poisoning2

  1979

  494

  9,916

  1980

  515

  8,609

  1981

  517

  9,474

  1982

  563

  9,269

  1983

  505

  8,707

  1984

  519

  9,337

  1985

  569

  9,118

  1986

  568

  8,963

  1987

  522

  9,306

  Data source:

  1 Registrar General for Scotland

  2 Scottish hospital data within admissions category "Emergency—Deliberate self inflicted injury or poisoning."

  Transport Users Consultative Committee
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the names and addresses of the current members of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current membership of the committee was published in its annual report for 1987–88. Mr. John Corrie was appointed chairman to the committee in succession to Colonel W. A. Dalziel in December 1988. Copies of the report are available in the House of Commons Library and may also be obtained from:

  The Secretary

  Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee

  249 West George Street

  Glasgow

  G2 4QE

  through whom contact with individual members may also be made.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what facilities currently exist in Scotland for intensive specialised rehabilitation of traumatic brain damage caused by head injury; what plans he has to set up such a specialised unit; and if he will make a statement;
  386
  (2) what steps have been taken to implement the Mair report recommendation in 1972 that two specialised centres providing specialist rehabilitation treatment for traumatic brain damage through head injury were required in Scotland;

  (3) if he will estimate the annual additional need that arises every year in Scotland for places which provide specialist rehabilitation for patients who suffer traumatic brain damage through head injury;

  (4) what proportion of the population suffer from permanent long term disability following head injury; and what is the average age at the time of the injury and the average life expectancy thereafter;

  (5) what specialist training and advice is given to care professionals treating patients with traumatic brain damage caused by head injury;

  (6) what medical studies have been carried out into the special needs of those who suffer traumatic brain damage through injury;

  (7) what evidence exists to demonstrate the efficacy of specialist rehabilitation of patients who suffer traumatic brain damage through head injury;

  (8) what advice is given to area health boards regarding the provision of specialist rehabilitation of patients with traumatic brain damage caused by head injury, and what checks are made on the quality of long-term care provided to such patients by the area health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision of specialist treatment and rehabilitation facilities for head injured patients in Scotland is a matter for individual health boards. The Scottish Home and Health Department is currently considering as a matter of urgency the needs of brain-injured patients and the most appropriate form of rehabilitation facility which is required. The Mair report did not make a specific recommendation that two specialised centres were required.

  It is understood that around 100 patients each year are left with severe disability following traumatic brain injury. The average age of these patients is around 28 and life expectancy is 30 or 40 years. All doctors, nurses and members of paramedical professions receive basic training in rehabilitation techniques. The two main centres for the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with traumatic brain injury are located in Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively and it is there that care professionals can gain training and experience. A wide range of studies has been carried out into the special needs of brain-damaged patients, and a number demonstrate the efficacy of specialist rehabilitation.

  Boards providing general rehabilitation services are aware of the more specialised facilities available in Edinburgh and Glasgow for more severe cases of head injury and can seek advice if necessary. Patients are referred from other boards to these specialised facilities. Long-term in-patient care is provided generally within psychiatric or geriatric hospitals. Both are inspected regularly by the Scottish Hospital Advisory Service; in addition the Mental Welfare Commission makes annual visits to all mental hospitals.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those organisations which have asked that
  387
  their responses to the consultation document "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum" be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Lang
  No, since the respondents asked that their responses be treated in confidence; there were two such responses.

  Transport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he is now having with the trade unions, entrepreneurs and environmentalists regarding the case for fast trains between Scotland and the continent for the Scottish manufacturing industry, and the environmental requirements which the Scottish people demand from railways and motorways.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None at the present time. British Rail is still working on its proposals for Channel Tunnel passenger and freight services and any associated investment. It is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to publish a plan by the end of the year.

  As part of this process, British Rail is consulting with a wide range of interests in Scotland in a series of meetings.

DEFENCE

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) what consideration he has given to the procurement of smart cruise missiles for British forces;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the procurement for the British forces of cruise missiles armed with cluster munitions; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the stationing of such missiles on British territory or in British territorial waters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of future missile options are under consideration.

  Unit Production Costs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish of 22 March,Official Report, column 616, when it became his policy not to publish unit production costs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 14 January 1988 at column 373.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many National Health Service(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients have been treated at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, during each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my predecessor on 28 April at columns 242–43. It has not proved possible to produce reliable information for the years prior to 1983 when the records were maintained manually. The comparable figures for 1988 are: in-patients 6,507; day patients 1,575; out-patients 5,208.

  Armed Forces (Postal Voting)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the armed forces and their dependents serving overseas regarding the introduction of postal voting in United Kingdom elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not aware of any recent representations on postal voting overseas. The Representation of the People Act provides a separate registration procedure for service personnel enabling them to retain their right to vote when serving overseas and allows the spouses of service personnel to register under this procedure if they so wish. Currently service personnel and their spouses must vote by proxy when overseas. They can use either the proxy or the postal voting procedure if serving away from their constituency but within the United Kingdom.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the financial arrangements between his Department and Royal Ordnance plc for the deployment of Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance Bishopton;

  (2) what financial arrangements exist between his Department and Royal Ordnance plc for providing the services of Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance factories.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under the terms of an agreement made in April 1985 on the deployment of MOD police at Royal Ordnance sites, including Bishopton, RO plc pays the equivalent of a commercial charge for the services of the MOD police.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of recent developments and the announcement by Royal Ordnance plc that it is considering a partial reprieve of the site, it is intended to retain a complement of Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance Bishopton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No decision has yet been taken on whether MOD police should remain at Royal Ordnance, Bishopton.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prime Minister's Speeches
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the(a) statements and (b) other speeches in debate made by Prime Ministers in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant published indexes of the Official Report and to information held on POLIS in the House of Commons Library.

  Sir Leon Brittan
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Falkirk,
  389
  East (Mr. Ewing) on 6 April, concerning statements made by Sir Leon Brittan, he will give the name of any documents, together with appropriate references, that show that approval was given by two named officials to the disclosure of a letter from the Solicitor-General; and if he will place copies of any such documents in the Library.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the Gentleman to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence for the 1985–86 Session.

  Food Consultants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the policy of the Commission on the level of nutritional expertise which it will require in respect of the appointment of consultants on the provision of food in the House.

  Mr. Beith
  Policy matters concerning the Refreshment Department are the responsibility of the General Manager of the Department on the advice of the Catering Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services). The Commission considers proposals for expenditure from the Refreshment Department trading fund account in accordance with the general principles of financial prudence.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for benzodiazepines were prescribed in(a) January to June 1987, (b) July to December 1987, (c) January to June 1988 and (d) July to December 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain during the periods in question were as follows:

  Number of prescriptions (millions)

  January to June 1987

  12·7

  July to December 1987

  12·8

  January to June 1988

  11·9

  July to December 1988

  1

  1 Not yet available.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the mortality rate from coronary heart disease for men aged under 65 years from 1979 to the present time, analysed by socio-economic group.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  AIDS
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment Sir Donald Acheson has made of the 390
  plant alkaloid Castanospermine, as a possible treatment for certain forms of AIDS, in the light of clinical tests at St. Mary's hospital in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that there have been some in vitro tests involving derivatives of Castanospermine, but none involving patients. If the hon. Member would like more information he may wish to approach the Medical Research Council.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the information he has regarding problems in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is responsible for recruiting staff below the executive officer (and equivalent) grades. No major recruitment problems are currently being encountered at its Titchfield and Southport locations but, in common with other Departments, there are difficulties in recruiting and retaining administrative officers, personal secretaries and administrative assistants at its London headquarters.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether interviewers employed by the Office of the Population Censuses and Surveys are termed employees of the Crown; and to what pension rights they are entitled to under existing legislation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Interviewers employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys are employees of the Crown. Under existing social security legislation, interviewers have a choice between contributing to SERPS (provided that their earnings are sufficient) or to a personal pension.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men and women are employed as interviewers by the Office of the Population Censuses and Surveys on(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time basis.

  Mr. Freeman
  Interviewing work carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys fluctuates with the demand for surveys and with the requirements of individual surveys. As a result the number of interviewers employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is variable. At present, 476 hourly-paid interviewers are employed, of whom 52 are male and 424 are female.

  Interviewers are not guaranteed any fixed amount of work and are paid on an hourly fee basis for work undertaken. The nature of the work means that all interviewers are employed on a part-time basis.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of unfilled vacancies at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys as a percentage of total employees and by job category and (b) the average length of time taken to fill a vacancy by job category at the office.

  Mr. Freeman
  (a) The information is in the table. The numbers of unfilled vacancies are the difference between staff in post and the staff profile, as at 1 March 1989, the latest date for which information is available. Casual staff are excluded.
  391

  Job category

  Vacancies

  Percentage of employees

  Percentage of profile

  Grade 7 and above

  (+4·0)

  (+4·7)

  (+4·9)

  Senior executive officer— executive officer and equivalents

  33·0

  5·6

  5·3

  Administrative officers and assistants

  39·5

  3·4

  3·3

  Other staff

  34·5

  15·4

  13·4

  Total

  103·0

  5·0

  4·8

  (b) Due to the different recruitment methods and wide variation between categories, this information is not collected and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the Civil Service pay rates applicable to interviewers employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and (b) the starting times for shift work when applicable.

  Mr. Freeman
  Interviewers employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys are paid one of seven rates ranging at present from £3·69 to £5·38 per hour plus expenses. In addition, higher rates are paid for unsocial hours and to interviewers based in the London area.

  Interviewers' pay is linked to the pay spine agreed between HM Treasury and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. This link is solely a means of determining pay movement.

  A minority of interviewers work on projects with fixed starting and finishing times. With the exception of a small group of interviewers whose starting time is normally 4.15 pm on weekdays and 9.30 am on Saturdays, starting times vary by location and to take account of the requirements of particular surveys.

  Social Work
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the Government's rejection of the proposed three year qualification for social work does not jeopardise the achievement of parity of recognition of British social work qualifications alongside other European qualifications.

  Mr. Mellor
  The European Community directive on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas was adopted on 21 December 1988 and will be implemented in European Community member states on 4 January 1991. It will make it easier for members of a number of professional groups to practice in other member states.

  The Government and the European Commission support the principle of mutual recognition of qualifications irrespective of length of training and will be working towards this in the context of completing the single market by 1992.

  The Government, meanwhile, fully recognise the importance of achieving high standards of training for social workers and other staff employed in the personal social services. We are promoting, with full knowledge of the Directive and in co-operation with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and other organisations, a number of improvements to present arrangements.

  Health Care Providers
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given to the effect on the need for patients with long-term care needs to develop a relationship of trust with health care providers of proposals for health authorities to buy in the necessary services from different sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government fully recognise the importance of trust between patients and those caring for them. Under our proposals district health authorities will have a responsibility to ensure that the health care services available to their resident populations are comprehensive and of a high standard. Continuity of treatment will remain an important consideration. Contracts will specify periods of notice to ensure that any changes in the provision of services are introduced without disruption or inconvenience to patients.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital referral rate per 1,000 of population for each family practitioner committee in England in the latest available year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is not currently available.

  Electoral Registration Figures
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 4 April, why he does not propose to supply a pre-publication list of the electoral registration figures for the local government areas of England and Wales due to be published in an OPUS monitor (EL 89/1) at the end of April.

  Mr. Freeman
  The list of 1989 electorate figures for local authority areas is still being assembled by OPCS. It will be published as soon as possible after all information has been received from electoral registration officers and queries have been resolved.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by age of the mother of the numbers and rates of incidence of births of Down's syndrome babies in(a) the latest year for which figures are available and (b) 10 years previously.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Figures are derived from a voluntary system of notification which collects information on cases reported at birth or up to seven days thereafter. It is, therefore, likely to be an incomplete measure of the total number of babies affected.

  Number of babies born with Down's syndrome and rate per 10,000 births, by age of mother, England and Wales 1977 and 1987

  Age of mother

  Number

  Rate

  1977

  All ages

  425

  7·4

  Under 20

  28

  5·1

  393

  Age of mother

  Number

  Rate

  20–24

  80

  4·5

  25–29

  116

  5·5

  30–34

  81

  8·0

  35–39

  67

  25·9

  40–44

  39

  69·1

  45 +

  7

  149·6

  Not stated

  7

  n/a

  1987

  All ages

  459

  6·7

  Under 20

  33

  5·7

  20–24

  71

  3·7

  25–29

  118

  4·9

  30–34

  107

  7·8

  35–39

  89

  19·0

  40–44

  35

  42·7

  45 +

  3

  55·7

  Not stated

  3

  n/a

  n/a = Not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current incidence of Down's syndrome; and what it was(a) 10 years and (b) 20 years ago.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State what has been the incidence of Down's syndrome in newborn infants in(a) the latest year for which figures are available, (b) 10 years previously and (c) 20 years previously.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 March, column 573]: The answer omitted nine Down's syndrome cases for 1987 for which information was not reported as to their being live or still births. The correct table should therefore read:

  Number of babies born with Down 's syndrome and rate per 10,000 total and live births in England and Wales for 1967, 1977 and 1987

  All births

  Live births

  Year

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  1967

  613

  7·3

  594

  7·1

  1977

  425

  7·4

  413

  7·3

  1987

  459

  6·7

  443

  6·5

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the savings to the National Health Service drugs bill from the introduction of indicative drug budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is premature to try to determine the exact level of the savings.

  Medical Secretaries
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce a national grading system for medical secretaries.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The pay and grading of administrative and clerical staff (including medical secretaries) are matters for negotiation in the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council. The management side of the council has made proposals for a new grading structure for all staff in the group. Negotiations on these proposals and on the staff side's pay claim will continue when the joint negotiating committee of the council meets next on 12 April.

  "Children in Danger Factfile"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to deal with the problems identified in the National Children's Home publication, "Children in Danger Factfile 1989", a copy of which he has been sent.

  Mr. Mellor
  As the hon. Member may be aware, the factfile was launched on 21 March and is a detailed and wide-ranging document requiring careful consideration.

  Pharmaceutical Wholesalers
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made to inspect the premises of pharmaceutical wholesaling establishments in the United Kingdom who import from countries which are not a party to the pharmaceutical inspection convention.

  Mr. Mellor
  No special arrangements are made. All licensed wholesale dealers in imported medicinal products are regularly inspected by medicines inspectors.

  Residential Homes (Mismanagement)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to prevent persons found guilty of mismanaging residential homes to go on caring for profit for up to three residents at a time.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 23 February at column 793.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards implementation of the recommendations made in the report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, "Who Pays? Who Cares?" on the future funding of residential care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report is being taken into account in the Government's consideration of the future arrangements for community care.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received following the publication by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations of "Who Pays? Who Cares?" on the future funding of residential care.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received letters form Servite Houses Ltd., the Brendoncare Foundation, and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations itself, drawing attention to the report. Some individuals have also written in similar terms.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of first instance social fund decisions are taken(a) after a home visit or (b) after the social fund officer has interviewed the claimant.
  395
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proportion of first instance social fund decisions cleared by visit is 1 per cent. The proportion cleared after interview is 25 per cent. Details of the number of applications processed are available in the Library.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average award of family credit; and what was the average award of family income supplement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information on family credit is derived from an examination of amounts in payment at the end of February 1989. This indicated that the average amount in payment at that time was around £25 per week. The latest information on family income supplement relates to June 1987 when the average was £15·28 per week.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made under the cold weather payments scheme for each of the weeks in 1989(a) in Nottingham and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of people for whom bed and breakfast payments are being made in Doncaster and Mexborough; and whether they are(a) single, (b) single with children, (c) a couple or (d) a couple with children, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Injuries and Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing, for the most

  Improvements in living standards percentage (individuals in households)1979 to 1985 Great Britain

  1979 to 1981

  1981 to 1983

  1983 to 1985

  1979 to 1985

  Non-pensioner couples with children

  -0·2

  2·6

  6·1

  8·6

  Non-pensioner couples without children

  1·7

  -1·5

  5·7

  5·9

  Non-pensioner single people

  4·8

  -8·7

  10·2

  5·5

  Non-pensioner single people with children

  5·9

  2·8

  0·7

  9·7

  Single pensioners

  7·3

  6·2

  1·1

  15·2

  Pensioner couples

  5·8

  5·7

  2·9

  15·1

  All individuals

  2·2

  0·2

  6·2

  8·8

  Notes:

  1. Based on the methods and assumptions of "Households Below Average Income: 1981–85" copies of which are in the Library.

  2. Improvements in living standards are measured by percentage changes in the real average household income of individuals (before housing costs). For further details see Cm. 523 "The Measurement of Living Standards For Households Below Average Income", November 1988.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Professional liability
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the conclusion of his Department's study to establish the nature, scope, extent and implications of professional liability problems.
  396
  recent available date, the number of persons securing compensation for industrial diseases and injuries, analysed by percentage disability groupings.

  Mr. Scott
  At 2 April 1988, the provisional numbers of recipients of industrial injuries disablement pension, reduced earnings allowance or both were as shown in the table:

  Assessed Disablement Per cent.

  Number (thousands)

  All percentages

  262

  Less than 20

  103

  20 to 24

  64

  25 to 34

  46

  35 to44

  22

  45 to 54

  11

  55 to 64

  7

  65 to 74

  3

  75 to 84

  2

  85 to 94

  1

  95 to 100

  4

  Attendance Allowance (Halifax)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Halifax who have claimed attendance allowance are currently within the six-month waiting period.

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

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing an estimate of the annual rise in living standards since 1980 for(a) non-pensioner couples with children, (b) non-pensioner couples without children, (c) non-pensioner single people, (d) non-pensioner single people with children, (e) single pensioners and (f) pensioner couples.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 March 1989]: The available information is set out in the table.

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

  GATT
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
  397
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The trade negotiations committee of the GATT met in Geneva last week to deal with the four issues—agriculture, intellectual property, textiles and safeguards—left unresolved at its meeting in Montreal last December. The committee agreed frameworks of principles to guide further negotiation of these issues, and confirmed the agreements provisionally made in Montreal on the other 11 issues under negotiation in the Uruguay round.

  On agriculture, the committee agreed that the long-term objective of the negotiation should be to work towards substantial and progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection sustained over an agreed period of time. It agreed to realise this objective through strengthened GATT rules and disciplines applicable to all contracting parties and extending to all measures affecting import access and export competition. It also agreed that developed countries would not exceed their current levels of domestic and export support and protection before the end of the round.

  On the protection of intellectual property rights it agreed that the negotiations should cover effective enforcement, and dispute settlement, adequate standards, and the applicability of basic GATT principles. It confirmed that the negotiations on textiles and clothing should aim for a further general liberalisation of trade including progressive integration of this sector into the GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines. On the question of better safeguard arrangements to deal with sudden surges of imports the committee instructed negotiators to draw up a draft text for a comprehensive agreement.

  These four agreements, and the confirmation of those made in Montreal on such important issues as services, tariffs and dispute settlement, provide a firm basis for the negotiation of substantial strengthening and extension of liberal and multilateral rules for trade by the conclusion of the round around the end of 1990. The Government will continue to work with our European Community partners to ensure an effective outcome to the negotiations which reflects United Kingdom priorities.

  EC Committees (Chairmanship)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many technical committees of the European Committee for Standardisation and of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation are chaired by the United Kingdom, France and West Germany, respectively.

  Mr. Forth
  I am informed by BSI that the present position is as follows:

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  CEN secretariats and chairmanships

  30

  25

  51

  CENELEC secretariats

  8

  9

  17

  CENELEC chairmanships

  9

  13

  5

  Hearing Aid Council Act
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the reform of the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968.
  398
  Mr. Forth
  My Department received a large number of representations from bodies about the Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). These bodies represent dispensers of hearing aids, consumers and those with specialised medical and audiological knowledge.

  Price Indication (Code of Practice)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his answer of 20 March, to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East,Official Report, column 429, what is his estimate of the amount of time that will have to elapse before there is sufficient experience of the operation of the code of practice on price indication to enable an informed assessment on it to be made; and if he will make available in the Library the representations on the code which have been received since it came into operation on 1 March.

  Mr. Forth
  It would not be practicable to estimate when there will be sufficient experience of the operation of the code of practice for traders on price indications to enable an informed assessment of it to be made. However, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 20 March at column 249, I have suggested that a committee should be set up to monitor the operation of the legislation and the working of the code. It is important, however, that sufficient time should elapse to allow the effectiveness of part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the associated code of practice to be assessed before consideration is given to making any further changes.

  I have no plans to make available in the Library the representations which have been received on the code since it came into operation on 1 March.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the volume of arms export business with Libya conducted by Lonrho or its subsidiary company, Tradewinds plc.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing matters. Licences are required for the export to all destinations, including Libya, of arms which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No. 2070), as amended.

  Television Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the television advertising campaigns mounted by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and those to be mounted in 1989–90 giving the cost or estimated cost in each case.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The details are as follows:

  1985–86 — None.

  1986–87 — None.

  1987–88 — Enterprise Initiative: £4·3 million. Single European Market: £0·3 million.

  1988–891— Enterprise Initiative: £6·1 million. Single European Market: £7·1 million.

  1Provisional.

  Allocations for 1989–90 have not been finalised.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library details of each major publicity campaign mounted by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985–86 and each succeeding year, including in each case the objects of the campaign, the intended audience and the outcome of the monitoring of the achievement of the intended objectives, together with a note of the intended objectives in the campaign to be mounted in 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: I shall arrange for the information requested to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total volume per week of(a) domestic, (b) coal and (c) nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The amount of waste produced varies from week to week and year to year. The volume of waste produced may not be the same as that which is disposed of; some volumes may be reduced by compaction or incineration; others may be increased by solidification of liquids or stabilisation of reactive solids.

  Approximate figures for the volume of domestic, coal and nuclear waste are as follows:

  (a) Domestic (England and Wales)—120 million cu m per annum of loose waste or about 2,300,000 cu m per week (based on arisings of 18 million tonnes per annum and assuming a weight of 150 kgm per cu m).

  (b) Coal (British Coal deep mined: England, Scotland and Wales)—25 million cu m per annum of non toxic material which is not a controlled waste under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  (c) Nuclear (United Kingdom)—46,050 cu m per annum of waste conditioned for safe storage or disposal (of which 30 cu m is high-level waste, 1,920 cu m intermediate level waste, and 44,100 cu m low-level waste), or about 886 cu m per week.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Copeland, 22 March,Official Report, column 651, he will make a statement about the recent United Nations environment programme conference in Basle on the international trade and regulation of hazardous and toxic wastes.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 5 April.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish a national register of contaminated land sites.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A Department of the Environment working party is currently examining the feasibility of compiling registers of contaminated land and their report is expected shortly. It would be unwise to pre-empt the recommendations of this working party.

  Kirkgate Market (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce a decision in respect of(a) the City of Leeds (Kirkgate Market Area) Compulsory Purchase Order 1987 and (b) the City of Leeds (Kirkgate Market Area) Compulsory Purchase (No. 2) Order 1987, following the public inquiry held in April 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  Decisions will be announced shortly.

  Water Industries (EC and US)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the structure of the water industry in other European Community states and in the United States of America and the level of investment and consumer charges in each of these countries.

  Mr. Howard
  I would refer the hon. Member to table 13C of the 1988 edition of the water authorities publication, "Waterfacts", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Further information, on a consistent basis is not available.

  Water Companies (Foreign Control)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the acquisition of United Kingdom statutory water companies by foreign-domiciled companies; and if he will list which foreign companies have acquired majority or controlling interests in which United Kingdom statutory water companies since 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Howard
  The following foreign companies have acquired controlling interests in United Kingdom statutory water companies since 1 January 1988:

  Foreign company

  Statutory water company

  Lyonnaise des Eaux

  East Anglian

  Essex

  Newcastle and Gateshead

  Sunderland and South Shields

  Generale des Eaux (through its subsidiary, General Utilities)

  Folkestone and District

  Lee Valley

  North Surrey

  Tendring Hundred

  SAUR

  Eastbourne

  Mid Southern

  Mid-Sussex

  West Kent

  We do not discriminate against foreign investment in the water industry. An important objective of privatisation is to enable English and Welsh water undertakers to compete with foreign companies in the world-wide market for water services. It would be contrary to our EC obligations to discriminate against investment by nationals of other member states.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the percentage increases in water charges inforced by the statutory water companies since 1 January; which of these companies are French-owned; and which are owned by SAUR SA.
  401
  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 14 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and to the reply that I gave today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley).

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has reached about the use of land for clay pigeon shooting without specific planning permission.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have considered carefully the responses to a consultation paper that we issued in December. They have concluded that the General Development Order 1988 should be amended to revert to 28 days permitted use of land for clay pigeon shooting. They propose to lay an amending order before the House today. In reaching their decision they have taken particular account of two arguments. First, the change from 28 to 14 days permitted use could result in less control and safety if shoots were to take place for 14 days on one piece of land and 14 days on another. Secondly, the Department has now concluded negotiations with the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association on a draft code of practice for clay pigeon shooting. This would apply to all clay pigeon shoots and would cover such matters as separation distances between shoots and noise sensitive premises, times of operation and sound reduction techniques. The draft code is now being issued for consultation. Subject to comments from consultees, when finalised it will be approved by my right hon. Friends under section 71 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Enterprise Zone (Sunderland)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make an announcement about the designation of an enterprise zone for Sunderland.

  Mr. Trippier
  Statutory invitations under the terms of schedule 32 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, were issued today to Tyne and Wear Development Corporation and Sunderland borough council to prepare schemes with a view to designation as an enterprise zone of some 150 acres of land at Southwick Shipyard, Hylton Riverside, Castletown and Doxford Park. It is intended that the enterprise zone will last for 10 years from its designation. Copies of the invitations and maps showing the land specified are being placed in the Library of the House. The statutory procedures of consultation and then the hearing of representations will begin shortly.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gives to the possible conflict of interests when making appointments to public bodies responsible to his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The question of possible conflicts of interest is always considered when appointments are being made. The Department generally follows the guidance for dealing with conflicts of interest
  402
  on the part of board members set out in the HMSO publication "Non Departmental Public Bodies—A Guide for Departments".

  Planning Decisions
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision in respect of(a) the Hythe (Kent) marina and (b) the implementation of the revocation procedure in respect of the irregular granting of ancient monument consent for the destruction of the eastern end of the Royal military canal.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: I hope to write to the parties about these matters soon.

  River Teign (Pollution)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about the level of sewage pumped into the River Teign; and what response he has made;

  (2) what information he has on the level of untreated and partly treated sewage pumped into the River Teign;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that the River Teign is protected from pollution by sewage.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: Information is not held by the Department in a form which would allow the identification of discharges in any particular area. Details of all consents granted a water authority are, however, held on the register maintained by the water authority which may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours.

  The only representations that my right hon. Friend has received concerning sewage disposal to the River Teign were submitted in response to the statutory advertising of a discharge consent application made by the South West water authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for the repositioning of the sewage outfall at Shaldon occasioned by the blockage of the existing one by shifting sand. Consent was granted to this discharge on 29 November 1988.

  The only discharges of untreated sewage to inland waters are from storm and emergency overflows. By definition, the operation of these is intermittent and thus conditions imposed reflect this and prescribe when a discharge may take place.

  Many existing discharges to estuarial waters are of crude sewage or screened or macerated sewage and are of long standing. These discharges have deemed consent. It is the Department's intention that each should be reviewed by 1992 and where necessary, alternative arrangements considered.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution issued guidelines on the environmental conditions new long sea outfalls should be designed to achieve. Copies of these guidelines have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Boundary Commission
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any requests made to him for county council boundary reviews that involve the abolition of any county councils, other than Humberside; and if he will state his criteria for instructing the Local Government Boundary Commission to consider the abolition of any county councils as part of their reviews.
  403
  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Since the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has a statutory duty to consider the abolition of counties when carrying out its periodic review of county boundaries, I do not keep records of any requests that I receive for this to be done and I do not have criteria for instructing it to consider that question.

  It was in view of the scale and strength of the representations that I received on the report of the Boundary Commission in which it concluded that, on the guidelines that it had been given, it could not recommend major change in the case of Humberside, that I decided to direct it to carry out a further review of that county without the limitation that it should propose the abolition of a principal area only where present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of(a) the responses he has had to his request to charging authorities for a progress report on implementing the community charge, (b) when he proposes to publish the responses to his Department's request for a progress report from local authorities on implementing the community charge, (c) whether the Department of Environment has any plans to undertake further surveys of local authorities in connection with implementation of the community charge, and (d) whether any future surveys of local authorities will ask them for information concerning the costs incurred by them in implementing the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: I have today placed in the Library a summary of progress on the implementation of the community charge. It is based on the responses from chief finance officers to the letter sent to them on 21 December 1988.

  The survey reveals an encouraging picture overall. All of the 90 per cent. of authorities which have responded to the letter so far have made plans for the implementation of the community charge, and the majority of these appear to be making good progress with their arrangements.

  I intend to issue a detailed questionnaire to all charging authorities later this month. The main purpose will be to obtain details of the implementation programme for each authority. I do not intend that this questionnaire should seek information about the cost of implementation.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently registered homeless in(a) Warrington, (b) Macclesfield, (c) Congleton, (d) Crewe and Nantwich, (e) Vale Royal and (f) Staffordshire, Moorlands; and how many people were registered homeless in March 1979 in the same districts.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The numbers of households accepted as homeless by each English local authority under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in the first six months of 1979 appear in table A of "Homeless households reported by local authorities in England: Statistics for first half of 1979."

  Latest estimates appear in table 7 of the regular quarterly publication "Local authorities' action under the
  404
  homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the fourth quarter of 1988. Supplementary Tables."

  All these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since its establishment the planned housing developments(a) the Wirral side and (b) the Liverpool side of the Merseyside development corporation area; and what progress has been made on the completion of these plans.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Since the MDC was established in 1981, the corporation has intended that land would be made available for housing in its designated area. No figures were put on the annual number of dwellings planned and the following information records those completed or under construction in the period up to 1988–89. From 1989 to 1994 land zoned for housing development will provide for approximately 1330 dwellings in the MDC area (1,237 in Liverpool and 97 in Wirral). These will be provided by the private sector and housing associations, mainly on land reclaimed and serviced by the MDC.

  Dwellings Completed or Under Construction

  Liverpool

  Wirral

  1981–84

  8

  Nil

  1984–85

  100

  Nil

  1985–86

  19

  Nil

  1986–87

  32

  120

  1987–88

  11

  Nil

  1988–89

  305

  Nil

  1 A 20-bed single persons hostel was opened in December 1986.

  Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham North East of 16 March,Official Report, column 315, if he will list the several employment and training co-ordinating groups which have been set up in docklands; and if he will list their membership.

  Mr. Trippier
  The co-ordinating groups which have been set up are listed below, together with the organisations which attend. In addition there are regular contacts at working level.

  Joint LDDC/Bishop of Stepney Docklands Wide Group:

  —Bishop of Stepney, the Roman Catholic Bishop of East London, East London Church Leaders Group, LDDC, ILEA, LB Tower Hamlets, LB Southwark, LB Newham, Department of Employment (Training Agency, Employment Service and Docklands Liaison Group), Department of the Environment, LENTA, Docklands Forum, Skillnet.

  Tower Hamlets Education Employment and Training Co-ordination Group:

  —LB Tower Hamlets, LDDC, Department of Employment, Department of the Environment, Department of Education and Science, ILEA, New Start, Olympia and York, CITB.

  Southwark Employment and Training Co-ordination Group:

  —LB Southwark, LDDC, Department of Employment, Department of the Environment, North Peckham Task Force.

  LDDC has offered to set up similar new arrangements in

  405
  Newham.

  For the time being LDDC and the borough are continuing to liaise closely through existing arrangements.

  Industrial Pollution Control
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what responses he has received to his consultation document on a new system of industrial pollution control for industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply 28 February, Official Report, c. 110]: Our proposals for controlling inputs of the most dangerous substances to water—the "Red List"—were published last July. We have received responses from 80 organisations and individuals. A list of these has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. There was very widespread support for our proposals and it is now our intention to implement them. This will provide the regulatory framework for cleaning up our rivers, and for meeting our international obligations including those on cleaning up the North sea. It puts us in the forefront of developments in Europe in this area.

  Comments were sought and received on a number of points of detail, and these have been taken into account in reaching conclusions.

  We announced on 28 February (Official Report, column 110) our intention to proceed with the proposal that discharges from prescribed processes should be controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under the proposed new arrangements for integrated pollution control. Such discharges would be subject to a requirement, to be introduced progressively for existing plant, that the process should be operated according to the best available technology not entailing excessive costs with a view to minimising discharges of the most dangerous substances. However, discharge consents would also have to ensure that strict environmental quality standards were met and maintained in the receiving waters, and the proposed National Rivers Authority would have to be satisfied that this was the case before consent could be granted by HMIP.

  An important part of our proposals, welcomed by many respondents, was the establishment of a priority "Red List" of dangerous substances. As a result of consultation and of some new and corrected data received, we have slightly amended the provisional "Red List" set out in the consultation paper. The initial priority "Red List" will comprise the following substances:

  Substance

  CAS number

  Mercury and its compounds

  Cadmium and its compounds

  Gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane

  00058–89–9

  DDT

  00050–29–3

  Pentachlorophenol

  00087–86–5

  Hexachlorobenzene

  00118–74–1

  Hexachlorobutadiene

  00087–68–3

  Aldrin

  003090–00–2

  Dieldrin

  00060–57–1

  Endrin

  00072–20–8

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls

  01336–36–3

  Dichlorvos

  00062–73–7

  1,2-Dichloroethane

  00107–06–2

  Trichlorobenzene

  12002–48–1

  Altrazine

  01912–24–9

  Simazine

  00122–34–9

  Tributyltin compounds

  Triphenyltin compounds

  406

  Substance

  CAS number

  Trifluralin

  001582–09–8

  Fenitrothion

  00122–14–5

  Azinphos-methyl

  00086—50–0

  Malathion

  00121–75–5

  Endosulfan

  00115–29–7

  Further substances may be added to the list from time to time where there are sound scientific reasons for doing so. These will be identified broadly along the lines set down in the annex to the consultation paper. The selection scheme is being further developed and modified in the light of the comments received. Candidates substances identified by the scheme will be subject to a second-stage assessment, taking particular account of the risk posed for the aquatic environment, and to consultation before addition to the list.

  Many respondents confirmed the view expressed in the consultation paper that diffuse sources constitute an important input for many dangerous substances and that these merit greater attention. In the light of comments received we remain of the view that existing powers and arrangements for controlling the supply, use and disposal of substances should be sufficient to deal with any potential pollution problem from diffuse sources, but this position will remain under review. In the meantime, we have initiated more widespread environmental monitoring for priority substances and will consider the need for specific action where this proves necessary case by case.

  The consultation document also referred to earlier proposals issued by my Department for controlling discharges to sewer of the most dangerous substances after privatisation of the water authorities. There we have concluded that the Secretary of State, advised by HMIP, should authorise the discharge of these substances to sewer. However, dischargers need only make a single application to the sewage undertaker, who will refer any aspects involving dangerous substances to the Secretary of State. These arrangements are reflected in the Water Bill currently before Parliament, and regulations would be made under proposed powers in that Bill to prescribe the substances or processes to which they would apply.

  The full application of technology-based emission standards to discharges from prescribed processes under a system of integrated pollution control will require new legislation, which will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. However, provisions included in the Water Bill currently before Parliament would enable such controls to be introduced before then on an interim basis. We will make further announcements about this in due course.

  In the meantime the Department, together with the Welsh Office, has today issued a circular (DOE circular 7/89, Welsh Office circular 16/89) revising and extending existing guidance on the implementation of EC Directives concerning the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment. The circular includes environmental quality standards for a number of new list I and list II dangerous substances.

TRANSPORT

  Double Decker Buses
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new double decker buses London Regional Transport has bought in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  That is a matter for London Regional Transport's operating subsidiary, London Buses Ltd.

  London Regional Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the salaries and expenses of the board members of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  Current annual salaries of the board members of London Regional Transport are as follows:

  Salary

  Time Commitment

  £

  Chairman

  Mr. Wilfrid Newton

  80,000

  Full time

  Full-lime Members

  Mr. John Telford-Beasley

  60,000

  Full time

  Mr. Michael Marsh

  60,000

  Full time

  Part-time Members

  Sir Neil Shields

  18,900

  2 days per week

  Mr. Oscar Roith

  9,450

  1 day per week

  Mr. Keith Brown

  5,775

  half day per week

  Dr. Stephen Glaister

  5,775

  half day per week

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  5,775

  half day per week

  Miss Patricia Steel

  5,775

  half day per week

  Mr. Roy Thomas

  5,775

  half day per week

  Members' expenses are a matter for London Regional Transport.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much each local transport authority spent on its dial-a-ride services in 1987 and 1988; and what was the average number of journeys for each authority.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider making conversion of an engine to run on unleaded petrol compulsory as part of the MOT test.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Where cars are convertible we are encouraging owners to have this done right away. There are now significant tax advantages. From October 1990 all new petrol engined vehicles must be capable of running on unleaded petrol.

  Legislation leaves the choice with owners so compulsion would be impracticable. Some cars—especially older ones—cannot be converted to unleaded running.

  Road Tax Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists have been charged with driving without a road fund tax following the recent campaigns by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 20 vehicle excise duty enforcement campaigns run by the Department in conjunction with police forces in England and Scotland during 1988 resulted in 12,000 motorists being reported for not having a valid tax disc.

  Some 8,000 of these have already been prosecuted and many more cases will be dealt with by the courts in the coming months.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk and (c) England were attributed to (i) roads requiring remedial works, (ii) alcohol, (iii) criminal driving and (iv) others in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The STATS 19 return made to the Department of Transport does not record the causes of road accidents; it is therefore not possible to provide information on the number of accidents attributable to a particular factor.

  Information is available on the number of accidents in which a driver or rider failed a breath test, and this is shown in the table, along with the total number of accidents for 1987, the latest year for which these figures are available.

  Total accidents and those in which a driver or rider failed the breath test Norfolk, Suffolk, England—1987

  Failed breath test

  Total

  Norfolk

  155

  3,403

  Suffolk

  136

  2,715

  Rest of England

  9,041

  203,788

  England

  9,332

  209,906

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total fatalities in motor vehicle accidents in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk and (c) England every year from 1979 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures are as follows:

  Fatalities in motor vehicle and road accidents in Norfolk, Suffolk and England from 1979 to 1987

  Number of fatalities

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Rest of England

  England

  1979

  97

  76

  4,630

  4,803

  1980

  72

  72

  4,465

  4,609

  1981

  81

  63

  4,360

  4,504

  1982

  79

  60

  4,416

  4,555

  1983

  74

  58

  4,099

  4,231

  1984

  99

  71

  4,208

  4,378

  1985

  75

  67

  3,856

  3,998

  1986

  85

  53

  4,006

  4,144

  1987

  88

  58

  3,835

  3,981

  Noise Standards
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the policy of his Department with regard to acceptable noise standards in areas adjacent to major new rail and road projects; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will accept the noise standard of 65 dba for compensation purposes for the Docklands Railway Extension Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Noise insulation standards for new road schemes are laid down in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, made under part II of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Because major new rail schemes have been comparatively rare, no regulations have ever been made laying down noise insulation standards for such schemes. However. I am now setting in hand the work necessary to establish a national noise insulation standard for new railway construction. The objective will be to establish the standard at a level which equitably relates to the standard set by regulation for new highways.

  In connection with their proposal for a new rail link to the Channel tunnel, British Rail is offering to provide noise insulation on a similar basis to the scheme which operates in respect of new roads if noise resulting from the new link exceeds 70 dB(A) on the 24 hour Leq noise index. BR consider, on the basis of advice from independent experts, that this level is equivalent to the level at which insulation is provided for properties affected by new road schemes. LRT have also taken independent expert advice and share this view.

  Before promulgating any national standards for railway noise, the Government would wish to take its own independent view, and consult other interested parties on the appropriate standard to be adopted. We are therefore not yet in a position to take a view on the appropriateness of any particular noise standard, including that now proposed for the Docklands railway extension.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations concerning exemption of children from the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988, where the available seat belts are being used by adult passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Responses so far favour exempting children where the available seat belts are being used by adults.

  This issue is discussed in our consultation document, "Rear Seat Belt Wearing by Children". Comments are invited by 2 May.

  Where belts exist they should be used, either by children or adults. Seat belt wearing saves lives.

  No responsible parent should wait for the law before properly restraining their children in the car.

  Taxis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider, as part of his review of the operation of taxi services, the abolition of the power of local authorities to restrict the number of taxis which might be operated in their area.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes.

  Railways (Privatisation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the number of private national railways operated in different parts of the world and moves being made by national Governments to privatise existing state-owned railway networks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am aware of privately owned railways in the United States of America and Canada, and of the privatisation process in Japan. These and other relevant international comparisons will be taken into account in our consideration of the case for privatising British Rail.

  Pollution (Alaska)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance the marine pollution control unit is offering the authorities in Alaska; if he will list the United Kingdom equipment available to assist in cleaning up this disaster; if the Frogmat has been brought to the Alaskan authorities' attention; and if he will make a statement on the use of dispersants.

  Mr. Portillo
  The marine pollution control unit's resources exist to deal with oil spills around United Kingdom coasts. Some of these can be offered to assist neighbouring European states under an agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North sea by oil (the Bonn agreement). Assistance is not normally offered to an authority as far away as Alaska since to do so would reduce unacceptably our ability to respond to any incident at home. Any request for assistance from the Alaskan authorities would nevertheless by sympathetically considered. The United Kingdom developer of Frogmat has advised the marine pollution control unit that he has brought his product to the attention of the Alaskan authorities. The use of dispersants for dealing with oil spills is a well proved method, but their effectiveness depends on the type of oil, how quickly they can be applied, and the weather conditions.

  Channel Tunnel (Irish Link)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision has been made by the Irish and British Governments, on a Belfast-Dublin-Dun Laoghaire-Holy-head link to the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The planning of rail services in the United Kingdom is the responsiility of British Rail and Northern Ireland railways. Under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, British Rail is required to publish a plan by the end of 1989 setting out its proposals for Channel tunnel rail services serving various parts of the United Kingdom. It has not yet completed the regional consultations which it is undertaking in preparation for this plan.

  Thermal Neutron Analysis Machines
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the encouragement of research and experimentation into thermal neutron analysis machines to detect Semtex.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As explained to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 8 March at
  411
  column 538, research and development work on this technique is being funded by a commercial organisation in the private sector under a contract with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Harwell laboratory.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has assessed the efficiency of the recently produced thermal neutron analysis machines; whether he intends to introduce them at British airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer to my reply to the question by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 27 February at columns 55–6.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about the surcharging of charter trains using the Settle-Carlisle railway line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Decisions on the level of fares and charges are entirely a matter for BR's commercial judgment.

  New Drivers
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Transport and Road Research 412
  Laboratory's current study into the performance and behaviour of new drivers will also include research into the experience of other countries including Australia.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The current study is confined to United Kingdom drivers.

  A specific study of new driver experience in other countries is not included in TRRL's research programme. We do keep in touch with relevant overseas research.

  A423 (Compulsory Purchases)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the necessary compulsory purchases will be completed in relation to the A423 west of Maidenhead-Oxford trunk road (Maidenhead Thicket-Burchetts Green section) and work on the road able to commence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Most of the land required for this scheme is covered by made compulsory purchase orders. An order for the remaining small area will be made shortly. Advance works for cable diversions at Maidenhead Thicket are in progress. The road works are programmed to start in the summer of next year.

  Public Service Obligation
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the PSO grant cash ceiling will be for 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cash ceiling on PSO grant for 1989–90 will be £496 million.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I should like to take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from Professor Basil Markesinis, Director of the Institute of Anglo-American Law in Leiden, to visit the university and deliver a lecture on law reform between 13th and 17th April. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 14th April.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord be accompanied on that occasion?
The Lord Chancellor: I can think of some excellent companions, my Lords.

Romania: Human Rights
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will advise Her Majesty the Queen to withdraw the award of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath conferred on President Ceausescu of Romania on 12th June 1978 because of abuse of human rights in Romania.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne):My Lords, we are profoundly disturbed by the repressive policies being pursued by President Ceausescu of Romania. We condemn the systematic violations of human rights taking place in that country.
2
It would, however, be inappropriate for Her Majesty to be involved in a political gesture of the kind proposed; nor do we have any plans to advise otherwise. We are concentrating our efforts on drawing attention to the widespread abuses of human rights in Romania and, with other EC member states, seeking a significant improvement in Romanian performance.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, with the benefit of hindsight, does he agree that it was a serious error for the then Government to have invited to this country someone whose Government represented a regime with almost the worst human rights record in Europe at that time? Does he agree that we should consider very carefully before allowing governments to invite someone like President Ceausescu to this country on a state visit as opposed to a government to government visit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, President Ceausescu is a head of state and not a head of government, although he also holds the latter post. We are anxious to improve our relations with Romania but that would have to be in the context of an improvement in Romania's human rights performance. We wish to take every opportunity for them to hear our views.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as international agreements have clearly failed to improve the Romanian President's record on human rights, international disapproval is perhaps the only course? Therefore, does he accept that there should be some way in which European disapproval can be shown, even though, as he said, it is not possible to withdraw honours? Can he give a commitment to continue to raise the issue at forthcoming CSCE conferences?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall lose no opportunity for making our views known to the Romanian leadership. The CSCE process is just one of those occasions. We have reminded the Romanians of their obligations under the Final Act on more than one occasion. The United Nations human rights

3
conference has also recently appointed a rapporteur to look into the question of human rights abuses in that country.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, at the same time as raising the question of human rights, will the Government also take up with the Romanians the question of the bulldozing of historic churches in Bucharest and the enforced collectivisation of villages in the Romanian countryside which also involves the destruction of much of Romania's cultural heritage?
Lord Trefgarne:Yes, my Lords. That is a matter which is causing us special concern. A number of churches around Bucharest were demolished between 1984 and 1987 but I understand that none has been demolished since 1987. We wonder whether that may be the result of international pressure. We certainly hope so.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend also take into account the unpleasant behaviour of the Romanians towards the Hungarians within their territory, who I understand are attacked obsessively by the Romanian Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. There are about 2 million people of Hungarian descent living in part of Romania. We are anxious about their condition and have also made that point known to our Romanian interlocutors.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not Transylvania, where the Romanian minority lives, is open to visits by journalists and others?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that one or two Western Europeans have been allowed to visit parts of Transylvania, including, I understand, my noble friend Lord Newall. However, generally speaking our diplomats in Romania are subject to very considerable restrictions.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House whether the Romanian Government have yet apologised for the beating up of the British ambassador in Bucharest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, they have not, is the short answer. Our ambassador tried to visit a Romanian citizen recently and, as my noble friend has pointed out, he was manhandled and subjected to some abuse. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has raised that matter quite recently with the Romanian Foreign Secretary but I am sorry to say has not received a satisfactory reply.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister say whether a collar was awarded at the same time as the Grand Cross? Does he agree that a collar is in any case the property of Her Majesty's Government? Will he say whether any reciprocal award was made during the state visit to this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to inquire into both those points. I do not think that a reciprocal award was made, but I shall check. As regards the ownership of the collar to which my noble friend refers, perhaps I may write to him.

Balance of Payments: Manufacturing Industry
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the balance of payments position in manufacturing industry.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, in the three months to February 1989, trade in manufactures was in deficit by £4·4 billion compared with a deficit of £4·1 billion in the previous three months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that during the last full year of the previous Labour Government—which was 1978—this country had a balance of over £5 billion on its manufacturing industries; a surplus of £5 billion? Is he also aware that under this Government, the adverse balance of payments in manufacturing industry last year was £14·5 billion? Will he tell us what has happened to show such appalling figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must say that the period of the last Labour Government was a very long time ago. I had hardly left school at the time that Government left office. This Government's policies have laid down the basis of sustained growth—eight years of growth. The economy has grown faster than in all major European countries since 1980. Public finances are strong. Employment has grown by more than 2·75 million since 1983 while unemployment has fallen for 31 successive months and is now below the Community average.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in spite of the commendable growth that has taken place in the last few years in manufacturing industry, our capacity is inadequate to meet the requirements of the nation? What steps will the Government take to make sure that we increase the competitive capacity of manufacturing industry so that the enormous deficit, totalling no less than £14 billion on our manufacturing account last year, can be overcome?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that he has a debate on 26th April when, naturally, we shall be able to discuss these questions far more fully than at Question Time. However, as regards his specific question concerning what the Government intend to do, it is not so much for governments but for industries to galvanise themselves to improve their export situation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the very fact that we have changed

5
from a public sector borrowing requirement to a public sector debt repayment of some £12 billion this year shows that the economy is in very good shape, and that that was unimaginable 10, 15 or 20 years ago?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord and the Government now accept that the warning given by the House's Select Committee on Overseas Trade three years ago was timely and correct? Would it not have been in the country's interests if the Government had taken note of the committee's recommendations and increased expenditure on exporting industries, particularly manufacturing industries? Will he say to what level interest rates will have to rise before we obtain a nil adverse balance of trade?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are continually offered the advice of forecasters and Select Committees. Very often, those forecasts are wrong. Sometimes, of course, they are right. The Government take all those factors into account. As to interest rates, companies are now in a far stronger financial position than they have been for a long time. I must point out that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, increases industry's costs by far less than a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with regard to the last question, is my noble friend aware of any economic law by which the Government could increase funds to manufacturing industry other than by straight subvention, which is contrary to the principles of the European Community?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a question, I believe, for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to answer.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister confirm or deny the report that the Government intend to solve the balance of payment problems by abolishing the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, that is not the case. There is a review dealing with the statistical office which will involve a transfer to the CSO of statistics work in the DTI and the Department of Employment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while the figures that he has given confirm the fundamental soundness of our manufacturing economy, it would be wrong to ignore the message that comes from the balance of trade figures? Can he find any way of encouraging the Opposition parties to urge people in industry to improve their productivity instead of using party political ploys to try to denigrate the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that, generally speaking, members of the Opposition are
6
as keen as we are on this side of the House to see the economy grow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has used the Government's own recently published figures, but is he aware that on the basis of the February figures relating to manufactured imports and exports there will be an annual deficit of £22 billion, which is rather more than the £14 billion that has been mentioned in respect of the last year? Is it the Government's case that the larger the deficit on overseas trade in manufactures the more prosperous is the country? That seems to me to be the impression given by his noble friend. Moreover, has the noble Lord seen the report in the Financial Times of 25th March and the statement by the Engineering Employers' Federation that in 1989 for the first time mechanical engineering will be in deficit?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not read the Financial Times of 25th March but I shall certainly do so now. As I said previously, a balance of payments deficit in itself is not of great importance provided it can be financed. The noble Lord produced a figure of £22 billion. Perhaps I could refer him to my earlier point on the question of forecasts which are often wrong.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates had less effect than the corresponding figure in unit costs. Does he agree that by putting up interest rates he also puts up mortgage rates, which will greatly increase the pressure on pay claims? Particularly at a time when there are skill shortages, is it not very likely that employers will give way to those pay claims which will greatly increase their costs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said that it would increase industry's costs by far less than a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements. The real problem is that we are trying to eradicate inflation. Firm action has already been taken and we are now seeing signs that this is working. It is forecast to fall to 5.5 per cent. by the end of the year and will continue to fall throughout 1990.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is not the imbalance between imports and exports in the manufacturing industry partly perhaps due to the citizens of the United Kingdom? If some of us bought fewer foreign cars, televisions, perfumes, calculators, etc., is it possible that there might be quite a considerable difference in the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to a certain extent my noble friend is of course correct. However, two-thirds of imports are of capital goods, intermediate goods, and semi-finished manufactures. These will be used to redirect the British economy enabling it to export more in the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord answered my noble friend Lord Stoddart in relation to the report of the Select Commmittee of this House and said that some of the advice from committees

7
was wrong. But is it not the case that the report to which my noble friend referred was much more accurate than the forecast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year? He forecast a deficit of £4 billion when it was in fact more than three times that figure.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that could well be true but last year an enormous number of economists were wrong.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to me the noble Lord chose to remind me that the last Labour Government was in office 10 years ago. Would he take time out to remind the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government of that? They seem to be more intent than anybody on using that fact when it suits them. What does he think of today's published figures to the effect that the annual increase in the cost of raw materials and fuel to manufacturing industry has risen to 6.5 per cent? What effect will that have on competition with our overseas competitors?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to industry to decide how it reorganises its costs. What I believe counts is that a product should be well designed, well marketed, of good quality, made by a well-managed firm and a skilled workforce.

Gatwick Airport: Second Runway
2.55 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as they have never accepted being legally bound by agreements made in 1979 between West Sussex County Council and the British Airports Authority, they are prepared to consider the recommendation that, in spite of the many difficulties and obstacles and the inevitable controversy, all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend is awaiting wide-ranging advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on airport and airspace capacity to 2005. We shall have to consider carefully this and all the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Transport in another place.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration the findings of the Select Committee on Transport that found, as regards the main runway at Gatwick, there is one take-off or landing every five minutes? That may not be serious at all times but certainly it is at some times of the day, especially in peak hours. Secondly, the recommendation from that Select Committee was that no effort should be spared to proceed at once to introduce and provide an additional second runway, perhaps
8
in parallel with the first one. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we shall of course take into account the Select Committee's recommendations. We shall respond to them in the normal way. We have commissioned the CAA to give us advice by July of this year. We shall have to wait to see what it advises.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has the Civil Aviation Authority already advised Her Majesty's Government that an additional runway will be required in the South-East of England before the end of the century and that therefore time is now running short for the preparatory work?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, the advice that the CAA has given us was in the consultation document that it produced—CAP 548. It is plainly wrong to reach decisions until we have considered the CAA's formal advice in July, which is not that far away now, when everyone will have had their chance to say something.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, up to now the CAA has expressed great concern about the possible shortage of airspace capacity? That is a problem which still has to be solved. Is it not also a fact that the Select Committee on Transport in the other place appears not to have taken into consideration whether there will be any change in the estimates of passengers arising as a result of the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like airport capacity, airspace is equally a concern. Obviously one cannot reach a decision on one without knowing what the effects on the other will be. That will be a very important part of the Civil Aviation Authority's advice when it gives it to us in July. I think it would be wrong for me to comment in your Lordships' House on the Select Committee's report in another place as of course it will be receiving the normal formal response to that report in the usual way.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although we welcome the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, we deeply regret that his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, cannot be present owing to an accident? We all wish her well. Having said that, will the Government continue to resist pressure coming from various sources for any extension of night flying into either Gatwick or Heathrow beyond the emergency arrangements that are normally made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord in expressing regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has had an accident. I am sure I speak for everybody on our side of the House when I wish her a speedy recovery. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, on having taken up the cudgels that she has left off. So far as concerns night flying at Gatwick and

9
Heathrow, in February we laid down a regime for the next five years. We have no plans to alter that regime.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend point out to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is a— —
Noble Lords: Order, order! Carry on!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may start again. Will my noble friend point out to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is a very close relationship between airspace and runway capacity and that shortage of runway capacity accentuates shortage of airspace?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There is a close correlation between airspace capacity and airport capacity. However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested anything otherwise.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords——Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords——
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Baroness Hylton-Foster:My Lords, will the Minister consider—I hope that I have the terminology correct—the airspace when considering the question of a second runway at Gatwick? I understand that there is already a great deal of air traffic. Will the Minister agree that more would only make more problems for the poor air traffic controllers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have covered that already in the Answer that I have given. Obviously airspace and airport capacity need to be considered at the same time.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I do not mind giving way to anybody. While these matters are under consideration, will the Minister attempt to use his good offices to dissuade the BAA from proceeding with its proposals to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow and instead to concentrate on the possible runway deficiencies at Gatwick or Stansted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the BAA proposes to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow it would have to be subject to planning permission. However, I should perhaps have said earlier that there are three factors in the equation: airport capacity; airspace capacity; and terminal capacity.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for their kind comments about my noble friend who is unable to be here today. Noble Lords may already have realised that I have neither the knowledge of the noble Baroness nor her tenacity.

South America: Trade Relations
3.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken or propose to take to improve trade relations with South America.
Lord Strathclyde:My Lords, the Government attach great importance to our trade relations with Latin America. There have been six ministerial visits there since the beginning of last year. The Department of Trade and Industry's and our Embassies' services are available to companies wishing to trade in the region. The department also supports the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, which does very valuable work in promoting trade with the region. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is arranging a seminar on Latin America at the end of May, at which leading businessmen will have the opportunity of meeting all our ambassadors from the Latin American countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which is encouraging. If the Question were the cause of all these wonderful things that the Government are going to do, I shall have to put down a few more.
Is the noble Lord aware that British trade and commercial undertakings feel that the apathy that has been shown by the Government in years past has proved very costly and has placed them at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors? Will the Government urge all those who wish to assist in developing trade with Latin America to continue to improve the situation for British commerce and industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the UK market share has increased very slightly to 3 per cent. since the early 1980s. We shall continue to offer support for projects through the aid and trade provision to companies seeking to win contracts in the region.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the prospects of the United Kingdom increasing its trade with South American countries depend very largely on the resolution of the various debt problems of these South American states? Will the noble Lord inform us of the nature and extent of his department's liaison with the Treasury on this question in its negotiations with the remainder of the G7 group, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank?
Will the noble Lord agree that the closest possible liaison between the DTI and the Treasury on this matter is an absolute imperative?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is naturally close liaison between the DTI and the Treasury on a whole host of matters including this one. The noble Lord said that one of the problems for this country exporting to Latin America was the debt crisis. He is quite correct there. The debt crisis has hit Latin America very hard. The Government a re seriously considering the debt proposals set out by the new

11
US Trade Secretary Brady concerning debt reduction in these countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has given the slight increase in market share. If he does not have the figures, can he let us know what the movement has been in trade between this country and Latin America in real terms over the past decade? When he is reading—perhaps he will be re-reading—the report of the Select Committee previously referred to perhaps he will note that there is a section that urges the British Government to increase their support for trade in the third world in contrast with the great deficit that we suffer in our trade with the European Common Market.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have a deficit of trade with South America. However, on the exact figures I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and let him know the exact figures.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister accept that one of the impediments to increasing the flow of trade between this country and South America is the fact that the South American countries do not have sufficient foreign currency because the repayment of their existing debts is consuming all their available resources? Can he say whether or not this country is supportive of the Brady initiatives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said briefly earlier on, Her Majesty's Government are considering these proposals very carefully. We hope to come up with an answer to the proposals in due course.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Canning House advisers and the Latin American Trade Bureau are very conscious of the fact that there needs to be an improvement, in particular as we approach 1992? If there is not a massive improvement between British commercial undertakings and trade with Latin America so that we have a better chance of improving our position with foreign competitors, we shall be in a very serious situation in 1992.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Canning House and the Latin American Trade Advisory Group are obviously in very close contact.
On 1992 and with regard to this Government, the position in no way implies a Fortress Europe situation. We hope that trade will continue to grow.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989 will be taken.

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.14 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("whether or not in relation to any initial stage,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 50, 51 and 71 to 74.
This amendment is merely altering the words within the Bill which will give effect to the general principle upon which we voted at Committee stage. It in no way interferes with the principle that we approved and which was generally accepted. I thought it right, as I had moved the first amendment in Committee, that I should move these amended words at Report stage.
The amendment reflects our parliamentary procedure at its best. We came to a decision at Committee stage. We used words that we thought would give effect to the general procedure we had in mind.
I was very impressed with the intervention from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who has served with distinction as one of our Law Lords. While he expressed general approval of the principle behind the Committee amendments, he thought that the words may cause confusion if they had to be applied in the future operation of this statute. I did not feel it right to ignore the advice from such a distinguished quarter.
I considered that the words as they stood did not lend themselves to possible misinterpretation. If Clauses 4 and 5 were read together I am certain that the proper effect would be given. But with someone as experienced as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I felt it right that my colleagues and I who had tabled the original amendment should look again to see whether we could produce words meaning the same but leaving the issue less open to possible misinterpretation during later application. The words contained in my amendments are designed to achieve that end.
The experts who will form the FMA and advise on the procedure to be followed are encouraged to look at the effects of the Bill when applied selectively rather than at once. The amendment does not provide that it must be applied selectively; it merely gives the expert committee authority and encouragement to look at that possibility.
The amendment in no way alters what was decided in Committee but is designed to use words which will not lend themselves to possible misinterpretation. I and my noble friends who have attached their names

13
to the amendment represent all sides of the House. We agree that, where possible, Parliament should make statutes as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. There should be no need to delve through all kinds of clauses in order to arrive at the same decision. The amendment avoids such possible confusion and I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this matter should not delay the House too long. We accept and support the intention of the amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for the manner in which during discussions with Ministers he has pursued what he believed the House had in mind. The Government will not need reminding of the central issue. It was whether to accept the principle that the football authorities should have the opportunity of phased introduction. On that issue the Government were defeated by a narrow majority and it caused them to think again.
I hope that in that rethinking the Minister and his advisers will not be churlish in giving the amendment full effect. It means that the scheme will be capable of implementation by one form of phasing or another. The Minister may say that he has every sympathy with this issue being put on the plate of the FMA. He may nod his head in order to get the Bill through the House. He may say that they are entitled to consider whether in the light of their investigations phasing is desirable. However, he may say at the end of the day that he reserves the right under a part of the Bill to veto any detail of the scheme. The Minister is entitled to tell us that. However, this afternoon I want him to tell the House and the football authorities without equivocation that, if in implementing the spirit of these amendments they come to the conclusion that a scheme can best be made successful by having a form of phasing he will accept the good sense of the football authorities. I have no knowledge or authority to say that if the football authorities are given that option they will exercise it. That is because they have not carried out the detailed discussions or the experiments.
The noble Lord has been sensitive about experiments. His noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux asked about implementation, experimentation and tests. In a reply dated 15th March the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that those would be matters left to the Football Membership Authority. The House and the whole of football are worried that, holus-bolus, there will be a Bill which on one day is not operable but on the next is an Act of Parliament. They wish to see some form of experimentation.
I hope that the noble Lord will be helpful and say that, if in the light of tests, experiments and consulations the football authorities wish to exercise the options put forward in this series of amendments, not only do they have the right to do so but, if they come to the conclusion that they wish to introduce some kind of phasing, he will recognise that their experience is greater than his. They wish to see football benefited just as much as he does.
14
We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Mellish, for having pursued what we wish to see happen.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was not present on 20th February when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls carried the amendment in a full House by a small majority. I came to hear about it because I was told that probably there was a genuine misunderstanding in the drafting. I believe that my noble friend and those supporting him have been wise in agreeing to have the drafting corrected so that everyone is satisfied.
The Bill, as amended in Committee as a result of my noble friend's amendment, provided for a phasing period to become mandatory. Now it must be considered, but in the end it is discretionary on the part of the Secretary of State. We all wish to see that and I congratulate my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am pleased to accept the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lords, Lord Mellish and Lord Graham. The Government accept that it was the will of your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority should be required to consider the possibility of a phased application of the national membership scheme before it is approved. This is the effect of the amendments which my noble friend and the noble Lords have now moved, and we therefore accept them.
I explained when we first debated amendments on this subject, on the first day of Committee, and again on the second day, that the amendments which my noble friend and the noble Lord moved in Committee on this subject seemed to us to go further than they intended. Some of them, in particular the amendment which produced what is now subsection (2)(a) of Clause 5, have the effect of making phasing a compulsory aspect of the scheme. Other amendments moved in Committee to Clause 23 would actually prevent Part I of the Bill from coming into force at all.
This was not the effect which my noble friend intended, as he has said in his speech introducing the amendments today. Perhaps I may join him in paying tribute to the helpful contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on this subject. It was also made clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee, that it was not his intention to make phasing mandatory. He said so in as many words. Perhaps if I may quote him:
"Do not legislate in mandatory terms … merely point out that he,"
that is, the Secretary of State,
"has a duty to consider something".
This is very clearly the effect of the amendments which my noble friend has moved today. If your Lordships accept these amendments, the Bill will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have

15
regard to the desirability of a phased application of the scheme when he comes to designate the matches to which the scheme will apply. For this purpose, the Football Membership Authority will be required to consider the possibility of phasing. If the authority considers that phasing is desirable—and I will ensure that my noble friend's words on the subject and those of other noble Lords are drawn to the attention of the football authorities—it will be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will have to consider those recommendations.
I do not think that there can be any argument about the effect of this. If the FMA considers that phasing is desirable, it will be up to it to propose how phasing might be achieved and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. He will not have to accept those recommendations but he will have to consider them. My noble friend has also proposed deleting the amendments which he moved in Committee and of course I support him in that respect as well.
I should be clear on one point in accepting these amendments. We accept that the Secretary of State must consider the possibility of phasing and he must listen to what the FMA has to say on the possibility. But we continue to hope that phasing will not be necessary. We remain concerned that, if the scheme were to be introduced in stages, hooliganism would be displaced from those clubs at which the scheme applied to those at which it did not. Hooligans who had been banned from some clubs, perhaps as a result of convictions for violent offences, would be free to go to others and cause trouble there.
For this reason in particular, we believe that it will be in the interests of all clubs that the scheme should apply throughout the league from the date of its implementation, though the implementation date itself must of course depend on the technology being available and working.
I thought that it was only right that I should explain that this is the Government's present view. But the issue is open for further debate. It always was. What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, have achieved is to ensure that both the FMA and the Secretary of State will have to give full consideration to the possibility of phasing. My noble friend said that it was crucial that the football authorities, the experts, should look at the possibility. As he knows, it has always been the Government's intention that the football authorities should set up and run the FMA. I hope that government amendments which we are to discuss later today will further confirm that intention.
I am pleased to be able to start our discussions today by accepting a group of amendments. This group will remove provisions which went further than, I think, my noble friend intended. In their place, they will substitute a new clause which I am happy to commend to the House, one which requires both the FMA and the Secretary of State to consider the desirability of phasing before the scheme is implemented. I support these amendments.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I promise not to take very long but the House will know that I was involved in the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
The attitude of the Minister today is so different that I can hardly believe it. Your Lordships will remember that when we first moved this amendment the Government's attitude was, "We know best". I believe that is why many of your Lordships felt, as I certainly did, that that was a bit much. It was possible that the Government did not know best. We thought that the one objective of setting up a specialist advisory committee was to enable it to consider such matters and certainly phasing was one of them. However, the Minister dismissed that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in Committee the wording of an amendment is often wrong and is not acceptable either to the people who draft amendments professionally or the government of the day. If the Minister had stood up and said, "Look, the wording of the amendment is wrong but we shall do something about it on Report", we should not have taken the matter to a vote. That is the difference between then and now. Today the attitude is that of course the specialist committee will look at the matter, and I am sure that every Member of this House will say that it is about time too. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—and I admire him for having changed his stance—his words when we last discussed this matter, that football should be run by football, are very wise indeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel even more aggrieved than did my noble friend Lord Mellish. I believe that when I give my explanation, your Lordships' House will agree with me. On 20th February I moved this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, repeatedly refused to accept it. We all remember that only a few moments before I moved it the Government had been defeated.
While my amendment was being discussed and the discussion was obviously nearing its close, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the Government Chief Whip, rushed into the Chamber—there is no other way to describe his behaviour—put a piece of paper under the nose of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, whereupon he rose and said, albeit without commitment, that he would take away the amendment for consultation.
There has been no consultation whatever. I received a message from the chairman of Cardiff City Football Club to say that on 22nd March he, together with others, had been invited to the Welsh Office. He and the rest of my friends were under the clear impression that that was as a result of the commitment given by the noble Lord.
Following that meeting I met the chairman of Swansea, Cardiff and Wrexham Football Clubs and the secretary of the Football Association of Wales. I

17
could hardly believe what they told me and, indeed, I asked them to put it in writing, which they have done. I understand that a number of your Lordships have received the letter from the secretary of the Football Association of Wales, which reads:
"On the 22nd March a small committee, including representatives from our National Association, the Football League clubs in Wales, the Sports Council for Wales and the Police Authorities, was convened at the Welsh office by the Secretary of State. However, it was made clear at the outset that the meeting was designed purely to consider how the Bill should be implemented. When the question was raised regarding Lord Hesketh's promise of consultation, the meeting was informed that the Government's majority in the House of Commons was sufficient to pass the Bill and that other matters were quite irrelevant and would be to waste time spent more constructively".
Noble Lords: Oh, Oh!
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, from the comments I have just heard, I believe that I was wise to ask Mr. Alun Evans to put that matter on paper.
Before I proceed with my amendment, I respectfully ask the Minister to explain exactly what has been going on.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may first remind the noble Lord that I undertook without commitment to take away the amendment for consultation. Of course I referred to the meeting to which the noble Lord referred in a letter that I have not seen.
We discussed the issue at length in Committee, when I undertook, without commitment, to take away for consultation the amendment moved by the noble Lord. But I pointed then to the difficulties of excluding three clubs playing in a trans-national league, all the rest of whose members were included in the scheme.
I also referred, as the noble Lord reminded me, to the working party which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales was setting up to advise him on the designation of matches played in Wales. That meeting, as the noble Lord has pointed out, took place on 22nd March. My right honourable friend met the members of the group. There were representatives from the Football Association of Wales, the Football Leaue, the Welsh League clubs, the Sports Council and the police forces within whose areas the Welsh League clubs grounds lie. I understand that the question of the exclusion of clubs was discussed at some length. My right honourable friend listened to those who argued for exclusion, but neither on the grounds of principle nor by reference to the record of violence associated with matches involving Welsh League clubs was he convinced that an exception could or should be made. Indeed, he argued as I have done, that there must be consistency within the Football League.
We have considered carefully here. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also considered fully the question of excluding Welsh clubs from the scheme. But we cannot agree with those who have urged exclusion. I invite noble Lords to think about this because the problem—it is a real problem—is that one cannot exempt three clubs out of 92 in the League and expect the scheme
18
to work. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, I must ask the Minister to give the House a better explanation. At column 426, his closing words were:
"I can give no commitment, but I can take it away for consultation"—[Official Report, 20/2/89; col. 426.]
That expression rested on his knowledge, not ours, that there was to be a meeting on 22nd March. Has the Minister been in touch with my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa at any stage? Whenever the mover withdraws an amendment on the promise of consultation, everyone knows that that person should be part of the consultations. That has not happened.
I too have a record of what took place at the meeting. It was sent to me not by the Welsh FA but by the Football League. It says:
"In response to questions from the football representatives, the Secretary of State"—
not a functionary—
"reported that, following the recent debates in the House of Lords, his office had not been consulted by Lord Hesketh, nor was he aware that any such consultation would be forthcoming".
If that is the tenor of the meeting, then this is familiar ground. A working party is summoned to No. 10 Downing Street in order to consult on how best to make progress in football. When the majority say that they are not in favour of an identity card scheme they are told that what is to be discussed is the implementation of an ID scheme, not the principle at all.
If there is any meaning to consultation in Wales that consultation must have meant that the discussion was to include whether the Bill should apply to Wales. But, apparently, the purpose was purely to help the Secretary of State to implement the Bill in Wales. Surely, no one on the Benches behind the Minister accepts that as a proper definition of "consultation". It is a con trick. It has stopped the Government having a second defeat, and that is all it has done. The difference between this stage and the previous stage and the reason there was the change on the first series of amendments is that the Government were defeated. They avoided a defeat on this issue because we agreed to consultations. The Minister has told us that there was never any meaning to that phrase. I am not impugning the Minister— —
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I really feel— —Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I really feel— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall give way to the Minister in a minute. There was no meaning to consultation because the Minister knew, and we did not, that the issue of whether Wales should be included was never to be on the agenda.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I take great exception to that. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is trying to put his own interpretation on the meaning of the word "consultation". I have already explained to the House what I meant. My explanation did not suit

19
the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. As a result he is trying to put a meaning on to something that I said. I am afraid that what he says is just not the case. It is important to understand that these discussions were serious. It was not some process that was not about consultation. The fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows, is that the outcome was disagreement. Consultation does not always result in everyone being satisfied on all sides.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that his interpretation of the word "consultation" is to invite the parties affected—not the noble Lord who moved the amendment—to consider how to implement the scheme that those assembled did not agree with, that is not our interpretation. I have references to what other parties to those discussions said. I have here a note from Mr. Davies, who represented the South Wales police. He reported that the ACPO was seriously concerned about the national membership scheme in general. He referred to a four-page letter from the ACPO which had been sent to the Home Secretary expressing the organisation's reservations.
The whole basis on which the Minister tells us that these were proper consultations has been swept aside. I invite every Member sitting behind the noble Lord to reflect that if in future we are told that consultations will take place and that they prove as thin as those that did take place, they should be as ashamed as I am that the Minister has told the House that that is what he means by consultation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the issue before your Lordships is the question of whether the words "and Wales" should be left out or kept in the Bill. The issue is not how much consultation there was, or the nature of it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Renton: No, my Lords, this is the parliamentary reality of the situation. Personally, I was convinced by what my noble friend told your Lordships about the consultation that there has been. It is sad that it does not satisfy noble Lords opposite. Surely, however, we must apply our minds to whether the words "and Wales" should be kept in or left out.
In spite of my Christian name, I do not have the good fortune to have any Welsh blood, but I have spent a lot of my life in Wales and have many friends there. It surprises me, even as a friend of Wales, to find that the Welsh are to be treated differently from the English.
Noble Lords: And the Scots!
Lord Renton: And the Scots.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, there appears to be some illogicality in retaining Wales in the Bill and excluding Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is somewhat extending the issue before your Lordships. We are concerned whether Wales should be treated separately from England. That is what it comes to. My noble friend has pointed out that there are three Welsh clubs, no doubt conducting their football matches magnificently. I have never had the good fortune to attend any of them. There are 92 clubs altogether. I should have thought it an act of discrimination against the English if we are to insist on the three Welsh clubs being left out. I hope that your Lordships will, perhaps almost unanimously, oppose the amendment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene. But the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has talked so much rubbish. First, he knows nothing about the Bill. He did not know, for example, that Scotland was not included in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he did not hear the debate.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord says that this should not be a discussion about consultation but purely on the merits of whether Wales should be included. If he had attended the Committee stage debate he would have heard my noble friend Lord Brooks and all the rest of us arguing why Wales should be excluded. He would have enjoyed the whole argument.
Let us be fair; let us follow the trends. The Minister having already been defeated on an earlier amendment, sensed that the Committee was not in the sort of mood to put up with his rubbishy arguments any more and decided, wisely, to say "Do not press the amendment to a vote, I will consult". All of us know, including the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, that Ministers say that not to camouflage but to gain time to think, to discuss, to consult and to argue a matter through. It would have been more final if the Government had said "We do not agree with that. We think the Welsh argument is rubbish. Let us take the matter to a vote". There would then have been a decision and the matter would have been settled. The Government would not risk that.
Therefore, my argument is that noble Lords have every right to question the whole issue of consultation. Let us not make this place a farce. Either the Minister meant it or he did not. It is rubbish to talk about the Welsh argument being raised again. Did the Government consult? The answer is that they did not. That being so, I shall certainly vote in favour if the amendment is pressed to a Division.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I assure him that had any other noble Lord described my speech in the terms that he used I might have been offended; but knowing him as such an old friend, it does not worry me one bit.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not in the Chamber when we had our previous debate in Committee. Had he been so he would have understood the feeling and

21
recognised the flavour of the Committee at that time. I should say to the Minister that some of us are extremely resentful at the attitude taken and the fact that consultation did not take place as promised. Among others, I was one who prevailed upon my noble friend to withdraw his amendment on the basis that the Minister had given a proper undertaking to consult. It is now quite clear that consultation has not taken place.
Your Lordships should take grave exception to the paragraph in the letter which says:
"it was made clear at the outset that the meeting was designed purely to consider how the Bill should be implemented. When the question was raised regarding Lord Hesketh's promise of consultation, the meeting was informed that the Government's majority in the House of Commons was sufficient to pass the Bill and that other matters were quite irrelevant and would be a waste of time".
That meeting took place when there were a further three stages of the Bill to go through this House. It is an insult to your Lordships that they should be told through this meeting that what they had further to say about the Bill was irrelevant because, whatever they said and whatever they did, the House of Commons with its huge government majority would alter it or throw it out anyway.
I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his reply because as a Member of this House I am entitled to feel insulted, as I believe other Members feel insulted. If that is the way we are to be treated, there is no point in noble Lords coming here every day seriously, as we think, debating matters of great note if we are to be told that it is a complete waste of time, that the House of Commons will take no notice at all and that the Government with their huge majority will use it to dun this House.
On the issue itself, the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, ask why Wales should be excluded. There are very good reasons why Wales should be excluded: first, there is no history of football hooliganism and, secondly, that is recognised by the fact that Wales still takes part in European competition. If that is not a good enough reason to exclude Wales, I do not know what is.
Even at this stage the Minister has an opportunity to rescue those who have let him down. These people who had this discussion—not consultation—have let the Minister down, make no mistake about that. They were to tell the football people in Wales what was going to happen. The Minister still has the opportunity when he speaks again to put right this matter and to rescue at least his own reputation, which I sincerely hope he will do because we hold him in high regard.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that at this early part of the Report stage words like "insulted" and resentful" should be used. I do not believe that is in the spirit of this House and the way we do our business here. My noble friend has given an explanation. It is not an explanation which is accepted, but in either House, whether we call one another honourable members or noble colleagues, when an answer is given one usually accepts it as being a genuine answer given by the Minister. It is
22
not within normal practice, and nor should it be if we are to be a civilised Parliament, that one should feel resentful or insulted because a different point of view is expressed to what one wanted. I am sorry that the words have been used but is early, let us not repeat them and let us get on with producing as good a Bill as we can.
On this amendment, of course there is a difference between Wales and Scotland. We know that in many instances in Scotland there is a different law to this country. There is a separateness which has been established over many years. Scotland had Sunday opening of pubs long before we could get an extra hour for Sundays. Therefore, there is a difference. Not to recognise that there is a traditional difference is wrong. However, Wales and England have invariably gone together.
On whether or not Wales should be excluded, I do not support the amendment for this reason. All of my amendments in the past, and all the contributions that I have so far made to the proceedings on this Bill, are based on my view that Parliament is not the place to set down the detailed rules. I believe that the people who know football, practise it and understand the practicalities should do that. We must make certain that the FMA—that committee of experts when it is formed—has the power to give a lead, because it will comprise practical men who have the experience.
Under the amendment accepted in Committee and reaffirmed a few moments ago, we have not taken away from the FMA the power to say that in the interests of football Wales should not be included. It is up to the FMA to recommend to the Secretary of State, in whatever proposals it puts forward, that that is the position. My understanding of my amendment is that the FMA would have the power to do just that.
I am very pro-Wales. I understand its separateness on many issues, but on this issue I believe it would be wrong to separate Wales. I hope that we can argue this amendment, like others, on its merits, without feeling resentful or insulted, because there are no grounds for that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find it a trifle difficult to follow part of the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if he will forgive me for saying so. My understanding of his view is that Parliament is not the place to settle the question of whether or not Wales should be included within this Bill.
The noble Lord is transferring a degree of responsibility to the Football Membership Authority of a kind which I think does not exist in any other organisation in this country. If Parliament is not the right place to decide this matter, who conceivably is, particularly as the Secretary of Slate has made it absolutely clear that as a matter of principle he insists on including Wales in the scheme? Therefore if this amendment is not proceeded with on the ground that the matter should be left to the FMA, we shall be doing so knowing that as a matter of principle the Secretary of State would reject any such advice from that authority. That is absolute nonsense.

23
Perhaps I may return to the question of Scotland and Wales. A number of noble Lords have speculated as to why Scotland has been excluded from this Bill. I congratulate the Scots on having been left out of a thoroughly bad and ill-considered piece of legislation. I suspect that the reason for it has more to do with the political situation in Scotland than any other matter. It probably has very little to do with football. As regards the level of violence, there is no evidence at all that there is more of it in Wales than in Scotland. On the basis of the evidence that a number of us put before the House on the last occasion, it was clear that the amount of violence at Welsh football grounds is trivial. That is one of the reasons why Wales still plays European football and England does not. It is recognised that there is not a violence problem in Wales. That being so, it seems to be extremely ill-judged that the Government should persist by including Wales in the Bill against a great deal of advice that they have received from the Principality. I still hope that the Government will think better of it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no doubt that there is a distinction between the Scottish and the Welsh leagues. It is unfair to dismiss that as not being the case. When this matter was last discussed (I refer to col. 426 of Hansard for 20th February) the Minister laid out the reasons for the complications when considering exemption for Wales. The interaction between the three Welsh clubs and the English league makes the situation more complicated. Having said that, and having made reference to the working party and the meeting that has taken place in Wales—I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister is in constant touch with the Welsh Office and has the benefit of any findings from the working party—it is perfectly fair to say that thought has been given to the problem since the previous discussions. It is perfectly fair that at this stage the Bill should apply to all 92 clubs.
I very strongly support the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the amendment accepted by the Minister a moment ago gives an opportunity for exemption for Wales either when the scheme is implemented or subsequently. That is an opportunity that can be considered. I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment and that the Bill will be left as it is, applying to all 92 clubs with no separate exemption for Wales. But, in implementing the Bill, I hope that discussions will take place with the Football Leagues and that consideration will be given to whether it is appropriate for either temporary or complete exemption to be accorded when the Bill is approved by Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I ask the Minister to take on board directly the question of whether it is possible for the FMA to put forward a scheme that excludes Wales. A great many of the Minister's colleagues are hanging on in order to defeat this amendment because of the FMA. If the Minister repeats what he said before he will say that there is no possibility. I wait to hear what he has to say.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems that there is no argument except that put forward by the Minister. If you have 92 members of an organisation upon whom you are imposing an obligation, three of whom live in an area which, because of geographical accident, has been legislatively a part of the United Kingdom since 1485 they cannot suddenly be given exemption. It would be just as logical to say that we would not exclude Wales, but we would exclude Scunthorpe United, Luton Town and Norwich because they were another part of the heptarchy. The decision has been taken and I support the government view that the 92 clubs of the Football League should be asked to run a membership scheme. Perfectly logically, you can exclude sections that visit all 92 members but you cannot exclude three. Therefore I sincerely hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, notwithstanding my name, I should not have felt it necessary to intervene in an amendment concerning Wales but for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He suspected that the reason why Scotland is not included is because of the political situation there. There is no evidence whatever that the Government pay the slightest attention to the political situation in Scotland, and that could not possibly be the reason. It is because several years ago the Scottish Office had the courage to take action regarding these matters. Legislation was passed concering drink in public places and especially at football matches. That is the reason why hooliganism was controlled much earlier in Scotland and before any sign of it being controlled in England.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, my earlier question to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may have been misinterpreted as indicating I was anxious to include Scotland in the Bill. I wish to assure the noble Lord that we have no desire to be included in it. Any such suggestion would be greeted with great opposition and resentment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, steps have been taken in Scotland to ensure that there is reasonable behaviour at football matches. This national sport is played with great passion in Scotland and week by week the attendances are increasing because of that reasonable behaviour. The clubs, the police and the supporters have collaborated to make sure that people can go to football matches and enjoy the spectacle of a great game. That has been achieved.
I turn now to the problem of Wales. Unlike Scotland, football is not a national game in Wales. The national game is rugby football. We are dealing with small clubs which will suffer if this Bill is imposed on them. That situation has been made clear by the small English clubs. They will all suffer from the imposition of an identity card system. We are really punishing Wales, which is in a special situation. It is a nation of small football clubs that will suffer from this legislation. It is not a geographical accident. There is a Welsh Football Association just as there are an English and a Scottish FA. Wales is a nation and it is entitled to be considered as one in relation to this legislation. We are not breaking any great consitutional rule in this matter. I appeal

25
to noble Lords on the other side and say that this is not a big party issue, but a question of controlling three or four Welsh clubs.
I ask noble Lords not to divide on party lines on the question: let us consider what is good for the game and for the people who are trying to maintain the small clubs in Wales. If Scotland is excluded from these provisions, whether for political or other reasons or because the Scots behave themselves a little better at football matches (statistically that is not so), why should a big issue be made of the question of excluding these few clubs in Wales? It is a very important matter for the clubs whether they play in Europe or not. Half of the Glasgow Rangers football team is made up of English internationals who have had to go North to earn a living because of the greater rewards of playing in Europe. If they are excluded from Europe they cannot enjoy those greater rewards. I suggest to noble Lords that we should seriously consider this matter without making a big issue of it. There will be no great harm to the Government. Soccer in Wales will be encouraged if this amendment is approved.
4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I ask the Leader of the House to remind your Lordships that at Report Stage, apart from the mover of the amendment and the Minister, noble Lords may speak only once. At least two or three noble Lords have spoken twice already.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. I was extremely conscious on the first day of the Committee that this is a very Welsh matter. Because of that I felt it, important that the meeting should be a Welsh meeting in Wales with the Secretary of State. A number of noble Lords have produced accounts from organisations which went to that meeting and were dissatisfied with the outcome. I was not at the meeting but I can assure the House that the Secretary of State for Wales has told me that the football interests in Wales had a good chance to put their case. I do not think that he could have gone further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the FMA recommending, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, that the three Welsh clubs be excluded from the scheme. When the scheme is drawn up it will be perfectly possible for that to happen, but I very much doubt that the architects of the scheme will consider it a good idea, for the same reasons as many noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon. If the scheme is to work with 92 members, it will not work if three are exempted. It could happen but I am not sure that it will happen.
Certain noble Lords opposite rightly pointed out that the police have reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, did not mention that the Welsh police believe that if the scheme comes in the Welsh clubs must be part of it.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was disturbed by some of the expressions that were used in the course of
26
the discussion on my amendment. All I said was that I felt aggrieved about the way I had been treated. I hope he does not think that that is an extreme or unparliamentary expression.
I am totally dissatisfied with the Minister's explanation about the so-called consultation. I repeat that I have heard only secondhand from those who were invited to attend the meeting. The Minister said that they may have been dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting. It was not that they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting; they were dissatisfied with the purpose of the meeting. They were brought there as members of a working party. Those were the words used on the heading of the invitation letter sent to them. However, that topic has been exhausted.
There is a great deal of ignorance on the Benches opposite about the position of these three clubs in Wales. Many smaller English clubs genuinely fear that they will be driven out of existence. If England lost three, four, six, 12 or 20 of its clubs it would be something of a tragedy, but the English football system would survive. We are talking about three Welsh clubs. Since I spoke to the House at Second Reading we have lost Newport completely. All its assets have been sold at auction. It was driven to the wall because financially it could not survive. Cardiff City Football Club is up for sale. The chairman has made it quite clear that he can no longer continue financially to support the club. Swansea City Football Club has been to the very doors of the bankruptcy court and has managed to survive only through the loyalty of the local community and of some business interests. Wrexham Football Club is in the Fourth Division and is surviving on small gates by the skin of its teeth.
The semi-finals of the Football Association of Wales Cup are about to be played. As I said in Committee, the most important time in Wales is not when we play English clubs in the Football League but when the cup competition comes around. Clubs such as Merthyr, Barry and Bangor have the opportunity to play in Europe. That does not apply to any non-league English club. No non-league English club would consider even in its wildest dreams that it would get into European competition, even if English clubs were admitted. However, two years ago Merthyr played in the European Cup Winners Cup. All Wales was rooting for it. Barry is in the semi-final and is playing Swansea City. I happen to be the leader of South Glamorgan County Council. We are responsible for implementing the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. We have refused to issue a licence for the game to be played at Jenner Park in Barry. Not one spectator can attend. Barry has applied to Ninian Park to play this game against Swansea at that ground. Ninian Park has agreed but has pointed out some essential expenses which total £1,500. Barry does not have £1,500. It came to my authority. We agreed to give a grant of £1,500 so that the game can be played.
I mention these points to impress on noble Lords opposite the position of our three small Football League clubs in Wales. The position is different from the one in England. When I hear that Cardiff is no different from Scunthorpe I feel it necessary to point

27
out that if Scunthorpe has a problem with education it presumably goes to see Kenneth Baker. We do not; we see Mr. Peter Walker. We are separate in that sense. Scunthorpe is in exactly the same position as a town in Devon or in any other county in England. We are in a totally different position. The setting up of the Welsh Office was to a large extent a recognition of the fact that Wales is a separate nation and a separate entity.
I intend to press my admendment to test the feeling of the House. I hope that what I have said will at least change the minds which apparently were made up and will persuade some noble Lords who were going to make up their minds after listening to the debate to join me and my friends in the Lobby.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 123.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mais, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mellish, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Porritt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fletcher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpem, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

28

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Knights, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Long, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lothian, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Cawley, L.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Croft, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton, L.

Daventry, V.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Donegall, M.

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

Saint Brides, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Effingham, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seebohm, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Slim,V.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcarron, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harvington, L.

Swansea, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("such") and insert ("League or domestic cup").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I

29
were to speak also to Amendment No. 59. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers appreciate that this is the Wembley issue. I am also very conscious of the fact that we have debated the subject of Wembley in the past. My purpose in raising these two issues now is to link the first amendment and Amendment No. 59, in order to try to write into the Bill matters which relate to the duties, and the extent of those duties, of the licensing authority.
No doubt the Minister will recognise the fact that we had a most useful, although somewhat lengthy, debate on 14th March when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, played a major part in the proceedings. Incidentally, he apologises for not being able to be here today. However, perhaps I may read to the Minister what he said on that occasion (at cols. 187 and 188 of Hansard). I should like him to confirm that our understanding of the situation is correct. He said:
"We accept that special arrangements could be made to enable foreign visitors, who are not members of the scheme, to attend matches and that will be a feature of the scheme".
He then went on to say:
"I make no apology for the fact that we are looking at the possibility of providing special arrangements in the scheme for Wembley different from those that will be operated at club grounds".
As regards the Bill, we are torn between trying to write words into it and trying to strengthen the power of the FMA to act as it considers to be right. We always have the fear that if the FMA in its wisdom considers that that which is right is to be implemented, the Minister still has the reserve power to say, "Oh, no you don't". What we want from the Minister today are assurances, whereby the FMA will not be wasting its time, so that the authority will know that it is going broadly along the right lines. The Minister says that the scheme from the FMA will provide special arrangements regarding Wembley which will be different from those which will operate at other club grounds. We should like him to say a little more on the subject.
In the aforementioned debate the Minister then went on to say:
"Wembley is a unique football stadium".
Therefore, it is a unique football stadium as opposed to the generality of the other stadiums. Then, at the top of column 188, he said:
"I think that the sensible course here is to allow the FMA to draw up those special arrangements in consultation with the Wembley authorities and the police".
Amendment No. 59 states:
"It shall be the duty of the licensing Authority to advise the Secretary of State on such matters concerned with this Act as the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Authority by the Secretary of State and may, for such purpose, obtain advice or assistance from other persons with knowledge or experience appearing to the authority to be relevant to this function".
I want the Minister to say that all that means that the Wembley authorities will be able to convince the FMA that Wembley is a special case and that will be enshrined on the face of Hansard, not the Bill, or we shall be driven to try to write words on to the face of the Bill. I am knowledgeable about parliamentary arithmetic, if not procedure, and it would be an exercise in futility if we tried to do it that way. I
30
want the Minister to confirm that what I have said is correct. He continued in col. 188 to say:
"I am sure that consultation between the interested parties as the detailed scheme is being worked up is much the best way of devising sensible arrangements by which Wembley can be fitted into the framework of the membership scheme".
The Minister may say that Wembley has all that it wants. I believe that it has all that it can obtain at this stage of the Bill in this House in view of what the Minister has fairly said, although we do not agree with it, about the Secretary of State's ultimate power of veto. In moving the amendment, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I want the Minister to confirm that the Wembley authorities have as much as they can obtain at this stage and that the FMA will be encouraged to look at Wembley as a special case, work out the nuts and bolts and include it in the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that if that is what Wembley and the FMA want, he is prepared to frank it. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at length on the amendment. I believe it only right to indicate that following the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and I and representatives of ACPO met the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to discuss a number of important matters dealt with in the Bill which have direct relevance to the police service. We are looking forward to hearing from the noble Earl nearer to Third Reading about the outcome of the consideration which has been given to the points that we put forward on that occasion.
That is particularly relevant to Wembley, because as far as I am aware no discussions have yet taken place with the Metroplitan Police on how satisfactory arrangements will be made at Wembley. That is a matter of crucial importance, because, as we all know, we shall be confronted with a situation where English nationals, if I may so describe them, will have to present FMA membership passes to get into Wembley and people coming from Scotland will not have to. There is also the question of international matches which we shall no doubt discuss later.
I hope that there will be discussions about Wembley with the Metropolitan Police well before any final determination is made. I shall not press the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, today. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is present and as this is one of the matters that we did not discuss at the Home Office two weeks ago, I am taking the opportunity to mention it now.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made a reasonable plea. I hope that my noble friend will accept it in the spirit in which he presented it. Wembley is a separate matter. It is different. That is where the FMA's expertise is necessary. The Secretary of State has powers in the Bill which I would not want to remove because certain things could happen which might make it vital that the long stop of the Secretary of State's decision with regard to the welfare of the whole nation should exist. However, I hope that my noble friend can give some indication that football, the

31
correct operation of football grounds and the membership, will all be in the mind of the Secretary of State.
I do not want to tell my noble friend which words he should use. However, I was rather sad that on the last amendment he said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he accepted my point but at the end of the day the FMA could, if it wanted, recommend that Wales—in that case—could be excluded because it had the power to do that. I hope that is what my amendment entitled the FMA to do. I hope that I am not being presumptuous, but my noble friend went on to say that the FMA would not do such things. He was certain that the case would be so overwhelming that that would never cross its mind. As he is the Minister answering to the House, that could give the impression that that would be the view that the Secretary of State would hold strongly.
If in answering this reasonable plea that the FMA should be the body to use its expertise to decide what should happen my noble friend could avoid using words which give the impression that the Secretary of State has made up his mind, irrespective of what the FMA says, that would be more helpful and more acceptable to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment deserves consideration again although we touched upon it in Committee. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it. I see one or two problems with it. First, Amendment No. 3 would, as has been pointed out, enable international matches at Wembley to be excluded from the operation of the scheme. We know that for the most part international football matches do not create trouble; but, as I understand the working of the scheme, it is not particular places—we had this of course on the last amendment in relation to Wales—with which we should be so concerned as with who would be attracted to particular places if they were exempt. Hooligans in one place could easily be attracted to exempted grounds merely because they would then be free to go and make a nuisance of themselves at that ground. That point needs to be considered. Even in relation to international matches, we should bear in mind that, as I understand it, about 1,000 police officers were considered necessary to protect Wembley stadium during the England/Holland match last year. We must be careful about this, although on the face of it the proposal seems reasonable.
Amendment No. 59 seems to go very much wider than what the noble Lord has in mind with Amendment No. 3 and wider than the case that he made out for Amendment No. 59. He was anxious that the Wembley authorities should be consulted as a result of the opportunity given by Amendment No. 59; but of course that amendment would place a duty on the licensing authority to make all kinds of inquiries to obtain advice or assistance, not merely from the Wembley authorities but from all over the country. The licensing authorities will probably do that anyway. They probably could not exercise their power without doing that. Bearing in mind that
32
Amendment No. 59 goes much wider than Amendment No. 3, I should wish to hear my noble friend before we write the provision on to the face of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments take us back to the important matter of how best to deal with international matches played at Wembley, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out at the beginning of his remarks. It is an issue on which we have spent a considerable amount of time. I have made it clear that the Government regard Wembley as a special case. We entirely accept that special arrangements will be necessary to deal with foreign spectators at international matches.
It would not be appropriate to try to accommodate them within the scheme through the temporary membership arrangements which clubs will be able to apply to foreign visitors to league grounds. What we want to see happen is that the FMA should get together with Wembley authorities and the police and work out appropriate arrangements for dealing with foreign spectators at Wembley. They will wish to look at what security arrangements, if any, should be made to deal with supporters of non-English teams. As I said at Committee stage, we should remember here that most foreign supporters will have purchased their tickets at home and travelled to the match in groups.
I have argued that we need special arrangements for Wembley and I accept of course that we cannot require foreign spectators to join the national membership scheme. Nor do we think that international matches can be excluded altogether from this scheme, because international matches, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, can often be a source or focus of attention. They can call for considerable police resources to be deployed.
On licensing, we accept that the licensing authority, in its existing functions, will need to take full account of the special considerations which apply to Wembley. There is already provision for the Secretary of State, where he himself is not the licensing authority, to require such considerations as he considers necessary to be taken into account by the licensing authority.
In the circumstances, I do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to require the licensing authority to have to take into account any recommendations from a committee of the kind referred to in Amendment No. 59. There is of course nothing to prevent the licensing authority, of its own volition, seeking relevant advice, for example, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in the case of Wembley, from the Metropolitan Police.
I have emphasised today that Wembley is a special case. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be sensible to ask the FMA to consider, in consultation with the Wembley authorities and the police, how best to deal with international matches and then make recommendations to the Secretary of State. I now turn to the recommendations to the Secretary of State, and the point of my noble friend Lord

33
Harmar-Nicholls concerning the exclusion of the three Welsh clubs. There is a world of difference between a recommendation which is not a whole section of the scheme, as with the three Welsh clubs, and what we are discussing regarding recommendations for a satisfactory outcome at Wembley. I can give my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls my assurance on that. I confirm again that we envisage special arrangements for Wembley.
Amendment No. 46, to which we shall come later, provides for the scheme to make different provisions for different circumstances. It is a government amendment and is designed to make absolutely clear that the scheme can make special provision for Wembley. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that those of us who have a deep interest in these matters will read carefully what the Minister has said. I know that we are dealing with the interpretation of the words "exclusions" and "exemptions" because we were trying to exclude the Welsh situation from the scheme. Here we are trying to avoid the application of the entire scheme to a particular and unique situation.
However, I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was able to read into the words of my amendment far more than I had intended. The amendment says that the Secretary of State,
"may, for such purpose, obtain advice or assistance from other persons".
That does not mean that he has a duty to consult everybody. It mentions the Football Membership Authority and the licensing authority, and we remember that we had a debate on who would be the licensing authority. We are still uncertain because the authority has not been designated. We moved that the licensing authority should be the local authority within whose area the ground was situated because it already carries out some functions. However, we made no progress on that.
In this amendment we are saying that if the licensing authority—which could very well still be the FMA which will have all these powers—wishes to consult the Wembley authorities it may do so. I could not insert "Wembley" into the amendment because that would have involved too much special pleading. The licensing authority may say to the Wembley authorities, "In view of what the Minister has said and our knowledge of what football means, come and discuss the matter sensibly with us". The authority does not have to consult other people if it feels there is no purpose in doing so.
I believe that we have gained as much as we can from the Minister. I am grateful to him because I feel that he genuinely understands that Wembley needs to be treated separately. There are not merely a few dozen or a few hundred people involved; there could very well be a great many. Those of us who enjoyed the privilege yesterday, as I did, of attending the Cup Final at Wembley are conscious that it is a unique stadium with a unique atmosphere. I go to football now and again but there are people for whom
34
it as the acme of opportunity to attend football. It is quite special. I have found from discussions with the Wembley authorities—and that is the phrase I like to use—that they are most anxious and concerned about the application of the scheme to Wembley. They are anxious to find a means, without altering what the Minister has in mind for the scheme, whereby the special situation of Wembley can be taken care of. We are grateful for what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("instrument") to ("House") in line 30 and insert ("but no order under that subsection will have effect until approved by a resolution of each").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the affirmative resolution amendment and I think that the most sensible thing to do would be to take all similar amendments at the same time.
As I indicated during the Committee stage of the Bill, we have all heard arguments on the matter both in this House and, in some cases, in the House of Commons. The question is whether the Government should have to obtain the support of Parliament by means of the affirmative resolution procedure rather than by the far less stringent terms of the negative resolution procedure. Sometimes I am bound to admit that I have put the argument for the affirmative resolution, but when in Government I have used the alternative argument. Governments are inevitably enthusiastic for the negative resolution procedure and all oppositions see merit in the affirmative resolution procedure. I concede that at the outset.
However as regards this Bill we are discussing a very different matter. It is one which, as I indicated on Second Reading, is little more than an empty shell. All that will happen after the Bill becomes a statute is that there will be a Football Membership Authority which will at some stage put its proposals to the Secretary of State who may accept or reject them. Some of the matters which will be discussed between them raise points of the highest principle. It seems to me highly undesirable that one should allow the matter to be left entirely to the decision of a Minister after what will inevitably be private negotiations with the Football Membership Authority.
Let me remind the House of some of the issues which we have discussed here. For example, questions of nationality law, and in some cases questions of European law, which will be determined not by Parliament but by the Secretary of State after discussions with the Football Membership Authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will remember, I raised the matter of the young man living either in Manchester or Liverpool, who is the holder of an Irish Republic passport. He will have certain rights which are superior to those of the young man living next door who is a citizen of the United Kingdom.
We know that Ministers are prepared to agree to some form of special arrangement for holders of foreign passports but we do not know what those arrangements will be. The situation of the young man who has an Irish Republic passport is not a matter of trivial importance because, as we well know, both Manchester United and Liverpool have the support of hundreds, if not thousands, of Irish spectators at every home match. No doubt the same is true of other clubs in the Football League.
As I understand the position, the foreign passport holder, whether from the Irish Republic or from another country, if he goes to one or two, or possible three, matches in a season may be able to have some special arrangement made. If he goes to more matches than that, the club is expected to ensure that he becomes a member of the FMA scheme. Ministers have not been able to explain how the club would know on how many occasions a foreign passport holder entered their ground. Perhaps they would create some new massive bureaucracy which, as one noble Lord has pointed out, would be quite impossible for some of the smaller clubs to finance.
Quite apart from that situation, one has the position of the Scot who may go to Newcastle once a year. As has been pointed out, he can go to any football match in Scotland and he does not have to be a member of a football membership scheme. If he went to a match in England a totally different situation would arise. Before Parliament finally sanctions this very complicated scheme it would be interesting to know the position of the Scottish businessman who wants to watch Newcastle United play once a season. Does he have to be a member of the football membership scheme or does he not? If it is argued that he must be a member of a football membership scheme if he is attending a match in England, why does a French businessman not have to a member of a scheme if he only comes to this country once or twice a season and wants to enter a ground?
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and his colleagues have told us that all these matters will be earnestly considered by the Football Membership Authority. I have no doubt that that is true. However, it seems to me that on matters of principle of this kind where one is dealing with European Community law it is desirable that the matter should finally be placed before Parliament for its approval.
I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, the question of whether this is or is not a question of European Community law on 20th February (Official Report, 20/2/89, col. 468). The noble Lord chose not to deal with the issue. I very much hope that he will deal with it either today or in correspondence before Third Reading.
The issue of European law is in my view this. Can a state within the European Community discriminate against its own citizens? That is a matter which clearly falls within the competence of the European courts. It seems to me very desirable that that matter should be clarified.
We have just heard a rewarding debate on the position at Wembley Stadium, a subject upon which
36
the noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said today, as he said on the last occasion: "Let us leave it to the Football Membership Authority". The position of Wembley is of critical importance, not only as far as football is concerned but as far as public order is concerned. It is self-evidently important in relation to football because all of our major international matches are played at Wembley, such as that played yesterday, which was attended by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself.
There were well over 70,000 spectators and one saw only one act of spectator misbehaviour when a youth ran on to the field carrying a Union Jack. I would not have thought that that was an overwhelmingly powerful argument for the massive piece of legislation which we are now considering. Certainly there were heavy police resources involved, as there would be at any public event which large numbers of people attended. There is nothing special about football. If 70,000 people go anywhere at the same time, clearly there will be need for a large police presence.
The position at Wembley raises other issues which are related in part to the public order question. As we know, people resident in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be able to get in without being members of the scheme and young Englishmen will not. It is said that separate entrances will be provided. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, commented, if a ground like Wembley is excluded, the problem is that all the people who have been involved in acts of bad behaviour will flock there. Unhappily, the position is that at home international matches they will be able to get into Wembley with immense ease because they will buy black market tickets in the street outside. The sale of black market tickets is not a criminal offence in this country. I hope that this is a matter which will be looked into with great care by the Football Membership Authority because, if the noble Lord is right, there is likely to be more trouble at Wembley in the future than there has been in the past.
Matters of this sort are fundamental both to the scheme and to the many issues of public policy relating thereto. Therefore it seems absolutely right that Parliament should be consulted before the final scheme is approved. On that basis I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, is correct when he says that the attitude of many of us to this amendment is to some extent affected by which side of the House one happens to be sitting. That is natural and true. This is the kind of amendment that is moved in more or less the same terms to most major Bills. It is also true that the many and complex problems raised by this Bill will undoubtedly give rise to the making of a great many statutory instruments by Ministers of the Crown, whoever they may be.
I differ from the noble Lord in that I do not think that those facts point very clearly to the desirability of subjecting all of these orders, including Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 20, 22 and 23, to the affirmative procedure.

37
There is a practical problem. Some of these orders will no doubt be very important, and I do not differ from the noble Lord in that point of view. Some of them will be trivial. Some will be of largely local interest, generating great feeling within a particular club but not of any wide or general significance. The suggestion that every one should be put in the affirmative procedure and have to come before both Houses of Parliament on a Motion quite frankly appals me. The very considerable consumption of parliamentary time involved has to be taken into account. To use up that amount of time simply because there may be one or two quite important orders among a large flock of them does not seem to me to be a sensible thing to do.
Nor, when one comes to think of it, is the affirmative procedure, particularly of this House, necessarily very much more effective than the negative. It is the convention of this House that in general we do not reject affirmative resolutions carried by another place, any more than we tend to accept Prayers for the negative annulment of orders subject to that procedure. The only difference—and I grant this to the noble Lord—is that the affirmative procedure makes it certain that the order comes to this House.
There is nothing to prevent any noble Lord putting down a Prayer against any negative order that may be made and in that way securing that that particular order comes before this House for discussion. That seems a very much more convenient procedure since it means that it will be only those orders that raise a point which one of your Lordships believes is of importance which take up parliamentary time by being discussed. The negative procedure is a more selective procedure.
If, as I do, one accepts what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said as to the large number of orders likely necessarily to be made under the amendment, that is an argument for having a measure of selectivity, which the negative procedure gives. That is preferable to the necessity of solemnly tabling, briefing Ministers to move and having the right Opposition spokesman speak against every single order, regardless of whether it is one that matters in substance.
I have had some experience of these things, as has the noble Lord. As he said, I have sometimes argued in favour of the affirmative procedure when I have been in opposition and very firmly against it when I have been in government. That is a common experience of so many of us in this House. However, looking at it objectively, it seems to me that where one has a Bill under which there will be a great many orders, not all of which will be of very great general importance, and given the limitations on what this House can do in relation to statutory instruments, the case for the selectivity of the negative procedure is overwhelming. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that, although he is quite right in thinking that the affirmative resolution procedure makes no difference to this House, it makes a great deal of difference so far as concerns the other place?
38
That, at least, is what my friends in the other place constantly tell me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that may possibly be the case. However, if that is so it is a case for an amendment to that effect being moved in the House, which believes that it will benefit from it, and not for your Lordships to be so maternal towards another place as to seek to provide for it. Even if the noble Lord is right—and I have had some experience in another place and think he somewhat exaggerates—surely that is their business?
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is clear from the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised a very important matter. The whole of the scheme is unprecedented. It represents a new departure and it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity of seeing how it proceeds. In connection with this Bill there are a number of occasions—six are mentioned in the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 4 and a further occasion arises from the Government's new Clause 3, making seven in all—on which matters would have to be considered by Parliament, or Parliament at least would have to be given the opportunity to consider them in connection with the Bill.
We are concerned with the question of whether the affirmative or negative resolution procedure applies. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but have one or two additional points to make. In relation to the negative procedure, 40 days are allowed in which an objection may be made by means of a Prayer in either House of Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Forty sitting days.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is right: 40 parliamentary days. If nothing is done within those 40 days the order comes into operation. Therefore there may be quite a long period before there is any discussion, but in the meantime the order is in operation. If nothing is done within 40 days, the opportunity lapses and the order stands.
The question of whether the negative or affirmative procedure should apply is a matter of judgment based on parliamentary experience. However, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has pointed out, before using an affirmative resolution one must be sure not only that parliamentary time is likely to be available but that it ought to be made available. Also, and this is particularly relevant to this Bill, if one insists on the affirmative procedure, before the order can take effect one risks delay in circumstances in which there ought not to be delay. In the course of the football season that could be a very serious matter.
There is another potential objection. It is somewhat technical but it is so important that I think that we ought to take note of it. If we adopt the affirmative procedure there is the danger of hybridity. As soon as hybridity rears its benign head, the opportunity for further delay and endless objection is very great indeed. One ought therefore

39
to be cautious about affirmative resolutions for those three reasons.
I wonder whether I may be greatly daring, but I should not like to be held to this point, because I want to hear what my noble friend has to say. I should have thought that it would be inappropriate to have the affirmative procedure under Clause I, to which Amendment No. 4 relates. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, in relation to Amendment No. 10 it would be negative anyway. However, under Clause 4, which relates to the national membership scheme, which is a new departure, it may well be right, subject to what my noble friend has said, to have the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can see what the scheme will be like before it commits itself.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the Government indicated that that was their position, we would withdraw all the other amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is interesting.
Lord Renton:My Lords, that is interesting. That would enable me to curtail my remarks so that we could hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say. That is perhaps the crucial situation. I merely repeat that we must be jolly careful about this matter. Leaving aside the usual prejudices for and against affirmative resolutions, according to whether we support the Government or are in opposition, I believe that this is a matter upon which we should take the Government's judgment seriously.
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that point and say to the Minister that Parliament's judgment is something that the Government should take seriously. All that these amendments are seeking to do is to provide an opportunity for Parliament to approve or disapprove and to say whether this principle should be affirmative or negative. For the purposes of the argument, I shall assume that the Government are genuine, that they believe that they have a solution to the problem and that they will work out that solution in practice with a body of people whom they trust and who know football. That body of people—the FMA—will produce a scheme to which the Secretary of State can add, in which he can insert, from which he can delete and which he can amend or reject. Finally, a scheme will be presented to the Secretary of State and the football authorities will say, "This is how we believe Parliament wants us to exercise the authority in this Bill". The Secretary of State will say, "Yes, that is the shape". We say that, before he begins to implement the proposal he should come before Parliament to say, not that those people have been involved in the nitty gritty or in negotiations, but that all that has been done and that this is the scheme.
We shall be satisfied if the Minister can tell me, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and
40
people outside the House that there is a device—these amendments seek to produce that device—whereby, in accordance with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, he feels it reasonable for at least one opportunity to be given in some shape or form to Parliament to look at the proposal—I do not even say to "approve" or "disapprove"— rather than presenting a fait accompli. I speak kindly with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this matter. What we fear is that, when the Bill has Passed out of Parliament's hands and received Royal Assent, our opportunity to be able even to make a judgment on what the scheme means will have gone.
So much of what the Minister fairly and honourably said is to the effect that he wants to leave the matter to the FMA. Against that background, if he does not agree with what it has done, he has the sanction to change it, but Parliament does not. I am not talking about the sovereignty of the Minister, because, as other noble Lords have said, governments and oppositions change. However, as an opposition, we are entitled to say that we should have the opportunity to look at the colour of the money; in other words, we want to see what the Bill means. If there is a device other than that about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has very intelligently and sensibly talked, I should be grateful if the Minister could help us.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if there is an issue of hybridity here, as I believe we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that issue needs to be faced up to and not disposed of by taking one purely procedural course rather than another. I hope that we shall hear more about hybridity, if that is an issue, and how it will be disposed of.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am glad to have this early opportunity to spell out the Government's position on parliamentary approval in relation to the national membership scheme. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State's designation of football matches to be subject to parliamentary approval, but it does not at present do so in relation to the scheme itself. However, I am pleased to be able to make a positive response on that issue now.
The issue of parliamentary approval has been raised many times during our debates on this Bill, not only in discussion of relevant amendments but at other points as well. I recognise that it is an issue on which many Members of this House feel strongly—particularly those who have substantially more parliamentary experience than I have.
The Bill is a framework Bill. We want the football authorities to draw up the scheme subject to the Bill's framework. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House want that too. Once the scheme has been prepared by the Football Membership Authority, it is to be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. It is at that point that the issue of further parliamentary scrutiny arises.
I am pleased to say that we accept the argument that Parliament should have another opportunity to debate what is proposed, if it wishes to do so, following the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme. We shall therefore consider an amendment that

41
would make the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Our intention is that it should be the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, rather than the scheme itself, which would be the subject of the order, since the scheme will have been drawn up by the football authorities rather than the Secretary of State. But the scheme will, of course, be available for Parliament to consider, when the order is laid. If Parliament rejects the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, it will reject the scheme at the same time.
I think that this offer goes a good way to meet the concerns that many noble Lords have expressed. We know also that the football authorities support the principle of parliamentary approval. I should be clear that what we have in mind is a negative resolution order, in relation to the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme, just as we propose negative resolution for the Secretary of State's designation of matches.
At the same time, I accept that, if the Secretary of State's initial approval of the scheme submitted to him is to be subject to parliamentary approval, it is logical that his approval of any replacement scheme should also be subject to parliamentary approval. I am less convinced that there is a case for parliamentary approval of modifications of the scheme—which could be very minor—or of the withdrawal of designation of the FMA, but I shall return to those aspects in a moment.
The reason why we regard negative resolution as preferable to affirmative is similar in relation to designation and to the scheme itself. If the order by which the Secretary of State designates football matches—or the order by which he approves the scheme—were to be affirmative, then my advice is that it would be likely that the order would be subject to the hybridity procedures. The Bill itself would not become hybrid but the order would. I am advised that affirmative resolution orders attract the hybridity rules but negative orders do not.
This is a point that we have looked into carefully since Committee stage. If the Secretary of State were to designate all matches between Football League clubs, still more if he were to phase the introduction of the scheme, by an affirmative order, the order would be hybrid, because league matches are just one category within the general class of all Association football matches—professional and amateur. Similarly, an order confirming the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme could be hybrid because the scheme will make different arrangements in different cases, for example, for Wembley Stadium, as we have just discussed.
I do not believe that it is in anyone's interests, certainly not football's, for these orders to become subject to the hybridity procedures. It could mean a prolonged period of uncertainty following Royal Assent. Implementation of the scheme could be delayed for a long time. If the orders are subject to negative resolution, on the other hand, Parliament will have a chance to debate them—as noble Lords wish—but the debates can follow soon after the
42
orders are laid and the period of uncertainty will therefore be short.
I say particularly that this is in the interests of football because progress is already being made in the preparation of the scheme. If the Bill gains Royal Assent before the end of July, as we hope it will, my right honourable friend hopes to designate the body to be established by the Football Association and the Football League as the Football Membership Authority at once. The football authorities have established a working party to prepare the scheme and my department is helping both with advice and with the costs of the preparation of the scheme to be submitted.
The football authorities have agreed with the Minister for Sport that they will submit the scheme for approval by 31st August. Our aim would then be to lay the order in time for debates, if Parliament wishes to have them, when both Houses return in October. This timetable for completion of the scheme could be thrown into disarray if the hybridity rules were to be invoked by an affirmative order.
I said that I was less convinced about the case for parliamentary approval in relation to agreed modifications of the scheme. My concern on this point is a practical one. If the FMA should propose a minor modification to the scheme once it is in place and the Secretary of State were happy to agree with it, is it really necessary for every such modification to be subject to a new statutory instrument? If we build in this requirement to subject every modification to parliamentary procedure we may discourage the FMA from proposing even minor improvements to the scheme in future years.
I shall consider the arguments but I do not feel able to offer any commitments on this point at this stage. I am also unconvinced of the case for making the withdrawl of designation of the FMA the subject of parliamentary approval. The effect of the amendment would be that if the body designated as the FMA wished to give up that role, perhaps because it had gone into liquidation, it could only do so following a statutory instrument. I suggest that we can go too far in making matters subject to parliamentary approval.
I have made a significant offer in accepting the principle of parliamentary approval in relation to the national membership scheme. I hope that in doing so, I have been able further to reassure noble Lords about the Government's plans fir this Bill. At the same time, I have explained why it is preferable that the orders should be negative rather than affirmative resolution. In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can confirm that this is the first occasion on which this timetable has seen the light of day? Is the Minister telling the House that it is the Government's intention that when the Bill leaves this Chamber, shall we say before the end of April, for another place where there will be fierce opposition to it they will use the guillotine in order to push the Bill through

43
Committee and on the Floor of the other place, with subsequent amendments returning to this Chamber?
The noble Lord talks about agreements and understandings with a putative body that has no legal or legislative status; in other words, a working party. He says that it intends to deliver to the Minister a scheme by 31st August. The timetable includes the possibility of looking at phasing and carrying out tests. Does the noble Lord envisage that in response to our concern the Minister can casually produce this scheme dressed up as some kind of offer or concession? If so, I believe that to be an abuse of the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord has yet again misinterpreted what I said. I gave him an indicative set of dates. On any scheme or project one has to have a set of dates on which to work. That is very different from what he implies I said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not intend to press this matter today. The Government have inched a little towards us. We were asking for affirmative resolution and the noble Lord has offered us a great deal less than that. Nevertheless, he has offered us something. I do not believe in being disagreeable about every passing gift horse. I merely say—if I understood the noble Lord rightly—that I am very concerned about the timetable. He may wish to correct me at once if I am wrong, but as I understood it he is looking for an absolutely complete scheme by the end of August from an organisation which does not yet exist.
I return to one or two of the matters which, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will remember, were represented to the Government by the police service. Let me make it absolutely clear that the police service expects to be consulted about the final scheme before it receives the Secretary of State's approval. We are talking about a dangerously short timescale, if I have understood what is involved. Presumably we are also talking about discussions on the very complicated issues that arise with the Metropolitan Police so far as Wembley is concerned and with some of the Welsh police forces in relation to national matches played in Wales.
The timescale indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is alarmingly short. I am afraid I must tell him that it will cause considerable concern among the many serious-minded people who will have to try to implement an extremely complex scheme. I do not propose to say any more about the matter today. I hope very much that the noble Lord will listen to what I have said and recognise that there will be deep concern about the timescale on the part of some of those who will be involved in its implementation. I hope very much that the noble Lord and his advisers will review the matter.
Having said that, I do not propose to reply to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. As they will realise, in the context of the situation as described by the noble Lord that would be rather pointless. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to unauthorised attendance at designated football matches]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 6. These matters deal with the vexed question of the extent to which offences will incur penalty under the national membership scheme. We object strongly to the fact that someone who offends against the scheme under certain circumstances may incur a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. We believe that to be very reprehensible.
We have discussed this matter previously. I wonder whether the Minister has had second thoughts about the offence. It is not simply a matter of committing an offence but of attempting to commit an offence. Questions arise concerning the interpretation of an offence of trying to get into a ground without a card. There is the matter of the perimeter around the ground to which the parameters of the Bill will run—it is a running parameter in this instance. Frankly, we want the Minister to justify the fact that someone who is alleged to be in the course of attempting to commit an offence under this subsection which is concerned with "entering premises" should merit a term of imprisonment. It might be the short sharp shock philosophy but in view of the overcrowded state of our prisons and the enormous burdens now placed upon the police, the judiciary and magistrates' courts, we wonder whether this is the way to deal with offenders who commit the new and extraordinary offence of failing to carry a card giving admission to a football ground.
The offence is not simply one of entering with an invalid card or attempting to commit fraud in some way; it is simply attempting to get into the ground. We believe that this is much too punitive for what we consider, if not perhaps a trivial offence, at least one that should not merit a term of imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I do not believe that the Government can have fully thought through the implications of lines 39 and 40. If an individual tries to enter a football ground whether through the turnstile or over a wall or fence and if he succeeds, clearly an offence will have been committed whether or not this amendment is agreed to. If he has stopped at the turnstile and is turned away, and becomes violent or threatens violence, or becomes verbally abusive to the extent that public disorder is likely to be provoked, then clearly he has committed an offence under existing public order Acts. There is then no need for the creation of a new offence. On the other hand, an individual may not have heard of the existence of this Act—assuming that it becomes law—or of the existence of identity cards. He tries to enter a football ground and is turned away. If he leaves quite peacefully then no harm is done. These two lines are obviously unnecessary and indeed

45
draconian. They are unnecessary and draconian if Amendment No. 6—which eliminates the possibility of a month's imprisonment—is not accepted.
The idea that someone should risk being sent to prison for a month merely for peacefully trying to get into a football match would have seemed ridiculous as recently as five years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. I believe that provision for imprisonment is authoritarian and intolerable, and that Amendment No. 5 is essential.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when we fix a maximum penalty in a Bill, we do so in order to cover the worst type of case that is likely to arise, not the most typical. It is rather remarkable that we have here a scheme that will require some sanctions or penalties to make it work. The penalties that are placed at various points in the Bill are for the most part not very stringent, although there is the provision for two years. Otherwise they are very mild penalties.
We are dealing here with the person who is not authorised either entering or remaining at a football ground. He does not have one of these cards that people will have to have. I should have thought that the offence normally could be dealt with simply by a fine at the magistrates' court. However, one could have the occasional case of a persistent offender. It may be somebody who never utters a word, never even waves a fist, and offers no force whatever. He may be a big, burly fellow who simply says, "I am here." He may not even say it: he may just stand there. He does so on several different occasions. He may have been fined, and he may have paid the fine in the past. In order to stop a fellow acting in this way, to be unable to send him to prison for a period of up to one month seems unreasonable. I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, big burly, men such as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and I, have started to become rather nervous at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in case we find ourselves imprisoned for one month. To be absolutely blunt, I cannot see the relevance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The fact that a large man goes to the entrance of a football ground, apparently says nothing, and thereby commits some criminal offence which could land him in prison for one month, seems a little far fetched, if the noble Lord will forgive me saying so.
What worries me about these two amendments is this. The first is a matter that I discussed at Committee stage. It is clear and obvious that people in England and Wales will know of the existence of this scheme. What is more troublesome is the problem with which a person visiting this country from abroad would be confronted if he presened himself at a football ground not knowing of the existence of this scheme. If a foreigner commits an act of theft in this country he knows, in terms of his own domestic law, that to steal other people's property is a criminal offence. But someone who visits this country from any country in the European Community—none of which has the remotest intention of bringing in a draft scheme such as this—is undoubtedly at risk of committing an offence if
46
he presents himself at a football ground, so long as these two lines in the first of these two amendments is incorporated in the Bill. He is attempting to enter the ground.
It may well be that once he has identified himself as someone who is not a British subject, the authorities will decide to take no action. But if this Bill goes through unamended, there is little doubt that he puts himself at risk of committing this offence. In my view that is entirely unnecessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is not only a question of the foreigner. The foreigner who genuinely did not understand the matter would almost certainly be gently and leniently treated by any court. The amendment goes much further. Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide that the attempt to commit the offence is not an offence under the Act.
One can easily envisage a man who persistently attempts to get into the ground without a card. He causes an infinity of trouble to the police or to the football authorities by these continued attempts. However, because the policing of the gate is effective he does not actually get in. Is it seriously suggested that simply because the man is thwarted in his attempt to get in, he should be found to have committed no offence? That seems to me contrary to all ideas either of justice or of common sense.
On the question of imprisonment, it is obvious that no court will impose— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he not realise—I am sure that he does—that if the man either enters the ground or remains on the premises, he commits a criminal offence?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, yes; but this amendment deals with someone who attempts to commit an offence. He attempts to get into the ground. Because of the efficiency of the policing, perhaps he does not succeed. He may go on making those attempts day after day, week after week. Is it suggested that a man who quite deliberately tries to defy the intentions of Parliament, and in the process gives an enormous amount of trouble to those concerned with the security of the grounds should commit no offence? As I understand it, that would be the effect of accepting this amendment.
On the question of imprisonment, it is obvious that an ordinary individual offence, unless very grossly violent, would not be dealt with by any sensible bench of magistrates. However, what is to happen with the man who commits this offence regularly once a week? He may well be a man of very limited means to whom a fine therefore holds remarkably little terror. He simply attempts to get in again and again. He gives an infinity of trouble to those trying to work what everyone admits is a quite difficult system. Surely there should be a reserve power in the courts so that they can say, "You have gone on deliberately defying the law and deliberately trying to get in. A short term of imprisonment is the only sentence that we can impose on you." My only surprise is the same kind of surprise——
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, may I— —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord be patient for a moment? My only surprise, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, is that the maximum sentence is so moderate. One month is not, in many ways, a very sensible sentence to impose. Its shortness is perhaps a factor against its deterrent effect. But the general principle that in an extreme case a persistent offender could be sent to prison is an important part of the Bill. Now I shall certainly give way.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform me, as I am ignorant about these things, whether it is a criminal offence to try to get into a cinema without a ticket? If not, does the noble Lord suggest that it should become one?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are not legislating for cinemas— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Do not put the idea into their heads, my Lords!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham says, do not let us put the idea into people's heads. We are not legislating for the cinema and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that question is about as irrelevant as it could be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the point brought out in the debate on this amendment shows that the Government have it about right. Noble Lords may laugh, but I think that that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made the point that a month in prison was too much; it was wrong, penal and ought not to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that there was no need for it at all because under one of the public order Acts the problem could be dealt with—it ought not to be put in.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was saying that certain circumstances may happen which would mean that a month would not be sufficient to face up to the damage that this persistent offender was doing. But we know exactly what happens, particularly those of us who have sat as magistrates for a number of years. The persistent offender who bothers my noble friend would probably not be charged under this Bill at all. He would be charged under one of the public order Acts where there is power to give more than a month's imprisonment and to make him face up to the circumstances. As regards the month's imprisonment that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, found too much, although it is in the Bill as a maximum there is no suggestion that everybody who attempts to get in will have to be sent to prison for a month. We know that all the circumstances will be taken into account. To begin with people may not be charged at all. Somebody will have to bring on the charge.
If it is as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seems to be describing, then the charge would not
48
be brought. If it were over the mark and needed to be dealt with then, as my noble friend said, the magistrates are perfectly capable, up to the maximum, of letting the punishment fit the crime as all the circumstances show themselves.
If one listens to all those arguments and puts them together it looks as though the Government have this matter about right and they ought to stand firm on the words in their Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord I think that the Government have it all wrong. Indeed the more one listens to the debate about the Bill the more one's mind boggles at the effects that it will have. Here we are discussing a part of the Bill which enables the courts to send to prison for a month any person who attempts to get into a football match. Where on earth are we going? This is supposed to be a democracy and yet here we are saying to a person who attempts to get into a football match that he can be fined on level 3, which I believe is £1,000, and, secondly, in other circumstances or perhaps under the same circumstances he can be sent to prison. We are reaching the stage where there may be some dubiety about whether this is a truly free country.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the one month prison sentence is only a reserve power. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that the one month's prison sentence is a reserve power. The Bill does not say that at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in most of our penal statutes a maximum penalty is laid down? Nowhere in them, as far as I know, is it stated that this is a reserve power because they are enacted, as this will be enacted, on the basis that our courts of law are sensible and experienced and will only impose the maximum penalty in offences of the maximum gravity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has great confidence in our courts, as I believe we all have. But when we are discussing a Bill we ought to be precise. I have been told on several occasions that we must be precise in legislation. The Bill does not say that the magistrates, as a reserve power, may send a person to gaol for one month. The magistrates could send a person to gaol on the first offence if they felt so inclined. The noble Lord must agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, introduced another red herring into the debate, which was that the courts must have at their disposal the opportunity to send somebody to prison in case the person does not pay his fine. But that is a red herring, because the courts already have the power— —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: But, my Lords— —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, let me finish my point. The courts already have the power to send people to prison if they do not pay their fines. Therefore as I said that is a plain red herring. It is not necessary to have in the Bill the penalty of one month's imprisonment just in case somebody does

49
not pay his fine. Magistrates are already able to send people to prison if they do not pay their fines.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:My Lords, will the noble Lord do me the favour of reading Hansard tomorrow, in which case he will realise that he is attributing a statement to me which I did not make and in the process he is wasting the time of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry if I attributed a statement to him that he did not make, but I understood the noble Lord to say that. I shall certainly read Hansard and I apologise in advance if he did not say that. The fact is that these provisions are going over the top. My noble friend is quite right to put this amendment down. I can only hope that he will press the amendment and test the feelings of the House. If he does so I hope that Members of this House will realise just how over the top the Bill is going and that they will accept the amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I believe that the Government need to look again at subsection (1). The last two lines deal with attempting to commit an offence. I do not know why it is necessary to refer to that in the subsection, because I understand that attempting to commit an offence is itself an offence under the general law and should not presumably have to be specifically mentioned in statute.
Quite apart from that we have the curious position that the substantive offence is twofold, but the attempt referred to is only one fold. Thus the offence is of entering premises on the one hand or remaining on the premises on the other hand, but the attempt referred to at the end refers only to the attempt of entering the premises.
Let us suppose that a carpenter goes into the football ground to carry out repairs at a time when he is perfectly entitled to do so. He is not an authorised person, but he does not have to be because he is the carpenter. As the time of the match approaches, he keenly wants to stay to watch. He is not an authorised person but he attempts to remain on the ground in order to watch the match. He does not succeed in his attempts because the police are sent for and he is turned out. However, he has made an absolute nuisance of himself.
What will happen to him when he comes before the magistrates? Will he be convicted under the general law of attempting to commit an offence, or will he be acquitted under the subsection on the argument, "I did not attempt to enter; I attempted only to remain"? The subsection provides only for attempting to enter but not attempting to remain. For the benefit of the magistrates who must deal with such a situation perhaps the Government will look again at the subsection to see whether it needs to be amended.
Lord Knights: My Lords, the Bill is designed to keep hooligans out of football grounds. That must be achieved with as little interference to innocent supporters as possible. It is unlikely that in practice this specific offence—being in a football ground
50
without permission—will be committed on its own. Generally it will be discovered because the offender has committed another offence which brings him to the notice of the police. I do not believe that many people will be picked up for not carrying their card. If the offence comes to light as a result of some other offence having been committed (which I believe will be the case) the substantive penalty can be applied in respect of the more serious offence.
On the other hand, there must be a sanction to deal with the person offending against the law. But I do not believe that imprisonment is necessarily the appropriate sanction in this case. I believe that the more serious offence which would carry imprisonment is more likely to be that with which he is charged.
What about an attempt to enter the ground? If someone mistakenly or innocently, being unaware of the law, presents himself at the gate and is told that he cannot enter, then technically he has committed an offence. However, it is most unlikely that any police officer would seek to take him before the courts. For that reason, if for no other it would be a pity to place that offence on the statute book. I believe that the conduct is far too simple to require the criminal law to force it into existence.
I believe that there would be a simple offence of being found within the ground without authority; but in practice a fine is all that is required to deal with it, if it must be dealt with at all.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for having tabled the amendment even if for only one reason. It appears to have propelled your Lordships' imagination into overdrive concerning a fairly modest amendment. At one moment we heard the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, say that people would be put into prison for being in a cinema without a ticket. That is about as extreme an example of imagination as one can get. At another moment we heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying that those attempting to enter a football ground will have a short sharp shock of a month's imprisonment. In between we have heard a variety of examples, including the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who always succeeds in putting forward matters of great finesse.
I should like to deal with Lord Airedale's point first. He said that he believed to be unnecessary the words in the latter part of the subsection which are:
"and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
That is because the provision is covered by the original offence in the first part of the clause. My advice is that the inclusion of a specific reference to "attempts" is necessary in order to attract the provisions of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 because the offence in Clause 2(1) is only summary. In other words, it is triable only in the magistrates' courts. Therefore, on this occasion the noble Lord is wrong and that part is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, then said, "Yes, but the offence is only one of entering tine premises and not remaining there". So far as my imagination

51
can go, I see that one can attempt to enter the premises but not succeed. The fact that one is attempting is the cause of an offence. If one is on the premises and attempts to remain there, one is remaining on the premises and I do not believe that the additional word is necessary.
However, if the noble Lord wishes the Bill to be strengthened in that way, I am happy to look again at the drafting to see whether it would be more appropriate. However, I believe that the noble Lord will find it to be unnecessary and I have a funny feeling that noble Lords will not wish to see the Bill made stronger in this case.
In this part of the Bill we are trying to state what should happen to someone who is not an authorised spectator and who enters, or tries to enter, a designated match. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that it is an offence to remain on the premises, and he appears to believe that that is wrong. Of course it is a criminal offence to stay on the premises because, if it is not, one can permit anyone to enter the grounds, stay there and not commit a criminal offence. The whole basis of the argument must be that it is a criminal offence.
My noble friend Lord Hesketh previously pointed out that it is not good enough to limit the offence in Clause 2(1) to actual entry. There must also be a satisfactory response by the courts for someone caught deliberately trying to cheat the system; for example, by using stolen cards. The noble Lord, Lord Monson. Said— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. Does he realise that in such a situation the man concerned will have committed the offence of stealing a card, and that would be an act of theft? That would be the offence for which he would appear in court.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is very good at making several speeches on Report. I was giving that merely as an example— —
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, — —
Earl Ferrers:My Lords, if the noble Lord now insists on making interventions from a sedentary position, which is even worse than from a standing position, we shall not get very far.
To continue, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in saying that it would be intolerable to see a person who was peacefully trying to enter a football match sentenced to a month's imprisonment. There is no intention of that occurring. There is no intention to catch the innocent, would be spectator or even—dare I mention the noble Lord, Lord Harris, again—the foreigner who is unaware of the requirement to hold a card. If he misses the publicity about the scheme and the notices near the turnstile he will be advised by the turnstile operator that he cannot be allowed in. Providing that he accepts the ruling he will commit no offence.
My noble friend Lord Renton made a speech with which I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he saw no relevance in my noble friend's speech.
52
I saw a great deal of relevance because my noble friend was saying that there is a distinction between the maximum sentence provided for in the Bill in order to deal adequately with the worst of the most persistent offenders and the particular sentence which a court will pass in the light of all the circumstances of an individual case. Very often that sentence will be far less severe than the former. It is the Government's view that imprisonment of up to one month is necessary if the circumstances should warrant that. The only reason that we put in that provision is in order to catch the person who deliberately and consistently goes out to cheat. It is up to the court to decide whether or not to impose that sentence or a lesser one.
The other point to which I should like to refer is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I am sorry, I should have referred to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I beg his pardon. That is a terrible mistake.
A noble Lord A noble Lord: He is a nice man.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, so is the other one. Both are most agreeable. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Level 3 fine was £1,000. It is not; it is only £400.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on a point of clarification— —
Noble Lords Noble Lords, Order, order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, with great respect, under the Standing Orders of the House I am entitled to ask, without the consent of the House, a question on a point of clarification. I ask the noble Earl whether he will be kind enough to answer the question which I put to him relating to the stolen card. If he cannot do that today I understand the position and no doubt he will deal with the matter in correspondence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quite rightly always likes me to reply to a question to which I have not replied. I thought that the answer was fairly obvious although I did not actually reply. If one steals a person's card one is guilty of theft. I do not invite the noble Lord to rise again, but he merely makes a wagging dissent with his face, by which I assume he means that he does not agree or does not understand. If a person steals somebody else's card, that person is guilty of theft in the same way as if he steals any other piece of property.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was not wagging my face in any direction. The noble Earl has given as an answer the question that I put to him. If he bothers to look at Hansard tomorrow he will realise that his rather uncharacteristic bluster was not justified.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I make this intervention and I do so not as a Government Minister but merely one who is acting as Leader of your Lordships' House. We are going very far awry from the

53
procedures of your Lordships' House. We should only speak once. It is fine to ask a question on a point of clarification but sometimes noble Lords of all hues and varieties get up and say, "Before the noble Lord sits down", and then proceed to make another speech. Perhaps it would be better to try to keep closer to the rules of procedure.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before I decide what to do with this amendment, there are some points which need to be made. In this House we have people of great authority and experience like the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who brings to this House his experience as a senior policeman, whom we all respect both on his record and for his judgment on these matters. He advises the House that a term of imprisonment is not appropriate in the circumstances. However, the Government have made no reference to that point. I believe that I am entitled to draw that to the attention of those noble Lords behind the Minister who are looking for guidance on these matters from people with experience of them.
I believe that the Government have got this wrong because the Minister referred—and he echoed the words of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter—to a "persistent offender". There is no mention of the word "persistent" here. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that there does not need to be, but there then arises a point of interpretation. If the noble Lord tells us that every police force and every police officer in charge of a match will interpret this matter in the same way throughout the country or that magistrates' courts in 10 different parts of the country faced with a charge drawn in the same way will not impose three or four different sentences then we should be on safer ground. However, we know from experience that there is a great disparity in the way in which magistrates interpret their powers.
We are talking not about football fans but, in the words of the Minister, about authorised spectators. There is a new jargon which has been foisted on the British public and a new procedure which the British football fan (unlike any other football fan in the world) will have to go through; namely, he must have a card in order to gain entry. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew attention to a foreigner who may not understand the system. What about a person who lives in Scotland— —
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, they are foreigners.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord said and perhaps the Hansard writer also heard that. We are told that the situation is not dealt with in which someone comes down from Scotland, knows about the scheme, is not involved in it and attempts to gain entry innocently. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave a fair flavour of the matter when he said that if a person hangs around outside the football ground after allegedly attempting to get in, he will commit the offence. That is terrible. The ground which I know best is that of Tottenham Hotspur and nearby is the High Road. Apart from the person who may deliberately try to gain entry,
54
this provision may also catch hundreds and thousands of innocent people. Clause 2(3) states:
"A constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence … may arrest him without a warrant".
It will be up to the individual policeman, experienced or not and harrassed or not, to take a decision about a group of people of which he takes a dim view, some of whom may be guilty of the offence, others of whom may not be guilty. I find it terribly sad that a Bill which starts off by attempting to catch one in 10,000 spectators inside the ground is likely to be used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. When I talk about nuts I do not wish to be disparaging to the Government but this is a crackpot scheme and this is one aspect of it which the Government will realise, on reflection, does not bring them any credit.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Knights, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrovel,L

Monson, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rugby, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkland, V.

Simon, V.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Allerton, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Beloff, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

55

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cawley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Croft, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Newall, L.

Dormer, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pym, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Richardson, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodney, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvington, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Trafford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Keyes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lay ton, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [National membership scheme: the administrator etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 11. The reason I do so is because Amendment No. 11 has been marshalled in the wrong place. In the proper order, it comes before Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 because amendments to leave out a clause come after amendments to a clause.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("or a period of three years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes a three-year period of appointment for members of the FMA. We believe it reasonable to specify a limit to the period for which members serve on this body. As far as we are aware, most
56
bodies appointed to fulfil this type of function have had indicated in the appropriate legislation the period for which members can serve on the body concerned.
We see no reason why the Government should not look with favour on this amendment. We believe it would give an opportunity for movement and for people with a variety of experience to be brought in as the term of office of appointees expires. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes more or less the same point as was made in Committee by his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Its effect, if accepted, would be to limit the appointment of the Football Membership Authority to a three-year period.
I said during the Committee debate that we do not see that limiting the term of office of the FMA to three years would serve any useful purpose. If the initial appointment of the authority is working well why should we bring it to an arbitrary end after three years? If the need should arise for the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of the FMA, either at his instance or because the body concerned wishes that to be the case, the Bill already provides for that to happen.
I hope I have already made it clear that the Government wish the football authorities to set up and run the FMA. It is also our hope that once the Secretary of State has made his designation there will be no need for this to be withdrawn at a later stage. However, if that should be necessary the Bill already seems to provide for all the likely circumstances. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister' response in some respects, but he does not make the right premise when arguing his case. He said that if the body is working well it should be left alone. However, our experience of this Government is that appointees to other boards—health boards, Manpower Commission boards, and a variety of other boards—who have been doing well have been removed for no apparent reason other than that their colour no longer matches the political colour of the Government. I wish to make that point on the basis that I cannot accept as valid the Minister's reason for not viewing this amendment more favourably, nor his view that we should leave things alone when they appear to be working well.
Whoever the Secretary of State appoints to the FMA, he may decide to appoint on a national basis people who are associated with supporters' clubs. He cannot do it on a local basis. I understand that to some degree most supporters' clubs hold ballots. In the big clubs the chairman and the secretary are very important people carrying out an important function. In lining up the members of the FMA and in order to make the scheme more acceptable, the Secretary of State may say, "We shall have Mr. So and So from area A and Mr. So and So from area B" He may recruit them on a geographical basis in order to gain the necessary support. But what

57
happens if a member is removed from his job locally? There was an example last week at Brighton when an official of a supporters' club was dismissed. It was in the dying moments of the game. The ball was kicked out and the official of the Brighton Supporters' Club headed the ball further back in order to gain time. Immediately a complaint was made. Brighton sacked the official because he had interfered with the play.
What will be the position of a person so affected and who had been appointed to the board of the FMA? Is he appointed as a representative of the people who balloted for him or is he there on his own behalf? It is not a bad thing to consider a fixed term of office that may be renewed after three years. I do not believe it is right to say that a person should be appointed for an indefinite period in order to see how the situation develops. I ask the Minister whether he would care to reconsider the matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has raised. He hinted that if something is working well why not leave it alone. The questions that he raised are covered in Clause 3(2) and 3(3).
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not happy with what the Minister has said. We are not moving as fast as we should like and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
("The Football Membership Authority.
—

(1) There shall be a body responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme which shall be designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State under the name (and herein referred to as) "the Football Membership Authority".

(2) The Secretary of State may designate as the Football Membership Authority any body corporate formed for the purpose by the Football Association and the Football League or any body corporate formed by any other persons or, for the purpose, on his behalf.

(3) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body under this section, whether at the instance of the body or at his own instance.

(4)The functions of a body as the Football Membership Authority shall be assumed or, on withdrawal of its designation, divested on the date specified by the Secretary of State when making or withdrawing the designation but subject to subsection (5) below and without prejudice to its duty under subsection (6) below.

(5) No date other than 1st June in any year shall be specified under subsection(4) above as the date on which functions are to be assumed or withdrawn, but this does not apply—

(a)to the initial designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, or

(b)where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body on the ground that the body has failed to discharge its duties as the Football Membership Authority or is being wound up or that a receiver or manager of its property has been appointed.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Football Membership Authority to make to the Secretary of State a report on the discharge of its functions during each period of twelve months beginning
58
with 1st June in any year and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.

(7) Where a body assumes or is divested of its functions as the Football Membership Authority on a date other than 1st June subsection (6) above shall have effect as if it required a report to be made for such period as the Secretary of State directs.

(8) On the withdrawal of the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, the scheme shall cease to have effect but the Secretary of State may, by order, provide for the transfer of the body's property rights and liabilities under the scheme to its successor as the Football Membership Authority on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary of State.

(9) The power to make an order under subsection (8) above is exercisable by statutory instrument.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 42, 58 and 81. I shall be moving those which appear in my name, but shall not be supporting those tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris. The Government amendments follow a debate which we had in Committee on the naming of the body that would run the scheme. I assured the Chamber then that there was nothing mysterious or sinister about the term used in the Bill as introduced, referring to the "administrator" of the scheme. But I also said that we were keen to dispel all doubts about our intentions in this respect and that we would bring forward our own amendments at Report to refer to the Football Membership Authority on the face of the Bill. This is the main effect of the new Clause 3 and the amendments consequential upon it.
I hope that these amendments will remove any doubts which noble Lords or others may have had about the Government's intentions. If your Lordships approve them, the Bill will refer specifically to the Football Membership Authority. It has always been our hope that the football authorities would set up and run the Football Membership Authority (in consultation with the Secretary of State). Clause 3 now refers to the Football Association and the Football League by name. A later government amendment which we will come to shortly, would require the FMA to consult the FA and the League in drawing up the scheme, also in line with an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage.
I referred earlier today to the working party set up by the football authorities to prepare a scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. The working party met last week and an official from my department attended the meeting, as had been agreed. I understand that the meeting went well and my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has welcomed the assurances which he has received from the League and the FA that they will press on with the preparation of the scheme.
These amendments carry through another offer which I made in Committee, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to respond positively to the idea of requiring the FMA to prepare an annual report for submission to Parliament. The new Clause 3(6) requires the FMA to make an annual report to the Secretary of State and requires him to lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament. As the

59
noble Lord said, this is an important matter. It is right that the authority should make formal annual reports and that they should be presented to Parliament. I am glad to have been able to meet the noble Lord's concern on this point. The new version of Clause 3 also recognises that the FMA will be a corporate body. I hope it will reassure the noble Lords to see the words spelled out in the Bill. The clause does not specify the number of members of the authority, though the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, have tabled amendments on this aspect, on the chairmanship and on the tenure of office of members of the FMA. We have considered the points which the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, made in Committee on these matters.
There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, precedents for referring specifically to the number of members a body is to have. But I think that the noble Lord will find that those precedents relate to public bodies. The FMA will be a designated body but it will not be a public body like, for example, the proposed National Rivers Authority or English Heritage, under the Bill as presently drafted. We envisage that the body designated by the Secretary of State to be the FMA will be set up and run by the FA and the League. It would not be desirable or appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose the number of members that body should have, nor to lay down rules about the tenure of office of its members. In other respects, the new version of Clause 3 is substantially the same as the version in the Bill as published.
The Opposition have also proposed two other amendments to the Government's new Clause 3. The first would require the FMA to consult the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs in drawing up the scheme. This issue was raised in Committee and I said then that I hoped that the football authorities would consult the football supporters' bodies about the scheme, as my honourable friend the Minister for Sport had consulted them about the Government's proposals shortly before Christmas. I did not think that it was necessary to spell this out in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, accepted my point. I hope that he will feel able to do so again now.
The football authorities have never hesitated to make their views known on the principle of the national membership scheme. The positions of the football authorities and the Government are familiar. But, within these parameters, the football authorities want to run the scheme if there is to be one. My honourable friend has confirmed that they will have first refusal for designation by the Secretary of State. The Government's amendments will, I hope, remove any doubt about our commitment to this approach. They carry through the promises to consider points made in Committee. I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their own. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Grahamof Edmonton Lord Grahamof Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
Line 8, after ("League") insert ("in consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I very much appreciate the sense of what the Minister has said. He has fairly sought in part to write on the face of the Bill a number of undertakings or, shall I say, parliamentary noises, that he made at the previous stage of the Bill, but without commitment. I wish to begin on a constructive note. We know far more about the Government's ideas of how the membership scheme will be structured than we did at an earlier stage. I am very grateful to the Minister for that.
I want to speak directly to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 81, which hang together as well. Amendment No. 8 is a passionate plea for the Government to do more than simply make noises about their understanding that the FMA will consult supporters. Does the Minister realise that the body of people affected most by the Bill are the supporters? Is he aware that 70,000 people were at Wembley yesterday? Several Members of the House were there too. A great many administrators and others involved in football were there. However, the group most affected by the provisions of the Bill is the spectators.
What does the amendment ask the Government to take on board. We say that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs are entitled by right and by status to a place at the top table. Once the Bill becomes an Act the top table will be the FMA. I hope that the Football League and the Football Association will not think it too much to ask to have among the members of the FMA some places clearly marked for the representatives of the supporters.
That is not too much to ask. I understood what the Minister said on a previous occasion about his hopes. Supporters will not live by hopes. The Minister may believe that the FMA will be sympathetic to consultations. The supporters do not want to be consulted. They want to be part of the action. Anyone who understands football will know that the spectators are incensed by the application of the scheme. At Northampton Town the supporters club and the club itself have been busy on this matter. A petition, signed by 1,293 supporters, was presented by the club to Michael Morris, the local Member of Parliament. His nearby parliamentary colleague, Mr.Tony Marlow, hopes that the Government can be persuaded to drop the Bill. I am not in the business of asking the Government to drop the Bill. I ask the Government to recognise that unless the fans and their organisations feel that they are part of the action their bitterness about their views being ignored will grow.
What are they asking for? We have laid down a formula for membership of the FMA. Certainly the dominant partners will be the Football Association and the Football League. They carry the clout, the muscle and the influence. We say that the authority

61
should not be peopled only by the Football League and the Football Association. We want some independent people. We believe that there should be an independent chairman. We realise that very often in this House noises are made to the effect that it is too late, even though the Bill is still here. If the Minister were to say that he is prepared to consider the sense of what we want, which is an involvement for the fans in the scheme, I would not press the matter to a vote, as there is a long stage to go through in another place. However, if the Minister says that all he can offer to the fans is sympathy, hope and expectation, that will not be good for the Bill. It would not be acceptable to me. We acknowledge the wisdom of the Government in fleshing out the FMA as far as they were able to do, but there is a long way to go before we shall be satisfied with the composition of the FMA, which will have all the pseudo powers referred to by the Minister.
We want to ensure that sitting around a room, with a vote and with an entitlement to influence its decisions, will be representatives of the supporters clubs. We want them to feel a part of it even though they may never win a vote. They will not be there by proxy. The fans will be entitled to a seat at the top table. The Football Supporters Association has been enormously active in this matter. Members of another place will receive details of organised and uniform protests. Fans will be writing to their Members of Parliament to ask them not to support the Bill. I am not arguing against the Bill now. I am arguing for democracy, entitlement and representation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my interpretation of new Clause 3 correct? Subsection (1) says that there shall be a Football Membership Authority. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State may appoint whom he likes. Subsection (3) says that he may sack whom he likes. Subsection (5) says that he can do so only on 1st June. Subsection (6) says that he can vary the matter a little. Subsection (7) does the same. Subsection (8) says that if he does not like the FMA he can create another one by Order in Council. That is how I read the Bill. It is perfectly possible that I am wrong. It seems to be a fairly silly clause.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister in charge of the Bill has constantly reiterated the point that the Bill has been brought forward for the sake of football. Football is an abstraction. The people who play football and the people who go to football matches are not an abstraction. They are real. If the Government are sincere in their objective to help football, they will have to go beyong the Football League and the Football Assciation in setting up an authority to run the scheme. The Football League and the Football Association may run the game but they do not run the hundreds of thousands of supporters who attend games every week. If the Government are concerned, as they say they are, about the safety of those supporters, which I understand is the principal objective of the Bill, those supporters themselves should be asked about the way in which the scheme is to be run.
62
Subsection (2) says:
"any body corporate formed for the purpose by the Football Association and the Football League or any body corporate formed by any other persons".
If the Minister had inserted "and" instead of "or", it would have been open to the Secretary of State to have included the kind of organisations which my noble friend Lord Graham has mentioned. There are others. My noble friend has mentioned the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. I support the noble Lord completely on that aspect. As he said, there may well be other organisations, formed by football supporters; that is, by the people who pay at the turnstiles, and who will be directly and personally affected by the scheme of football membership cards. Surely that incluson is in the Government's interest, and in the interests of making the scheme work—if it ever can work, although I very much doubt it.
However, taking the matter from the Government's point of view, if they really want the scheme to work, then it must be seen to be working in association with the people whom it affects. They are not the people in the executive boxes, or those in the directors' boxes. Indeed, although I have in Committee given a welcome to the efforts which have been made by most clubs in this country to stamp out hooliganism, there are many of us who are regular football supporters—and have been for many years—who feel that there is far too much money running the game, and that the game has been run too much as a business. Indeed, the supporters frequently feel that way.
I ask the Minister to address himself to the issue of whether he and the Government do not wish to associate with their scheme the people who it will affect quite directly; namely, the hundreds of thousands of fans, however they are organised, who should be included in the Football Membership Authority so as to represent those who wall be directly affected by what is proposed. In that way, the authorities can obtain advice of such people, and their views, and have them associated with what is proposed to be done on their behalf.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer to that question is quite straightforward. There are many matters upon which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and myself disagree; but there are, however, some upon which we have agreed. One of those is that it has always been the Government's intention to have football running football. Perhaps I may use Lord Graham's, analogy of the top table. We propose that there will be a top table at which the two hosts will be the FA and the Football League. If they feel that it will be an addition to the formation of the FMA to have people representing various other bodies in football, then it would be up to them to ask such people to become involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, also feels the same way as Lord Graham of Edmonton, on the matter. However, he then departed into more fertile, philosophical country regarding the state of play and how much money there was in football. He also went into the philosophy of the whole game. I do not

63
feel that I have the remit—nor, indeed, do the amendments cover that issue—to go into the matter at great depth.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me whether I thought the clause was a silly one. I do not think that the clause is silly. One of the main purposes of it is to incorporate improvements which were brought to the attention of this Chamber in Committee by such noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and as he referred to what I said, will he address himself to these two facts? First, it is the football supporters who keep the game alive; indeed, it is their attendance money which keeps the game alive. Secondly, is it not the case— —
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Lord address himself to this issue before he sits down— —
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow: He has sat down!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: — —will the noble Lord address himself to the issue of the inclusion of representatives of the supporters about whom—I should imagine from what he has said previously—he is most concerned regarding hooliganism, and who will be personally affected by the introduction of the membership card?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall try to be brief in what I say. However, in his response the Minister referred to the FA and the Football League forming the top table. I think he went on to say that they could consider whether they would want to co-opt people from other organisations and then the Government would consider the matter. I should have thought that the Government, having considered the matter, could give a positive view upon it now.
I say that because when the last piece of legislation concerning the game of soccer was passing through your Lordships' House—I think it was the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill—I visited a number of grounds, including those of Leeds United, Manchester City and Manchester United. It came to pass that I was told quite forcefully by some of the VIPs concerned with the behaviour of spectators and crowd control—who were in fact members of their own supporters clubs and senior people within those organisations—that when particular clubs were playing other clubs, where it was known that friction would take place, meetings were usually convened with the senior policemen involved with security at the home ground and the police from the visiting club's area. I should point out here that the friction has diminished quite considerably.
However, very often, in order to ensure that what was taking place got total support, people—that is,
64
the representatives of both clubs involved—were brought in on an objective basis. There is no questioning the fact that it was an immense bonus to the police and the other people involved in controlling crowd behaviour at those games. Therefore I think it would be an immense bonus for the Government, if they want to see this Bill passed successfully, if they indicate—not just hope that it may come to pass—that at all levels the people involved with the game will be able to participate and take responsibility in the matter.
Indeed, they have proved in the past that they can function and apply those qualities to the good of the game. It has been proved to be so before, and I am quite sure that it will prove so again. I hope that the Minister will at least think about the matter, even if he does not wish to give an indication today. However, I do not think that he should just sit back on the basis of what he has already said and hope that that is the best way out, because I do not honestly believe that it is.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has disappointed me because what I was looking for was not only a place at the top table, but also dignity and respect for football spectators. However, soft words butter no parsnips. I understand that that is a well-known phrase. It is no good the Minister, and his colleagues, saying that they recognise the value of spectators and supporters, that they believe the hosts are entitled to be free to choose and that they hope that they will invite spectators to become involved. I believe that the Minister has been less than fair to the people whose money goes into the game of football. Indeed, it is not just their money; it is their partisanship in, and their passion for, football which makes the game of football work. Moreover, without the spectator, without the fan and without the organisation there would be no game. Indeed, there is not a football club in the land which is not grateful for the involvement of the spectators and fans in its locality.
I am not talking about making policy and I am not talking about telling the football clubs what to do. However, there are many ways in which they can be involved. All I am saying is that here is an opportunity to recognise the raison d'être of the spectators and of the supporters. Indeed, they spend a lot of money and a lot of time, and they are used—and I mean "used"—by football to carry that industry on their backs. That is the reality of the matter. These amendments have been given to me by the supporters associations, and I believe that they are very worthy.
I am well aware of the political reality and the parliamentary arithmetic which clearly indicate that when I press these matters to a vote, as I intend to, they will not be carried. I believe that the supporters clubs deserve to know that there are some Members of this House who are prepared to create a place for them at the top table, and that there are other Members, including the Government, who believe that that issue should be left to charity and chance. In my view it is not good enough and therefore I must test the opinion of the House.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, 1.

Hylton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Blyth, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knights, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pym, L.

Harvington, L.

Rees, L.

Henderson of Brampton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hesketh, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hives, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

66

Shannon, E.

Trafford, L.

Sharpies, B.

Tranmire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sudeley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Swinfen, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Teynham, L.

Wynford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved, as amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 9:
Line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) The Football Membership Authority shall consist of a chairman (who shall be an independent person, that is to say a person having no involvement in the ownership or management of any premises at which football matches are played, and appointed as such by the Secretary of State) and not less than six ordinary members who shall hold office under the terms and conditions laid down in Schedule (The Football Membership Authority) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it always gives me great pleasure to see the Government Chief Whip sitting on the Opposition Benches. It is no doubt an augury of happier things to come. In moving the amendment, I have one relatively simple question to ask. My information is that the football authorities would be content to have an outside chairman. If that can be confirmed, will the Government accept the proposal? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is better informed than I am on this matter. I shall have to correspond with him. I believe that I can now say that the answer is yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. As I said, I asked the representatives of the football authorities whether that was their position. I was told by them that it was. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not want to argue the merits of the case. It seems to me for a number of reasons, not least the position of the appeals tribunal, highly desirable that someone from outside football should be the chairman of that organisation. If that is confirmed to be the position of the football authorities, I rejoice to hear that the Government would not try to block the proposal. With that assurance from the noble Lord, unless— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am in a mood to seize the opportunity. Perhaps the Minister is saying that the authorities may indicate that they would be satified with having an independent chairman. The amendment mentions independent members as well. Can the Minister also assure the House that if it is the view of the FA and the league that they would be content with some injection of independent members he would give the same reply?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think I am correct in stating that I said that earlier when speaking to the original amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to— —
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, let us be quite clear. I am the mover of the amendment and I have a right to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, intervened after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Under the Standing Orders of the House, I am entitled to reply to the debate and I have every intention of doing so.
All I wish to say to the noble Lord is that again I am very glad to hear what he said. It entirely meets my point. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Clause 4 [National membership scheme: making, approval, modification etc.]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 22, leave out from first ("The") to ("shall") in line 23 and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("his appointment") and insert ("its designation takes effect,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment also. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) The Football Membership Authority shall, before exercising any of its functions under this section, consult the Football Association and the Football League.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to require the Football Membership Authority to consult the FA and the league in drawing up, modifying or replacing the scheme in line with the undertaking that I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I have explained that it has always been our hope that the FA and the league would set up and run the FMA. I have been able to tell your Lordships today that everything is on course for that to happen. In the unlikely event that they are not appointed to run the FMA or that they cease to run it in the future, this amendment would require the new body designated as the FMA to consult the football authorities in drawing up or modifying the scheme or when replacing it. The Government accept completely the need for the football authorities to be fully consulted at such times. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help the House. If the league and the association accept the responsibility and become the FMA, can he give an indication of the circumstances under which they would be
68
deprived of that right and authority? What are the kinds of things they might do wrong? I hope that it is not simply to displease the Government. What are the defects or crimes that they might commit in order to have their sovereignty of the FMA taken away from them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I gave an example of this earlier this afternoon on a previous amendment. It was where, for instance, the FMA went into liquidation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that that is his one illustration? In other words they have the right virtually in perpetuity, except for that illustration.
Lord Hesketh: No. My Lords, there is also the possibility that the Football League and the FMA might decide that they did not want to run the scheme.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No.15:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh Moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("administrator of the scheme") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("administrator") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 5 [National membership scheme: contents and penalties]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to his amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("(bb) providing for temporary membership of the scheme, including (in particular) the temporary membershp of football club guests;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 39 and 46. I shall be moving those which appear in my name but again I shall not be supporting those tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris.
We spent a considerable amount of time discussing the possibility of exemptions from the national membership scheme during Committee stage. I am sorry to see that most of the amendments which we debated at such length in Committee have been tabled again now. I made the point several times during these discussions that the more law-abiding spectators who join the scheme, the better it will work for the benefit of the members and of football in general. People will benefit from membership, not lose by it, because of the potential protection from hooliganism which it offers. There is just one group for whom exclusion from the scheme is both appropriate and desirable—that is the hooligans themselves.
At the same time, I accepted that there are practical reasons why certain people should not be required to become full members of the scheme. The groups I mentioned specifically in Committee were disabled people for whom designated areas and special access arrangements are required and guests of the club to whom temporary membership cards could be issued. Both these groups are catered for in the government amendments which we are now considering. I also said that the best way to deal with others for whom a requirement to join the national scheme might be inappropriate—foreign visitors, organised school parties perhaps guests of members of the club—would be by means of temporary membership arrangements. The government amendments will allow for that and they will do so in a more sensible way than the opposition amendments proposing general exemptions for these groups would do. The clubs will take responsibility for the issue of temporary membership cards and be held responsible through their licence.
Noble Lords will have noticed, however, that the government amendments go further than the offer to consider which I made at Committee stage. They also include a specific exemption, for which the scheme must provide, for children under 10 accompanied by an adult who is a member of the scheme or is otherwise authorised by the scheme. We considered the arguments which noble Lords
70
advanced at Committee stage on the subject of family groups very carefully and I am very pleased to have been able to come forward with this additional exemption in response to your Lordships' comments.
The amendments refer to children under the age of 10, rather than 14 or even 16, as has previously been suggested. The choice of the age 10 reflects, I am afraid, the rising tide of violence among young people, even the very young. It also reduces the risk that older teenage hooligans could pretend to qualify for exemption, as they might do if we put the age at 14 or 16. At the same time many 11 or 12 year-olds may not be able to afford membership. I see no reason why clubs should not issue cards free to everyone under the age of 14 or 16 if they wish.
I am glad that we have been able to go some way to meeting the points made by noble Lords by providing this additional exemption for accompanied children. I should emphasise that this exemption and that for disabled people are to be subject to such conditions as are specified in the scheme. We shall expect the scheme to spell out that the exemptions are to apply to designated areas in football grounds—be they for disabled people or for family groups—for which special access arrangements are provided. Many clubs already have such areas; others may wish to develop them. It makes practical sense to use them as the basis for these exemptions and to avoid confusion with members of the scheme going through normal turnstiles.
We are to come later to further opposition amendments proposing additional exemptions. I should like to mention just two of them now. First, I am afraid that I am not prepared to go as far as the opposition amendment on family areas is now proposing. Sixteen years is, I am afraid, too old an age at which to pitch an exemption, despite the recommendation to this effect in the Minister for Sport's working party report. Hooliganism is a serious problem among teenagers. I also believe that it is essential that the adults who accompany the children must be members of or authorised by the scheme if we are to prevent hooligans abusing this exemption to evade membership of the scheme.
I should also say a word at this point about the case for an exemption for retired people. I made the point in Committee that it is in the interests of retired people, as it is of other law-abiding spectators, for the scheme to be a success. They constitute too large a group to be exempted from the scheme altogether. The checking arrangements that would be needed to avoid abuse would be more onerous to retired people than the membership scheme itself. It would be better by far for them to join the scheme and benefit from its protection.
If your Lordships accept the Government's though not the Opposition's amendments, the Bill will provide that the scheme must provide for temporary membership arrangements and for exemptions for disabled people and accompanied children. It will also retain the provision allowing the FMA to propose further exemptions if they wish. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is important that the FMA should have this discretion. They will need it, among other possibilities, to deal with the specific issue of Wembley. This brings me to the final aspect

71
of the Government's amendments to which I wish to draw attention.
The new subsection (3A) which we are proposing would allow the scheme to make different provision for different circumstances. Noble Lords will recall from our discussions about Wembley in Committee that I accepted that Wembley was a special case for which special arrangements would be needed to deal with the special requirements of international matches. I said then that we would expect the FMA to come up with proposals for these special arrangements in discussion with the Wembley authorities. We are now proposing the new subsection (3A) in order to make absolutely sure that it will be possible for the scheme to provide for these special arrangements.
I began my introduction of these amendments by reiterating the Government's commitment to a membership scheme that would attract as many members as possible. I hope that I have shown that within that commitment we are prepared to take a very reasonable approach to the special practical considerations that apply to certain groups; to the case for temporary membership cards for club guests and others; to specific exemptions for disabled people and accompanied children in designated areas; and to allowing the FMA to come up with other proposals if they wish, including for Wembley Stadium. These amendments will provide for these arrangements. I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to deal with very nearly every amendment on page 5 as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has done. That would be something very close to an abuse of our procedures. We must discuss the narrower issues which are before us. I was a little surprised, if I may say so, that the noble Lord used the rather unfortunate phrase about being sorry that the amendments had been put down again. The reason that they have been put down again is the lamentable quality of the Government's arguments against them on the last occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I welcome the government amendment dealing with disabled persons and accompanied children. We vigorously put forward arguments at Committee, and we are very pleased that the noble Lord has met our point. It would have been even better if the Government had considered this Bill carefully before bringing it before Parliament in the first instance.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will respond to the question of European Community passport holders. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 26, which is an amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 25. As I understand the situation, the Government are content that clubs should make temporary membership arrangements for such people. That is fine as far as it goes, but I am still unclear about whether, as part of the new arrangements, such passport holders will be able to show passports at a whole series of football matches or
72
only at one or two during a season. On the last occasion that we debated this matter the noble Lord thought that it should only be on one or two occasions and that after that they would have to be members of the scheme.
This would be a new and substantial burden that would be placed upon football clubs in terms of their record-keeping. It would be a substantial burden because presumably they would need to consult their files on every occasion before deciding whether or not to issue a temporary membership card. The test would be whether someone had been there on one or two or three occasions in the current season. The costs of this scheme are beginning to multiply. A situation would arise, where scores, if not hundreds, of applications for temporary membership arrangements would have to be considered by officials of the club. It would be a greater burden upon the smaller clubs which would have to introduce special arrangements.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is content that EC passport holders should have the right to enter a ground on a limited number of occasions, it would be infinitely more sensible to put that on the face of the Bill. What I am not clear about is why the noble Lord is so determined to resist this amendment if he accepts the principle of what we are attempting to achieve. What is the case against it? I have heard everything that the noble Lord has said, but at the end of the day I am bound to say that I do not understand why he is resisting it. I should be very grateful if he would help me.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I have been involved since Second Reading in the foreign tourism aspect of this Bill. I welcome Amendment No. 25 because it gives the industry an opportunity. I welcome Amendment No. 27 for a different reason; I think that it may attract back some of those people who have been lost to football. It is at the very core of the Bill. It would make football more acceptable and this group of people would return.
The amendment that I am not desperately happy about is Amendment No. 26, and the reason for that is very simple. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has spoken to the industry. I have also done so, but I suspect that he and I may have drawn different conclusions from our discussions. The largest source for this business, the casual visitors to a football match who come once or twice a year, are the Swedes and the Norwegians. The Finns are not very far behind. The reason for that is the climate. In Scandinavia and in Finland football is a summer game, not a winter game. That is why Swedish television was willing to pay approximately £60,000 to televise a match between Bournemouth and Manchester United and why Southampton lost a similar sum which they would have obtained from Norwegian television, had their game with Norwich not been cancelled in the context of England's game with Albania.
If there is to be a passport-style amendment, I do not think that the industry and my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority can accept the thought that it should be limited to the EC. I am surprised that BITOA is alleged to have supported

73
this amendment because when I have spoken to people in the business they have always said that Scandinavia is of paramount importance to them. One contact in the industry in Manchester said that the Irish are of critical importance in the north west, particularly the Liverpool side and the Manchester side. They may fall within the "frequency of visit" argument that was being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and perhaps we should address that situation later. However, in terms of the major source of the business which is Scandinavia, Amendment No. 26 is not acceptable.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like the Minister to explain his point with regard to Amendment No. 27. He said that disabled people would go into designated areas in a football ground. That implies the physically disabled in wheelchairs. There are a number of disabled people—the blind, for example —who go to football matches. Is it the intention that these people would have to go into designated areas or would they have exemption from the scheme? If the Minister is not careful the scheme will discriminate between different kinds of disability.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has in part answered in the way that I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are well aware of the substantial number of Scandinavian supporters who come to this country. We do not understand why we should make an EC separation when considerable number of supporters, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will know, both of Arsenal and of Tottenham Hotspur, come from Scandinavia. That is the reason for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a point concerning temporary membership. We believe that applying perpetually for temporary membership will be very inconvenient when compared with being a member of the scheme. I know that if I were in that role I should want to join the scheme rather than have to go through the rigmarole of having to get a temporary membership card for each match.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the disabled. We have said that the disabled will be exempt in designated areas. If, as he suggested, a blind person wanted to go to a favourite part of the ground he would have to be a member of the scheme in order to have full access throughout the ground.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if we are now dealing with Amendment No. 26 perhaps I may ask him whether the Government would be prepared to accept an amendment which would allow the admission of bona fide tourists from any part of the world for up to, say, six matches on production of their passports.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it will be possible to get into a ground. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that his suggestion of introducing the figure of six matches would complicate matters even further.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked perhaps
74
I may seek clarification. If the Government's objection relates to holders of European Community passports can I take it, on the basis of the Minister's alacrity in agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, that if an amendment was put down at Third Reading referring to "any international passport holder" that the Government would support it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware, we see the temporary membership card as the way in. Confusion has arisen. A foreigner going to see Tottenham Hotspur as an individual rather than as a member of a group would be able to identify himself most easily by producing his passport. I should assume that the club secretary would regard the production of that passport as a valid reason for giving the foreigner a temporary membership card.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, so possession of the passport would be the passport into the ground. The fact that somebody turned up at the ground with a passport would ipso facto be an entitlement to a guest ticket.
The Government have used the term the "integrity of the scheme" ad nauseam. We are not arguing about the scheme. We want to encourage foreigners to come to watch British football matches. Everyone would accept that possession of a passport is sufficient to allow them into the ground. It might be said that there is a danger that passports might be stolen, they are precious, but people do carry passports with them. Surely the Minister can say that he is prepared to look at an amendment on the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, without commitment. Perhaps he will consider whether, between now and two weeks' time, which is all the time we have, this measure can be tidied up and be made more precise in order to relieve the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. The noble Lord has put those worries forward very fairly and they are very proper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. The situation is now becoming completely confused. I understand the reason for the amendment put foward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, we shall find that under this scheme the only members of the EC who cannot attend a football match on the production of a passport are the British. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to put the British even more against the EC. It seems to rue that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not wide enough. If we are to have an amendment of this kind it ought to embrace everybody other than the English and the Welsh, unfortunately. Then the English and the Welsh can hate the rest of the world because they will be the only people who will not be able to get into a football match on the production of a passport.
This illustrates the absurdity of the Bill. I have been talking to my colleagues. I do not want to be misunderstood, nor does anyone on his side of

75
the Chamber want to be misunderstood. We hate football hooliganism and we would be prepared to support the most oppresssive measures against football hooliganism and the football hooligans. But we are concerned and have tried to show that this Bill simply imposes colossal inconvenience and an illiberal situation on the vast majority of British people who also wish to attend a football match.
I wish the Government would consider what is happening. At any event, can the noble Lord, in his final winding up, assure us that at least foreigners who wish to attend a football match, irrespective of whether or not they are members of the EC, will be able to get in?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. In earlier stages of the Bill and earlier this afternoon the Opposition have considered it right and proper to introduce measures aimed at lower sentencing. Then the noble Lord stands up and says that he is willing to engage in oppressive measures.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He has misrepresented me. I said that we would be prepared to support the most oppressive measures against football hooliganism. What this Bill does is to impose oppressive measures against ordinary, innocent citizens who may just wish to go to a football match as spectators. That does not make them football hooligans.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has referred to just one amendment. There were a number of other amendments at Committee stage which would have reduced the level of sentence.
I believe that there is a misunderstanding as to what a passport can do for a foreigner who turns up at a football club. The passport in no way guarantees access to the football ground. The passport provides the club, for example Tottenham Hotspur, with the opportunity to decide whether, as the responsible issuing authority, it should or should not give a temporary membership card to that person in order to attend and watch a game. The passport itself does not directly obtain admission to the ground.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, I should have called Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 before now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his attention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 26:
Line 3, after ("guests") insert ("and of the holders of passports issued by other countries of the European Community")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the position is somewhat confused. I assumed that we were debating the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Now, as I understand it, we could not have been discussing that amendment, and we should have been discussing
76
Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself. That amendment deals with the admission of foreign passport holders.
I do not wish to go interminably through the arguments all over again. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and I do not see the European Community in quite the same way. That is not the reason for the amendment. The amendment is intended to deal with the situation in which people have special rights of entry to the United Kingdom not possessed by others. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said: namely, that, if there is a provision relating to passport holders, it should relate to any foreign passport holder. On reflection, I think that he is right and we are wrong. That is another reason why I do not intend to press the amendment today. However, I should like to return to the point so that there is no possible misunderstanding. An amended version of the amendment would give foreign passport holders special rights, rights which they would not possess if they were totally reliant on the temporary membership card.
All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is that, given the fact that he or one of his colleagues, spent a vast amount of time on the last occasion in explaining how terribly difficult it would be if old age pensioners and others had to have special entrances at football matches—because they had privileged treatment within the scheme—the same will obviously now apply to foreign passport holders, if the Government get their way. The only way football can respond to that new arrangement of temporary membership cards is to provide an arrangement under which people can be admitted to some point—presumably outside the ground —where they will on each occasion have to try to negotiate their way through to a temporary membership card.
The folly, stupidity and near madness of the Bill grows on one as the debate proceeds, but, believe it or not, that is what the Government now recommend. I merely say that, given the fact that I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, we shall have to return to the issue and, on that basis, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 25 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this might be a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Report stage of the Bill at 8.20 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989
7.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for this order arises out of the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The independent Top Salaries Review Body recommended in 1983 that the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his position as the head of the judiciary and of his wider responsibilities. The House accepted the principle of the TSRB recommendation and has successively reaffirmed that with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Salary Orders for the years 1984 to 1988.
An annual Lord Chancellor's Salary Order is necessary because the Lord Chief Justice's salary is set annually following the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. This year, the TSRB recommended a salary of £89,500 for the Lord Chief Justice—a 5 per cent. increase. The Government accepted that that figure be paid from the due date of 1st April 1989.
The Lord Chancellor has a salary lead of £2,000. The House accepted that figure in 1983 and it has remained at that level since. Its real value has eroded since it was first established, but that of itself is not a valid reason for changing it. The lead exists because the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and that makes it right that an appropriate differential should exist between him and the Lord Chief Justice. A lead of £2,000 fulfils that requirement.
The order establishes the Lord Chancellor's salary at £91,500 from the day it comes into force—it cannot be made retrospective. The salary level derives directly from the TSRB report and embodies a principle established six years ago and accepted by the House on six previous occasions. I hope that once again it will commend itself to the House this year. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House not only have no objection to the order, but certainly approve both what it says and the very fair manner in which the Minister has indicated to the House that there is an assumption written into the proceedings and arrangements which makes it automatic for the order to come before the House.
I certainly concur with the Minister that, in the circumstances, this is a wholly appropriate and reasonable proposal, not least in respect of the manner in which one seeks, in a difficult area—if not to indicate a pecking order or a hierarchy—to ascribe to a post a salary that is felt to be reasonable and appropriate. Certainly, we on this side of the House will, as we have done on the previous occasions, not only raise no objection to the order, but welcome, support and approve it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I recognise that the order relates to the position and not the personality of the person who occupies that distinguished
78
post. But, as regards the personality, after reading Friday's debate, I certainly believe that the position is occupied with great distinction at the moment and that further encourages me to support the Motion before the House.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to follow what the noble Lord has just said and support what has been said from both the Front Benches, because, in this particular case, not only the post but the recipient merits the money. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown great courage in tackling a matter upon which most of us who would hesitate to go into a detailed legal debate nevertheless support in principle what he is trying to do. We also feel that, in our support, we are buttressed by very many people in this country who are deeply uneasy about the existing situation, but do not have the specialist knowledge to underpin their views.
I should also like to say that I sympathise greatly with the noble and learned Lord with regard to the debate that took place last Friday. I am sure that there are many other interests in this country which would like to be as well represented in this House as that particular interest was. I am sure that we could, for example, have an interesting debate here on the Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill if there were two or three dozen dockers scattered around the Benches on either side of the House.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly and thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his words; I am grateful for them and am glad that he welcomes the order. I should also thank the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for their words. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be greatly encouraged by their words concerning Friday's debate, in which I too believe that he did a remarkably good job. I was here at a quarter to eleven on Friday night and was amazed by his stamina throughout the day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 until 8.20 p.m.]

Football Spectators' Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 5.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment NO. 27:
Page 4, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
("

(i) disabled persons, and

(ii) accompanied children,

in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as are specified in the scheme:").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 28:
Line 2, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this simple amendment stands in the group of amendments to which we are speaking, and enables me to speak to those additional amendments which seek to widen on the face of the Bill the exemptions that we wish to see. I should like the guidance of the House and the Minister. I wonder whether it would be possible for me simply to move Amendment No. 28 and then leave those speakers who have prime interests in Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 to move them appropriately thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is a paving amendment on the exemptions which will follow hereafter. The grammatical change that it proposes will not be necessary if noble Lords withdraw the subsequent amendments, as I hope they will.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to disappoint the Minister. Certainly we do not intend to withdraw the amendments. I know that in speaking to Amendment No. 25 the Minister rehearsed the arguments against them. To be fair he pointed out that we had already had a canter over this course in which the Minister had argued that what he had given in the form of a concession as to the duties of the FMA and the general issue of exemptions was as far as he thought he could go. In effect that is merely to insert Amendment No. 27 on the face of the Bill. The clarification as to accompanied children is referred to in Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 39 is still in this bracket. In moving Amendment No. 28 and giving notice that when we reach Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 they will certainly be spoken to separately, I confirm that what will happen to them will depend upon what the Minister has to say. I seek the guidance of the Minister. Amendment No. 39 states:
"and in this subsection 'accompanied children' means persons under the age of 10 years in the charge of an authorised spectator.
We no longer have football supporters or fans; we have authorised spectators. That is a category which will rest uneasily on the shoulders of many of my friends who stand on the terraces at matches.
Can the Minister tell us what device the Government have in mind to be able to estimate the age of the child in question and to determine whether or not he is under the age of 10? One of the arguments that we had about the old age pensioner was the difficulty of ascertaining exactly who was an old age pensioner. That amendment will be moved and spoken to much more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when we reach it and I am not anxious to interfere in those arguments. So perhaps the Minister can tell us what device, other than accepting the word of the person accompanying the
80
child or perhaps the production of a birth certificate, the Government have in mind to determine whether or not a person is under the age of 10.
Is he saying that the age of 10 has been decided upon because it is felt that someone under that age is either not a potential hooligan or is incapable of committing acts of violence? Is it felt that someone over the age of 10 is ipso facto someone who is more likely to commit violence? One hesitates to ascribe to youngsters aged 7, 8, 9 or 10 the kind of violence that we see. However, that is no yardstick. Even though youngsters are accompanied by an authorised spectator, who is usually their parent, that is no guarantee of their age. We shall come later to an amendment which concerns parents. Having moved Amendment No. 28 I ask the Minister to say a little more about Amendment No. 39.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said previously when I spoke to Amendment No. 25, we have tried again to provide here something which is helpful and useful. The difficulty resides in where one pitches the age: at five, 10 or 15 years? The age of 10 has two advantages. First, it is the age of criminal responsibility; secondly, one will never obtain the perfect answer if there is to be an exclusion, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree.
His point about the ages is a very good one. In today's newspaper there is a horrifying story of a nine year-old and a seven year-old who beat up another child and set fire to him. Those children were under the age of 10. The fact of the matter is that we want to have something sensible. I would say that by and large a child of the age of 10 will look much more like a child than a 14 year-old who may be very tall and approaching six feet. We have tried to find something sensible which accommodates those views and which is the best age. The combination of that and the fact that it is the age of criminal responsibility is why the age of 10 was the age that we decided upon for this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend say why it is easier to tell the difference between a 10 year-old and an 11 year-old boy, which he argues will be essential for the turnstile keepers, yet much harder to distinguish between men and women—because he is resisting the next amendment to exclude women. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a slight muddle.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Earl is entirely correct on that matter. I am sure that if we said that we would not exempt anyone down to the age of one he would consider that even less satisfactory.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am not arguing about the age of 10. I ask how the age will be determined. The Minister appears to be saying that it will depend upon appearance. But in that case he is all at sixes and sevens.
We acknowledge that this is a difficult area. We are trying to exclude lots of people legitimately. Can the Minister and his advisers say how they envisage

81
that the turnstile keeper will be able to determine that the child who is accompanied by an authorised spectator is the age that the authorised spectator says he is? That spectator is not asked to say that this is his son or daughter, but simply accompanies the child. He goes through the turnstile. The turnstile operator says, "Just a minute. That child must be below age". The man says, "This boy is certainly below the age of 10". Is the word of the authorised spectator to be accepted? I do not envisage that there are vicious people below or above the age of 10. I simply wish those outside the House to know what guidance the Minister's advisers have been given in order to establish that under Amendment No. 39 the child is under the age of 10.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It seems to me that we are being unnecessarily pernickety on this point. If a young person goes to buy a railway ticket, and below the age of 12 he purchases it at one price and above the age of 12 at another, there has to be a degree of trust between the person at the ticket office and the person paying the money. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere. For the reasons that the Minister has given, the age of 10 is reasonable. It is possible that someone may say that a child is 10 when he is 11, or vice versa. But there has to be a degree of trust. We are being unnecessarily pernickety and I hope that the Minister will stick with his cut-off point at the age of 10.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think it is a matter of being pernickety, if the noble Baroness will forgive me. We are discussing what will be incorporated into the Bill. If the requirements of the Bill are not followed, people will be committing serious criminal offences. That is why we are being pernickety, if that is regarded by the noble Baroness as a term of abuse.
I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive my saying that she tends to work on the assumption that anything presented by Ministers is self-evidently desirable. I do not think so. There is a genuine problem here. Ministers have made a great deal of the difficulty to make provision to distinguish between men and women. It has been said that it would be very difficult to decide who was an old age pensioner. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the question: how does one decide whether a child is 10 or some other age? It seems to me a matter therefore of substance. I do not believe that what the noble Baroness said has a great deal to commend it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it is interesting to see the ease with which the Minister considers that one can pick an age which will be the arbitrary line of division, and that that will be the barrier. There has been trouble since time immemorial with those licensing laws that apply only to people of 18 and above. One of the biggest drawbacks in that area in the past has been that very often young people of 16 years look older than some people of 19 or 20. This has been a running sore in the licensing trade.
82
However, we are dealing with a very difficult situation. Just to draw an arbitrary line and to say that it will work is a very dangerous premise indeed. For instance, I have two grandsons. One is seven and one is five and a half. Noble Lords may ask what that has to do with the issue. The grandson who is five and a half is by far the bigger and looks the older. By the age of 10 he will look much older than the other grandson. If the Minister wants photographic evidence, I can give him it. He is the bigger and more mature boy now in terms of physical development.
How does one deal with the matter? If someone turns up with his son or grandson who is 10½, does one stop the whole procedure and ask, "Where is his birth certificate?" How does one prove age? Let us imagine a policeman at Anfield or Everton, Highbury or Tottenham, or at Manchester City or Manchester United on a big cup day. Suddenly he has to say to someone, "I think that the boy with you looks a little more than 10. Can you prove to me that he is not?" It is an absolute recipe for disaster—and a hold up of procedure.
We must bear in mind that most of these youngsters who go to matches are accompanied. Their first insight into football is mainly with their fathers and grandparents who take them to these games. The Minister has said that at 10 years a child can become the victim of criminal law. Surely the Government do not mean that they would relate criminal law to 10 year-old boys whom somebody has tried to take into a football match at the age of 10½ or 11 years? If so, what sort of a Bill is this? What kind of society are we becoming? I seriously suggest that the Minister ought to look at this amendment and try to reassess what he has said. In my opinion it will become the biggest joke of the lot. It will become a bigger joke than old age pensioners and women being potential attackers outside a football ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister going to object to my amendment which deletes the word "and"?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, there is no way in which we are not going to have a debate on old age pensioners. Let us make that absolutely clear. What precise procedure should we follow? In the final analysis, I am perfectly content to have an ungrammatical Bill because I do not think that it will make an immense amount of difficulty.
I wish to be clear that if we withdraw this amendment, we shall not be debarred from debating others.
The Earl of Onslow: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, could I be clear— —
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, surely we must try to keep in order. That means that I should not speak a second time—and there are many things that I

83
wish to say—and nor should the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We know that he is immensely distinguished, intelligent and clever, but he is allowed to speak only once on each amendment. Otherwise, we shall be here almost as long as rabbiting on about law—and that would be a terrible mistake.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have not spoken before. Therefore I am able to speak on this item. I am frankly surprised that the Minister has not replied to the direct question which my noble friend put. What will be the machinery for determining the admittance of a child, whether he is 10 years or 16 years? It is not a pernickety matter. There has to be some bureaucratic answer to that question. If it is to be left solely to the common sense and decision of the gateman, many of these other matters will fall into the same pattern. What will be the machinery for determining this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very interested in this. It is extraordinary. The Government produce a concession that is based on common sense. It is immediately jumped upon by the Opposition as presenting insuperable problems.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we want to know how you will supervise the matter.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we envisage that there will be special areas where accompanied children can go. Let us consider the facts of the matter. We are trying to make a helpful and useful provision. There are various other amendments providing for different ages. We have thought hard about why we believe that 10 is the right age. I am more than happy to differ from the noble Lords but that is the Government's position. We introduced it as a concession without even being asked for it, as I pointed out earlier in your Lordships' House. We felt that it was the the best common sense age. There has to be an element of common sense in everything. We believe that that is the best common sense age for allowing children to be able to attend with their parents at a football match.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the Government have thought long and hard and have arrived at the age of 10, ipso facto they must have thought long and hard about how they will determine who is 10.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may return briefly to the point that my noble friend was endeavouring to make, having spoken before he was halted—rightly I think—in his tracks because he had already spoken, and this is Report stage.
This is the question. The Minister has indicated that he will oppose Amendment No. 28. If Amendment No. 28 is not carried, the word "and" remains. Can we have an undertaking from him that when the subsequent amendments are moved, as they will be, he will not object to them on the grounds that they will be ungrammatical? Will he give us that assurance?
Lord Hesketh: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that the Bill can live with a grammatical error until Third Reading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I apologise without reservation for my ignorance about what the Minister had in mind. I was sensitive to the fact that if we had a debate on Amendment No. 28 and lost that debate we would lose the opportunity of debating the other issues. The Minister has said that there may be a grammatical error to be put right, but that we can proceed with the other amendments. In those circumstances, although we have had no satisfaction whatsoever concerning how the Minister's advisers consider how they can implement Amendment No. 39, neither will the new Football Membership Authority nor the individual clubs have any idea how they will interpret these issues.
I appreciate that the Minister has a working party considering these aspects. I have no knowledge of these matters, but I am fairly certain that every time the members of the group meet they will at least discuss what has happened in Parliament since they last met and try to make some sense of what we have tried to do. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 29:
Line 3, after ("(ii)") insert ("women and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those noble Lords who have taken an interest in these matters will recall an amendment of mine at Committee stage to exempt all female persons. The House will have observed that I put down a similar amendment at Report stage which I subsequently withdrew, and I substituted for it the amendment that I have now moved. I wish to make it clear that my reason is for my own convenience and I hope for that of the House and not because my original amendment at Report was out of order or because of any convention which states that a similar amendment may not be moved at Report and Committee stages. However I decided that I would do it the Government's way. In fact the amendment, if it were carried, would read "women and accompanied children".
During our previous discussion, the noble Lord heard his noble friend Lord Onslow, and other noble Lords, talking about being able to distinguish between 10, 11 and 12 year-olds. There will be some difficulty about it. But as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, there is no difficulty in distinguishing men and women and women and children. Therefore the amendment will be as easily understood and workable as the amendment that the Government have tabled concerning children of 10 years and under.
The original arguments at Committee stage still stand. It was unfortunate, perhaps because of some feminist ideas, that the amendment was not carried at Committee stage. It failed by only six votes, which was unfortunate because it was a good amendment

85
and the Government could perhaps have incorporated it into the Bill then. Nevertheless the same arguments apply. There are no recorded cases of women at football matches behaving like hooligans. It will benefit football and probably reduce hooliganism if women are encouraged to attend football matches rather than discouraged as they will be under the Bill because they will have to apply for membership of the scheme and will have to pay for the privilege.
The same arguments apply and the same arguments stand, but the Ministers' amendments have shown that the exemptions of children, the disabled and women can be accommodated within the Bill and catered for. If we exempt disabled people, which I entirely accept and support, do we say that only the physically disabled will be affected or will the mentally disabled be involved as well? If they are, it will be interesting to know how the football authorities will distinguish between people who are not mentally disabled and those who are. It seems to me that there will be no difficulty about the amendment.
I believe, as I said and believed at Committee stage, that the amendment will benefit football and will help to reduce hooliganism. What is more it would be fairer to a section of the population which has shown quite clearly that, first, it does not involve itself in football hooliganism; and, secondly, is against it. I hope that in all the circumstances the Minister will be able to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I completely agree with the thrust behind this amendment. The Government are accepting that turnstile keepers are capable of distinguishing between 10 year-olds and 11 year-olds, but not between men and women. It has always seemed to me that the principle of the Bill is good, provided that the tickets are circumscribed to what I have called and will continue to call potential yob classes. Women are outside that potentiality. I believe that the Government are making a grave error in not excluding women and old age pensioners; but we have had a vote on this matter.
If we have a vote on something at Committee stage, the House has decided. It is believed that certain noble Baronesses perhaps felt that they could not vote for sexist reasons—that I suspect is a rumour whizzing about a fairly male chauvinist piggy-wig place, that may or may not be true. But those of us who are really crypto male chauvinist piggy-wiggys would love it to be true. The House has decided by a vote in Committee stage not to do something. My view—and I voted for the losing side—is that the House was wrong. It would be not in order to press this or, unfortunately, the old age pensioner exemption as well. The House has made decisions, and having made decisions we should not go back on them. Another place may make different decisions. I hope that it will. I am sorry, but if there is a Division, I shall vote for constitutional propriety as opposed to sexual equality.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, did the noble Earl say that we voted on the exclusion of women and old age pensioners:
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, no., I said that we had decided on old age pensioners.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, surely if we did not vote on the issue of old age pensioners we are perfectly entitled, to vote on it tonight if we so choose.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it was not the House which decided the question of whether women should be excluded but the Committee. The Committee has now reported to the House. Therefore the House is entitled to discuss the issue not necessarily to force a Division but to try to persuade the Government that the arguments put forward in Committee are worth while and that they should take them into consideration and think again. That is the purpose of the Report stage.
I should like to put two questions to the Minister. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that when the issue was discussed in Committee he argued that the integrity of the Bill depended on its totality. I have paraphrased his words but it is almost an exact quotation.
As regards the disabled and children the Government have varied that opinion and we welcome that. Therefore the integrity about which the Minister spoke has already been broken by the Government on his own promise. We suggest that there are other categories of people who could be exempt without diminishing the effect of the Bill in any way. In fact, it would increase the effect of the Bill from the Government's point of view.
At Committee the Minister answered me by saying that the exemption of females would ruin the attempt which the Government are making to outlaw hooliganism. It was said that women would be encouraged to come into the grounds because they would feel safer. That is a specious argument. My first question is: has the Minister discovered a single instance in which a female has been involved in any form of hooliganism in any football ground anywhere in the world? If the answer to that question is no, surely all women attending football grounds will feel safer if the Government's case is correct and if what the noble Earl has called the "yob class" is excluded.
The Government must admit that they are making it more difficult for women to attend football matches by requiring them to apply and pay for a membership card. The second point I put to the Minister is this. He has agreed that he wishes to encourage more women to attend football matches because that will civilise the atmosphere. He has mentioned the setting aside of enclosures for accompanied children. Many football grounds already provide them and they are used by families; that is father, mother and children.
If the Government's argument is logically followed, and if the Minister wishes more women to attend football matches, he will make it easier for

87
them to do so rather than more difficult. We ask the Government to think seriously about the issue. It will be no safer for women to go to football matches if they are forced to take up membership cards. Almost without doubt the enforcement of the necessity for a woman to hold a card will reduce the number attending matches.
Can the Minister answer these two questions: have there been any instances in which women have been engaged in hooliganism? Is it not the case that by compelling women to take out membership cards he will reduce the number attending matches?
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the purpose of Report stage is to enable matters to be dealt with which were not resolved in Committee or did not then arise. If it is to become a practice that any decision made in Committee can be reconsidered, discussed and voted upon at Report our business will be seriously delayed. With deep respect, I believe that to say that the issue was not dealt with in Committee is merely a quibble.
As regards the merits of the case, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that generally speaking women are well behaved. They are better behaved than men and there are few women hooligans—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: There are none.
Lord Renton: I am not suggesting there are any but I should be surprised if there have never been any. Surely the Government cannot accept the amendment. First, we must remember that it would create an administrative loophole because many women have the same first names as men. The names "Evelyn" and "Robin" are used as Christian names by both men and women. Therefore, there would be confusion about whether a man or a woman was applying for the card or on whose behalf the application was made.
In these enlightened days of sexual equality women wish to have the same opportunities as men and they wish to bear the same burdens. They do not wish to be treated differently by Parliament in its law making except when that is unavoidable. For those reasons I believe that my noble friend would be wrong to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are correct in saying that for the House to reverse on Report a decision made in Committee is unconsitutional (as described by the noble Earl) or improper (as described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton). I remember at least one occasion since May 1979 when the Government were narrowly defeated in Committee and came back on Report having mustered their forces— —
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: That was the last occasion.
Lord Monson: They then overturned a decision made in Committee so any unconstitutional act was performed by the Government.
88
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the problem we must face is one of aggressive young males. However, I do not believe that we can rule out entirely the possibility of girls—I say "girls" advisedly and not "women"—taking advantage of any loophole which may exist. For that reason I marginally prefer the exclusion from the constraints of the Bill of women over 25 years and men over 35 years.
However, if the issue is brought to a vote I shall gladly go into the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
9 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, I am totally opposed to the Bill. However, I believe that, as we have alrady discussed this amendment previously, we should leave it alone. If anybody is to decide whether women should be excluded, it should be the FMA.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may make a fine distinction here. As I read the Companion to the Standing Orders it says that noble Lords are perfectly entitled to table amendments which have been tabled at an earlier stage. However, they are not entitled to repeat at length on Report arguments which have been fully deployed previously. I suspect that we are getting rather close to that. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to change their mind.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the question of whether women should be exempt was debated at some length on two separate occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill. On the second occasion the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved an amendment which has the same effect as that which we are considering today; namely, it seeks a statutory exemption from the scheme for women. The House debated and considered this point very thoroughly in Committee and reached a clear decision not to provide for such an exemption. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes clear that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report. In view of that, I am sure that the House will not wish to tread over the same ground in detail today and I do not propose to do so.
Your Lordships will also be clear, from our earlier discussions, about the Government's position on exemptions generally. I have explained that we want as many law-abiding spectators as possible to join the scheme and enjoy the benefits of membership. This will be good for members and good for football. It is in the interests of neither, nor of the working of the scheme to allow too wide-ranging exemption arrangements.
As I said at the beginning, this issue has already been debated at great length on a previous occasion in Committee when a clear decision was reached and I very much hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that while I am speaking. First, I

89
did not—and if he had listened to me he would realise this—deploy all the arguments which were deployed in Committee. Indeed, I deliberately kept my opening remarks very short and related them to some of the discussions which we have had this evening.
However, one point which has been raised, first, by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister is that we do not have the right to discuss this matter and vote on it again because it has already been decided by the House, to use the term of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. However, the matter has not been decided by the House, but by a Committee of the House. One object of having a Committee stage is to be able to discuss a matter in complete detail. The object of having a Report stage is to enable the House as a House—as a complete House and not as a Committee—to have a second opinion. I believe that it will be dangerous for the House to accept, and certainly for Back-Benchers to accept, that once there has been a vote in Committee, that is an end of the matter. If the House accepts that, then it accepts that a very valuable piece of democracy is being taken away from it. It will agree to that at its peril.
Having made that point, I do not wish to deploy any further constitutional arguments as to what we can and cannot do. However, I believe that the amendment is a good one and would certainly be workable. I am sorry that the Government and the Minister do not feel able to accept it. I have been thinking on my feet and I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight and that is therefore the end of the matter as regards this House. However, I express the hope, because this is a serious amendment on a serious matter, that another place will take the matter up when it comes to debate it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 30:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) persons holding at an international football match passport issued by the country of origin of the visiting team;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the amendment states, we are seeking to exempt supporters of the opposing team at an international football match from membership of the scheme. We have already had an argument as to the extent to which the foreign visitor nexus should run. We argued about whether it should be restricted to the EC. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, made out a very strong, reasonable and sensible case that the nationals of countries outside the EC enjoy the facility of coming to watch our football matches.
However, perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity—and I do not propose to press this matter to a Division as I seek clarification—to tell the House precisely how supporters from Albania or— —
Lord Hesketh: Romania.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those supporters may be allowed out but perhaps may not be allowed back. They are very choosy who they let back into that country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how foreign football supporters coming to this country but primarily to Wembley will gain admission. I should like to hear from the Minister the mechanics of how they will be able to stand on the terraces or sit in the stands and watch their team. I beg to move.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has suffered somewhat in the printing because when I first read it, it referred to the word "passports" and now it refers to "passport". I am unaware of any such thing as an international football match passport although the way passports are stamped nowadays, perhaps football teams should stamp them instead of the country whose frontiers are being crossed.
I can see the point of this amendment but, before the Minister replies to it, perhaps I may suggest a caveat. The amendment assumes that one should make provision for international football matches. Therefore, can the Minister clarify the phrase "international football match"? Is it defined in the Bill? Is it, for example, England v. Sweden or a Swedish club playing a British club? That is a flaw in the amendment.
Secondly, I refer to where a foreign club is playing a British club, and I come back to the amendment we discussed earlier. Nowadays, because of the internationalisation of football, a French club can include Dutch, Swedish and even British players. Because of their star status these players attract groupies and supporters who are not necessarily holders of passports—and this is what I believe the amendment sets out to do—reflecting the country in which the international team plays. Therefore, again I suggest that the amendment is flawed. I think I would advise my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority to explore that aspect because they have to get all the business they can and have a statutory duty to do so. The amendment lacks something and I fear that it lost that something in transition between the first printing a the current Marshalled List.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment means we again return to how best to deal with foreign spectators at international matches. I have explained the government position on this important subject at some length. We accept that foreign spectators at international matches cannot be expected to join the scheme. At the same time I have explained why we do not think that international matches can be excluded from it.
I could not, I hope, have made it clearer that we regard Wembley as a special case and that we want to see special arrangements made for foreign spectators at international matches. I have said how important it is for the FMA to consider what the most appropriate arrangements should be. The FMA will consider those arrangements in consultation with interested parties and then submit the proposals to the Secretary of State. I do not think that it would

91
be helpful to attempt to restrict the FMA in making its proposals by spelling out in the Bill exemption arrangements based on passports. Much the best way forward here is for the FMA to look at this issue in detail and to make its recommendations. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister said that there are to be special arrangements. Manifestly, whatever the Government's desire may be, it is quite ridiculous for any serious minded person to believe that if, for example, Bulgaria played England at Wembley all the Bulgarians would have to become members of this ridiculous organisation. Clearly, therefore, there will have to be special arrangements. The only way in which one can determine a Bulgarian from a citizen of any other country is by examination of his passport.
Therefore, while not disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his determination to withdraw this amendment, as the Government clearly will have to do this anyway, it might have been slightly more sensible to have done it in the Bill. It is inevitable and as the Government will have to do it they are passing responsibility to the FMA for the simple reason that they do not have the slightest idea of how to do it themselves. That is why we have these constant tributes to the FMA—the organisation consisting of the Football Association and the Football League, which were regularly denounced by Mr. Moynihan on every television programme only a few months ago. Nevertheless, as these arrangements will have to be in the final scheme, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his determination to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am touched by the faith that the Minister has in the ability of the FMA to produce to itself a satisfactory means of dealing with this problem. Although we have pointed to simple problems, which the Minister says are not so simple, the Minister says that he has faith and that the FMA will come forward with a scheme.
Can the Minister tell the House whether, if the FMA produces a scheme that it believes to be satisfactory, and even if there are some aspects of it that he dislikes (that is, an alleged threat to the integrity of the Bill) he will, ipso facto or prima facie, accept the solution?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that it will be up to the Secretary of State when he sees the FMA's proposals. The noble Lord describes my faith as touching. It is not touching: we just have a lot of faith in the ability of football to organise the FMA.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am touched by the Minister's "untouchedness". There is nothing more to be gained. The situation is highly unsatisfactory and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, whenever we come across a matter which the Minister and his advisers have not thought through
92
the answer is that it has been thought through and left to the FMA. I very much hope that the FMA will take on board the fact that it is being given enormous scope. I share the Minister's faith in its ability to deal with this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 31:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) members of organised school parties;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister puzzled us when he mentioned the categories of exemptions at the last stage of the Bill. Among the groups of people we wish to be encouraged to attend football matches on a properly-organised basis are organised school parties. The Minister acknowledged the breakthrough (it was a breakthrough) that there were categories of people for whom he was prepared to make special arrangements. Can the Minister tell us the kind of special arrangements that might be made at Tottenham, Enfield or Edmonton, where, as part of their organised out-of-school activities, schools wish to take along a group of boys and girls as part of the children's social and civic education? It is also part of their cultural heritage, for example, that they should wish to attend a First Division match at Spurs or at Enfield. That club has ambitions to enter the league. The school party may wish to go to Arsenal, which is not very far away.
Can the Minister tell us how a teacher accompanying 30 children between the ages of 12 and 16, should go about obtaining permission to attend a football match? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the temporary membership arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, alluded, and proposed in the government amendments to the Bill, provide an entirely appropriate way of dealing with organised school parties. We recognise that many clubs wish to encourage properly-organised school parties to attend matches. They will wish to organise the arrangements in advance with the schools concerned. If they wish, they may offer temporary membership cards free to the members of school parties. That will be for the individual clubs concerned. It is a sensible arrangement that will allow the clubs to ensure that school parties are properly organised. A blanket exemption for such parties would raise unnecessary questions of identification and definition. A school party is particularly well suited to the temporary membership arrangements because, by definition, it has to be organised in advance. Such an arrangement suits and fits very well into this scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to go through the procedure for the admission of a school party, as I see it. The school will apply to the appropriate official at Tottenham Hotspur and say, "When Spurs play

93
Everton on April 22nd, as part of our organised school activities we wish to bring along a party of 30 children. We as a school are responsible for them." Does the school have to say, "Therefore, please issue free temporary membership facilities for the scheme"? That does not include admittance to the ground because, if the charge is £2 or £3, that will have to be paid for. Is it a fact that the school will apply to Spurs and ask for temporary membership to cover 30 pupils? It may be that the children will have to be named, but that can be worked out by the FMA and the Minister. Can the Minister say whether the procedure will be as simple as that? Can the Minister say whether in advance of the game the school will apply for approval and they will receive a ticket for the teachers and the 30 children? They will then go along to the ground and there will be separate turnstiles to deal with the party. Is that how the scheme will work?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, let us suppose that one of the party is a French shoolchild. What will happen then?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I do not believe that it will make any difference. The simplest parallel that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is the matter that was raised when we were dicussing at an earlier stage of this Bill package tours coming in from overseas. I believe that this situation is very similar. The school authorities will write a letter to the club. In the same way as the package-tour operator will supply a list of names, the school will act very much in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested before I rose to answer his question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister because that is part of the nitty gritty. I am not remotely considering these as words on the face of the Bill. At the moment, organised visits are made to Spurs in a much more ad hoc but responsible way. It is a general understanding that we seek. In the future, as I understand it, this simply means that in return for a letter the school will receive a ticket of admittance representing the temporary guest-card facility. The Minister agrees with me that that is how it would work. I am not tying him down to precise words but that is my understanding of the arrangement. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwhich Lord Harris of Greenwhich moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 32:
Line 3, at end insert—
("(iii) persons in receipt of a retirement pension from the Department of Social Security;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 deals with an issue which we discussed in Committee. I refer to the position of retirement pensioners. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, no doubt mistakenly, earlier this afternoon, we did not vote on the issue. The
94
amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and withdrawn after, by the standards of the Bill, a relatively short debate.
Why do we return to the issue of old age pensioners? We return to it for one self-evident reason. The Bill is supposed to be aimed at dealing with violence at football matches. How many old age pensioners have been convicted of criminal offences at football matches? The answer is one of almost baffled bewilderment on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, because there is no evidence that an old age pensioner has ever been convicted of such an offence. It may well be the case that on one occasion at Scunthorpe one dark Saturday evening an old age pensioner committed some appalling crime at a football match. However, no serious-minded person—those are the people to whom we are addresssing remarks—can conceivably imagine that old age pensioners represent a massive public order threat at football matches.
When I have asked senior police offices about their views on this matter they have looked at me as though I am going off my head. They cannot believe that I have asked such an utterly ludicrous question. I have reassured them that I fear that as we are having to discuss these matters with an appropriate attitude of solemnity it is necessary to reassure Parliament that old age pensioners have not been involved in such offences. There is general common ground. Indeed, on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was good enough to say:
"I recognise, of course, that it is unlikely that retired people would become involved in acts of hooliganism, far from it".—[Official Report, 7/3/89; col. 1428.]
That is a good point from which to start. There is general agreement that no public order problem exists in this respect. We then have to ask ourselves why the Government are not indicating their enthusiasm for the amendment. They are well known opponents of unnecessary bureaucracy. In the public and the private sectors Ministers rightly queue up to denounce bureaucracy. I do not disagree with their views on that matter. Why then are they imposing it on old age pensioners? We must return to the fount of wisdom, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who had to explain the Government's position on this matter. He said at col. 1427 of the Official Report of the same day:
"It is essential, however, that these"—
the exemptions—
"should be strictly limited, as I have said before, because of the danger of wide-ranging exemptions and also because in this case there is a possibility of confusion and chaos"—
that is a strong word—
"at the turnstiles".
That is the Government's case.
Since that debate I have asked the football authorities for their views on this matter. Once again those views are in conflict with those of the Government. They say that there would not be chaos at the turnstiles were the amendment to be inserted into the Bill. They point out that there are already a large number of separate entrances for old age pensioners. Indeed at the overwhelming majority of football clubs there are now separate entrances for old age pensioners. Therefore the picture conjured

95
up on the last occasion by the noble Lord of intolerable queues of old age pensioners standing there on wind-swept turf outside the turnstiles is a little far from the truth.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it can be done!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the football authorities say that they are very content and that if any old age pensioners want to be members of the scheme, then they can apply to do so; they can do so by the simple process of trying to join the FMA. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is to be believed, they will be enthusiastic to do so. I say that because the noble Lord said that membership is not a burden. Therefore, if he is right, many old age pensioners will want to be members of the FMA and that will diminish still further the likelihood of a queue outside those turnstiles.
The football authorities say that there could be several ways in which old people could in fact obtain a pass for the entire season—for example by simply presenting an old age pension book at the beginning of the season. All I say to the Government is that I do not really believe that there is the remotest prospect of them accepting the amendment because they have rejected so many entirely well-intentioned amendments at every stage of the Bill's proceedings. Therefore I expect the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to put forward remarkably similar arguments to those he produced on the last occasion.
All that I say to the noble Lord is that the football authorities believe they can administer the scheme without any of the disagreeable consequences which were set out by the noble Lord when he attempted to justify his position on the last occasion. Indeed, we await with interest to see which particular arguments he will deploy this evening against this particular amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may simply say to the Minister that if he genuinely wishes to take football with him, this is a very good way to do something with which—although the Minister may not be happy with it—football says it is capable of living. I am told by the Football League that 89 out of the 92 League clubs already have facilities for admitting old age pensioners separately. Indeed, they have turnstiles which are geared to include old age pensioners and juveniles. That is very often because the reduced prices which are charged for old age pensioners and juveniles are the same.
As I see it, the Minister has only one barrier to cross in order to accept the sense of the amendment, that barrier being that he does not wish to accept it. However, that is not a reason. What is proposed is capable of being implemented. If, in fact, he were to do something along those lines, which he may well say endangers the integrity of the scheme, who will benefit? First, it will benefit the old age pensioners because they will not have to be members of the scheme; they will not have to pay; they will not have to fill in any forms and they will not have to have
96
in their possession a card in order to gain entry. Whatever scheme is presently used by the clubs to ensure that old age pensioners satisfy the club that they are indeed old age pensioners in order to get through the turnstile, there will be the same facility. Moreover, what is also a certainty is that the clubs will be one of the greatest beneficiaries.
I can well imagine that a lot of people—I am getting perilously near, but I am not yet quite in the bracket which is affected by the clause—will simply say, "If I have got to join a scheme, pay a sum of money, fill in a form and carry about with me something that I need to get in to watch my local team"—that is, whether it be Newcastle United, which it was for me, but now it is Spurs—"I won't bother". One might say, "That's your choice". However, what an imposition to put upon people who, whatever else they have been doing, have been the lifeblood of our football. Of course, basically, watching football is perhaps a younger person's pastime.
My word, I do not go to football matches frequently but I sense that people feel that they belong to something. There is a camaraderie at a football match which is enjoyed by elderly people. The Minister should say something to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which will enable him to believe that he genuinely wants to meet this serious problem.
The Minister should appreciate that he will alienate a great many people if he classifies old age pensioners in the same way as he classifies hooligans. Whether one is a hooligan or an old age pensioner one must have a membership card to get into the match.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. I have a retirement pension and have had for many years. I concede that more weight should be attached to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of this amendment than to some of the previous amendments in which I did not think there was any substance. If people are to be exempt but still want to attend football matches, they would have to prove that they are exempt. Old age pensioners do not normally carry cards around with them saying that they are old age pensioners. One can obtain a concessionary rail warrant, but I can never find mine when I want it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord never travel on public transport? If he does, he carries a card around with him unless he is a lunatic. If one has a card one travels free. It is no good saying old age pensioners do not travel around with cards. Any old age pensioner who is not senile carries around a series of cards.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must confess that the noble Lord has made a valid but silly point. To prevent the minority of undesirable people to whom we have referred as hooligans from entering football grounds we must have the irksome business—it is an irksome business—of making all those who want to go to football grounds have the right sort of authority to do so. I am not sure that old people

97
necessarily wish to be treated differently from others. I am now so old that I hate it when people try to make me feel my age. The worst thing of all is when young men call me sir. To single out old age pensioners who, as has been said, form a large group of football supporters does not seem to fit in at all well with the generality of the scheme.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue is not whether old age pensioners are potential hooligans. The whole point has been missed, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Contrary to what he said earlier about me, I am against the Government on all exemptions. I believe that they are bureaucratic. I support my noble friend Lord Renton. They are patronising, especially for old age pensioners.
I am sorry that the Bill has been seen only in a negative way. There is another side of it which has not emerged during the debate—the positive side. It is wrong to interpret the Government as assuming that the people we are giving passes to are potential hooligans. It is an overall scheme designed to give the best possible protection to people at football matches and to make it more easy to identify the troublemakers. If the scheme is seen in that light, people holding cards at football matches can consider them to be a kind of protection. The chances then are that people who are up to no good may be more easily identifiable.
I think the scheme is good for members and will be good for football. There is also considerable scope for improving the financial wherewithal of clubs, in particular the Welsh clubs which were mentioned earlier as being in such dire straits.
In this Chamber we are incredibly cocooned, it seems to me. I find that there is an enormous amount of support for the Bill outside the Chamber from people who want an end to football hooliganism. If this Bill when enacted does anything to reduce or go some way towards eliminating football hooliganism, then those people who attend football matches with their identification cards will be better protected. My hope is that football clubs and their supporters associations will be healthier and stronger for it.
So I am sorry that noble Lords see this in a very negative light. My hope is that when we give identification cards to old age pensioners attending football matches it is not because they are potential hooligans but because we wish to protect those people going to football matches to enjoy what they see. That is a good football match.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in part of her remarks the noble Baroness seemed to be making a Second Reading speech on the general principles of the Bill. Frankly, as one who is well beyond the old age pension scale since I am now in my middle seventies I am amazed to be told that it is patronising for pensioners to be given cheap facilities anywhere. I have in my hand my British Rail pass. I do not live in Greater London, therefore I am not as fortunate as other Members of the House who have free transport in London. My district council will not provide it, but I have the British Rail pass.
98
I think I mentioned during the previous debate that I go to see my football team. I know that somebody jocundly said that only pensioners would go to see my team; but I think that is unfair since they are now sixth in the Fourth Division table. I go along to every single Leyton Orient home game with my next-door neighbour who is 78, three years older than I. Nobody anticipates what we shall jump over the barriers—I only wish I could because I get trouble in my leg. Nobody visualises that. It is suggested that it is patronising to allow this; but we have heard from my noble friend that 89 of the 92 clubs already have special admission rules for pensioners, and they work properly.
Let us consider the pleasure that older people get from going down to see their football team on a Saturday afternoon, as my noble friend says, at a considerably reduced rate. It may be argued that it is not to the benefit of the football teams to recognise pensioners and give them cheap rates. However it is something that they appreciate. Pensioners would resent being told that their cheap admittance on a Saturday afternoon is patronising them. They believe that it is something to which they are entitled and I think that clubs are anxious to give them that facility. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was not objecting to the fact that they are given a reduced rate for going into the match. I was saying that the issue of identification cards would be a protection for them rather than singling them out as potential hooligans.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I already have a membership card from my football club, but if anyone can assure me that if I had a card it would make me safer and that pensioners will be made safer, frankly that seems to be turning logic completely on its head. I shall not make a Second Reading speech because I want to keep hooligans out of football. However, to suggest that giving a membership card to pensioners will help them to keep hooligans out of football seems to me to be absolutely crass nonsense. I am sorry to put it as strongly as that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think that we have heard some very powerful and cogent arguments in favour of the amendment. I should have thought that the Government could accept it. I was rather surprised to hear Government Back-Benchers exercising their ingenuity in objecting to singling out old age pensioners when they were perfectly prepared to accept government Amendment No. 27 which singles out disabled persons and accompanied children under 10.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point on the amendment which has not yet been made although it may have been referred to in the earlier discussion at the Committee stage. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration—the operation and mechanics—of the scheme by the Football Membership Authority, when the time comes and the scheme has finally been drafted and

99
approved, will take time, money and work. For each application for a membership identity card inquiries will have to be made. Certain checks will be made and then the card will be issued. Let us accept that we are not worried about the terraces being festooned with rioting old age pensioners. We all accept that that is not the problem. We also accept that the problems of hooliganism are not in the grounds but outside.
The simple point that I should like to make to the Minister is that there are work and expense involved in the administration of the scheme for the clubs concerned. If at a stroke old age pensioners are automatically allowed in, the work in respect of those hundreds of thousands of people who go to football matches every Saturday will be reduced. That is another point which should be considered. Certainly those people do not need protection. I have had a season ticket for Old Trafford to watch Manchester United for 20 years. I go there fairly regularly and I have never felt in need of protection, whether by a card or in any other way. At a stroke much of the burden of the work and expense in the operation of this scheme could be removed merely by saying that old age pensioners are exempt.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, appered to suggest that the Bill was not strict enough. For those of us who consider that the great part of the Bill is authoritarian nonsense, motivated by panic, there is a lot to be said for supporting any amendments which make it even stricter. If, for example, there was an amendment to provide that women, children and pensioners should be compulsorily strip-searched in the freezing rain at the turnstiles, that would help to bring the Bill into disrepute and ensure its hasty repeal. I think that that is a temptation we should resist. Although I did not put my name down to this amendment, I gladly support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested that no pensioner had ever been convicted of a football-related offence. I am sure that he is absolutely right, and I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be able to prove otherwise.
There is one good reason in support of this amendment which has not been mentioned. It is a sad thing that far too many pensioners as a result of misplaced pride refuse to take up social security benefits to which they are absolutely entitled. They consider that accepting these benefits constitutes charity and is in a sense beneath their dignity, however much one tries to explain to them that they are entitled to them and that it is not a question of charity. I am certain that exactly the same kind of thing is likely to happen in respect of applications for membership cards.
Old people tend to be conservative with a small "c"—politically they may have quite different views and are likely to have quite different views if this Bill goes through unamended. Older people are normally reluctant to change the habits of a lifetime. The consequence of that is that there will be a great many old people who love football but who will not be
100
prepared to apply for membership cards and will be deprived of one of their few remaining pleasures.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that all noble Lords derived varying amounts of pleasure from the description of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of mythical rioting pensioners. However, we must face the Government's intention with regard to this amendment. We believe that for the scheme to work it needs to work in totality. We see it giving benefit to all who are members. We do not see it as a scheme which will place onerous difficulties upon pensioners.
We are providing a scheme which will achieve that which my noble friend Lady Blatch quite rightly pointed out. This is a matter which has hardly been discussed in your Lordships' House since the beginning of the Second Reading debate, it is the possibility that football might soar in popularity because we are doing something about trying to get rid of hooliganism.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say "Come on" from a seated position on the Front Bench opposite. The fact of the matter is that the Government are committed to doing something about soccer hooliganism. We are doing something about it with the Bill that is before your Lordships' House. Pensioners are a group of vulnerable people who will benefit from the results of the Bill.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, say earlier this afternoon that at Wembley yesterday there was only one arrest. My Lords, 65 people were arrested; there were 17 ejections. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has constantly spoken of one arrest in 10,000. I am not the best mathematician, but it is jolly nearly one in 1,000 on the basis of those figures. The fact of the matter is that that is not the story of a happy sport.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how many of them were old age pensioners? If this measure is for their safety and they do not ever riot, they will be just as safe even if they do not have tickets.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the assumption of the noble Baroness is that the Bill will have no effect. We believe that the Bill will have an effect. That effect will be to substantially reduce soccer violence. If that is substantially reduced, the sport's good name will be restored. If one of the happy outcomes of the Bill is that protection and the ease of attending a football match are greatly improved, then most Members of your Lordships' House should support the Bill.
As I have said in this House on more than one occasion, the object of exclusion is to exclude the hooligans. The object of the Bill is to provide protection not only to pensioners but to everyone. It is very easy for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to present and deploy an argument which, so far as I can make out, denies the existence of soccer violence.
I have found it extraordinary how rarely over the past few months the problem has even been mentioned. It is constantly presented as if the

101
problem is already under control and the Government are interfering in something which has been cured. That is not true. We are acting for the protection of pensioners and everyone else who loves football. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and setting aside his split infinitive which I shall ignore for the moment—he still has not replied to my noble friend. How many of those people who he told us were charged were old age pensioners? That is more relevant to the amendment which is before the House than the reply which the noble Lord has just given.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, it was not relevant. Secondly, I should be amazed if there was a single pensioner. We are talking about the effect of the violence on the weak in society, but the existence of that violence appears to be denied on the other side of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, did the noble Lord really need to say something as silly as that?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not clear from what the Minister has said that the only reason for the inclusion of old age pensioners is to make the scheme economically viable? The Minister has said repeatedly, not only today, but during previous stages of the Bill, that in order to make it safer for old age pensioners to attend football matches they must have an identity pass. Does the Minister really believe that by making it harder for old age pensioners to go to a football match more of them will be attracted? The truth is the opposite.
I happen to have with me a concessionary fare pass issued to me as an old age pensioner living in Greater Manchester, where there are 2,750,000 people. I should assume, and I think rightly, that the overwhelming number of old age pensioners in Greater Manchester have such a pass. I could also have a pass for London, but living in the City of Westminster where Lady Porter leads the council I do not think that the council could afford to give me one. In the Greater Manchester area there are the two Manchester football teams, Manchester City and Manchester United; there is Oldham Athletic; Bolton; Bury, and Rochdale. There are tens of thousands of football supporters in that area who can be identified immediately by a pass which has their photograph on it.
What reason can the Minister and the Government give me for perpetuating or duplicating the situation by asking old age pensioners to go through that
102
procedure once again? As I said, I do not know how many football teams are covered by the old GLC area, but I should imagine that that is the largest catchment area for football followers in England. A similar situation applies in the West Midlands. Many of those areas have a concessionary or free travel permit or facility for old age pensioners. As I understand it, such schemes must be accompanied by an identifying photograph which is part of the permit. I do not understand why the Government insist that there is a need to go through that type of exercise again. The Minister repeated what he said at previous stages; namely, that old age pensioners need such a permit for protection. That argument will not wash and he would gain far more credibility and acceptance for the Bill if he looked at the situation a little more seriously and gave better reasons than he has done so far.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am a little puzzled about this matter and wonder whether my noble friend can help me. He said earlier that the Government believe in the totality of the scheme and that it should embrace everyone. I agree with him in that, but, if that is the case, why has he introduced an amendment to make certain exclusions? That must surely open the very floodgates that have led to the number of amendments tabled by noble Lords this evening. It seems to me that, if we are to have some exclusions, some of those that have been tabled—particularly this one—have a considerable amount of merit. I believe in the totality of the scheme, but the only way one can have totality is to have no exclusions whatever. One cannot go half way. I believe that my noble friend has made life a little more difficult for himself in this matter by moving the amendment that we are now trying to amend, because it opens the floodgates. As I said on Second Reading—I regret that I have not been here for the other stages of the Bill—we either have a blanket identity card system with no exceptions and everyone knows where they stand, or we have exceptions. This amendment allows for a reasonable exception.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to help the noble Viscount. The reason why we have the limited exemptions in the amendment that we are discussing is that they were recommended in the working party document. There is some rationality behind the limited exemptions that the Government offer. We cannot have an "either/or" situation. We are trying to meet up with the real world and deal on a common sense basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have not spoken to this amendment. If I had done so, I should not be speaking now; I know that that would break standing orders and I would not wish to do that.
However, the Minister must understand that some of us feel very deeply about the Bill and believe that it is an illiberal Bill. On the other hand, we understand that the Government are committed to the Bill and that they will have the football spectators' scheme come what may. We can understand that, but what I cannot understand is why they wilfully insist that a section of the population which is already easily identified at the football grounds should be made to join a football scheme and carry an ID card when, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has pointed out, virtually all football grounds now have separate entrances for pensioners. All pensioners must do is produce their pension books, pay and go through. We simply cannot understand why the Government insist that, as well has having their pension books, they must join the scheme. That seems to be a wilful imposition on pensioners. I hope that the Government will think about this matter. They have the opportunity now genuinely to say that there is no need to inconvenience this section of the population and therefore it will not be done. That is what I feel about the matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, might at least have replied to his noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but apparently he does not choose to do so. I commend him on the fact that he did not return to some of the more ill judged arguments made at Committee stage. The House did not hear anything more about chaos at the turnstiles, for instance. That was rather good news. The argument did not sound too impressive on the last occasion. It would sound even less impressive today after it has been pointed out that 89 clubs have separate turnstiles for old age pensioners. All we have heard are the merits of the totality of the scheme dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret.
Before turning to some of the more interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I should like to deal with the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which were logically impeccable. I understand the bureaucratic argument, or call it what you will, that there should be no exemptions at all. That was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In order to reassure us that she was not a firm supporter of whatever the Government did on any occasion, which I think perhaps was suggested in a previous debate, she indicated to us that she was a rebel on this question and thought that the Government had made a serious misjudgment in making exemptions for disabled people and children under the age of 10. Such a truly absurd argument almost defies rational analysis. Are we to have seven and eight year-old members of the scheme with photographs going through this piece of bureaucratic nonsense?
The way the noble Baroness approached this measure concerned me a great deal. Indeed, as she
104
became more enthusiastic for a policy against all exemptions, I began to wonder whether she felt that this Bill went far enough. The logic of her position would be that over a period of time this legislation would come to apply to rugby league, rugby union, cricket, horse racing—where certainly there has been violence in the past—and indeed Wimbledon. I see no other logical position for the Baroness to take up.
I rejoice that, at least, until now, the Government have not adopted such a policy. The noble Baroness, who, so far as I am aware, does not have a financial interest in football, told us that the one piece of good news about this Bill was that the finances of football and the position of Welsh football in particular would improve. When she takes a financial interest in perhaps one of the Welsh clubs, I am sure that we shall be extremely reassured by her wish to give even more eloquent testimony to her belief in her own arguments. However, I shall be surprised if she does so.
As we learnt when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, rose to speak, the fact of the matter is that the Government have no serious arguments to deploy on this amendment. They have none at all. All we had from the noble Lord was the extraordinary statement about the number of arrests that had taken place this weekend at Wembley. Presumably he used that argument during the present debate for some reason. He was asked by my noble friend Lady Seear how many of those arrested were old age pensioners but he was totally unable to give an answer. That raised an interesting question as to why he had used the argument in the first instance.
Since he has used the argument, and given the fact that I suspect that we shall have some debates at Third Reading—if not going over this precise ground they will no doubt cover similar ground—I invite him to ask the Metropolitan Police how many of these people were old age pensioners. It will no doubt have this information. Since he has used the argument, he is now obliged to give an answer on that precise question to the noble Baroness. I hope that he will do so in a letter to my noble friend Lady Seear before Third Reading. I am quite sure that if the Metropolitan Police has the information, as I suspect it does, it will be anxious to assist the noble Lord.
The final argument of the noble Lord consisted of two points. First, he said that the Government did not believe that to bring old age pensioners into the scheme would impose an onerous duty upon them. If one considers the fact that clubs at the moment believe that they will lose possibly 20 per cent. of their present gate as a result of the introduction of this scheme and that part of that 20 per cent. will consist of old age pensioners, that argument seems to have very little to commend it.
Finally, the noble Lord said that he was astonished, amazed—I cannot remember the precise words—that a number of us who had had serious doubts about the Bill no longer indicated our enthusiasm for dealing with the problem of soccer hooliganism. I do not think that in looking around

105
for an argument, he believes something quite as threadbare as that. The fact is that all of us deplore soccer hooliganism. Our opposition to this Bill is that at its best it is entirely irrelevant to the problem of soccer hooliganism. It will not deal with the increasing problem of violence outside football grounds. The figures of the noble Lord in relation to Wembley indicated that most of the trouble arose outside the football ground. The more that we discuss this Bill the more foolish, threadbare and ridiculous it appears. I wish to press the amendment.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32), as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bonham-Carter. L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Craigavon, V.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmondon, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hylton, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dormer, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.11 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 13, at end insert—
106
("( ) providing for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of—

(i) no more than two parents or other persons accompanying a child under the age of 16 years;

(ii) that child,

where admission of all such persons is restricted to an area designated by a responsible person for the use of families.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we ask the Minister to deliver the recommendation set out in the Minister for Sport's working party. It has been used as a crutch by the Government more than once during the debates. The working party stated:
"The working party considered, in the interest of encouraging families to attend matches, that children under 16, accompanied by an adult member of the scheme, could be exempt from the scheme provided that: (i) they view the match from a designated family enclosure; and (ii) there is direct access to that family enclosure, not allowing transfer to other areas of the ground".
I use as an illustration Millwall and Watford football clubs which I have attended. The Minister is well briefed in these matters and knows that they are but two illustrations. I also have a note of Manchester City football club, which my noble friend Lord Dean knows better than anyone in this House as a result of his attendance at Maine Road. Luton Town football club will create a new family stand in the near future, as will other clubs.
We seek to provide that a separate form of access will be offered to a closely defined number of persons with a view to encouraging family attendance at matches. Surely that is desirable. There will be instances where an 11 or 12 year-old is bitten by the bug and wishes to attend matches. The only people able to take him may be adults who are not members of the scheme. We wish to encourage family membership. I should like to give as an illustration a visiting relative. The youngster with whom he is staying may wish to attend a match and can do so only if accompanied by an adult. In that instance they will go into clearly defined areas.
Such areas already exist so we do not ask for an exception but a continuation of that provision. I do not chide the Minister for making the exemptions that he has made. However, I believe that those in football will press upon the Minister the fact that more exemptions should be made. I realise the reticence of the Minister and his advisers. The more exemptions which are made, the more criticised the scheme may be because many people will not be affected by it.
The Government would be well advised to give in to the pressure from clubs. We are not talking about irresponsible people but about football clubs which have at heart their own credibility and financial status. They wish to see these provisions developed. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have accepted the principle that young children accompanied by an adult member of the scheme or otherwise authorised by the scheme should be exempt. We introduced an amendment to this effect even though we had not previously promised to do so. Such an exemption

107
makes good practical sense in the context of the scheme. The Opposition's counter-proposal could be highly damaging to the scheme.
In the first place, I am afraid that 16 is too high an age at which to set the level of exemption. This is one point on which the Government now part company from the report of the Minister for Sport's working party. Of course we hope that teenagers will join the scheme. It will be open to clubs to issue cards free of charge to teenagers if they wish. But I am afraid that it is a deeply distressing aspect of modern life that teenagers are involved in crime. Even among 10 to 13 year-olds in 1987, 35,000 boys were found guilty of or cautioned for indictable and summary offences; 1,200 of them involving violence against the person. Among slightly older teenagers, the picture is much worse. Among boys aged between 14 and 16,100,000 were found guilty or cautioned for offences in 1987, nearly 7,000 for offences involving violence against the person.
If the level of exemption were set at 16, we would be encouraging 16, 17 and even 18 year-olds to pretend to qualify. A 16 year-old thug can pretend quite easily to be 15; he cannot pretend to be under 10. If the age of exemption were to be 16, there would be a very strong case for requiring those who claimed exemption to prove their age. We can avoid that need and the danger of attracting teenage hooligans if we set the age at 10.
The second important difference between the Government's approach and the Opposition's is that we propose that the children concerned must be accompanied by an adult member of the scheme or authorised by it. This exemption must not be a loophole to allow hooligans disqualified from membership to enter the ground. Above all, we do not want to encourage hooligans to pick on children and persuade them to act as their "passport" into the ground. Nor, come to that, do we want teenage hooligans to pick on innocent adults and use them as a passport into the ground. The effect of the Opposition amendment could be an open invitation to hooligans to turn designated family areas into the most dangerous, not the safest, parts of the ground.
The way to avoid this abuse of family areas is to limit the exemption to young children accompanied by responsible adults. I recognise that this means that the adults concerned will have to join the scheme or be otherwise authorised by it. But this is a price that must be paid if we are to avoid a serious risk of abuse. It is precisely because the Government want to encourage families to attend football matches that we cannot accept the Opposition amendment.
In the first place, we want families with teenage children to join the national membership scheme and to benefit from it. At the same time, we accept that small children should not be required to join the scheme. So we have an exemption for them in family areas. But those family areas must be kept safe from hooliganism, not provide an open invitation to hooligans as the Opposition amendment would do.
The Government have made a significant move to deal with the position of children under the scheme. I
108
believe that we have moved the right distance, as I said earlier this evening, and that the Opposition is trying to go much too far. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may correct him on a matter of accuracy. He referred to the danger of 16 year-old children pretending to be younger if this amendment is agreed to. The amendment refers not to 16 year-old children but to children under the age of 16 years. Therefore, no child over the age of 15 would benefit if the amendment were agreed to.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand the Government's objection to this amendment and I heard their objection to a similar amendment in Committee. It seems to me that the purpose of this amendment is to encourage the provision of family enclosures at football grounds. That seems to me to be a very helpful development and one which should be encouraged.
I understand the noble Lord's objections to some of these amendments and I listened carefully to his earlier answer and this one was the same; namely, that the Government believe that hooliganism at football grounds is unacceptable. I agree with him entirely on that. The Government believe that the way to get rid of hooliganism in football grounds is to exclude the people responsible for hooliganism.
Here we are talking about family enclosures. I do not know of a single case anywhere in the country where hooliganism has arisen among people in family enclosures. Therefore, if there is no hooliganism coming from family enclosures, why does the scheme apply to those people—because one is not reducing hooliganism but merely stopping something which does not happen?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that kind of argument will cut no ice with this Minister. The fact that there is no hooliganism, that individuals do not need protection and that the clubs have no record of violence does not cut any ice with this Minister, the Minister for Sport or the Government.
The Government are petrified at this possibility —and I took careful note of what the Minister said—that our amendment would be an open invitation to hooligans. Nothing more ludicrous has been said by the Minister than that. It is inconceivable that there would be marauding groups of people, excluded by one device or another from watching a football match, who would be looking for loopholes to exploit. The Minister undoubtedly has his own experiences and his advisers undoubtedly consult a range of people. We know that they do not consult football authorities otherwise the football authorities would tell him that the amendment is what they want.
The Government should decide to examine their premise for this Bill; that is, to encourage the return of family attendance. Incidentally, there never has been a history of family attendance. It is a myth. However, if the Government wish to encourage

109
families they should build upon what Millwall, Luton, Doncaster and Southend—there are dozens—are doing. All we can do is once more expose the shallowness of the responses given to the Minister to read out to the House tonight. It is a very sad way in which to have a parliamentary debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4. line 16, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 37. 38 and 82. In essence, these amendments are designed to improve the appeal procedures for people who are judged to have transgressed the maxims of the scheme. Clause 5 deals with the membership scheme, the contents and penalties. We want to determine a better tribunal procedure.
These amendments—it may be a fatal flaw—have been given to us by people at the sharp end; that is, the supporters and people in the football world. They have not been dreamed up by someone out of touch with such matters. What do we say in this series of amendments? The essence is that we want to have an element of independence in the tribunal. We also want to make sure that the evidence which is sought is of a wider nature than that which is enshrined in the Bill.
I am not at all certain how far the Minister will have to go, but we simply want to improve the procedure under which football fans can be deprived of what for many of them is a lifeline. They may have acted foolishly and deserve punishment but we want to be fair. The amendment is designed to ensure that. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we debated this group of amendments during Committee stage. I said then that the Government regarded it as an essential element in the National Membership Scheme that the FMA should have the power to disqualify, at its discretion, people who misbehave at football matches but who have not necessarily been convicted of a criminal offence. I made the point that individual football clubs already have, and exercise, the right to ban people from their grounds. But, as things stand, someone who is banned from one club is able simply to go to another and cause trouble there. Bans imposed by the FMA at their discretion, on evidence received from the clubs, will apply throughout the league.
It is for this reason that I argued in Committee, and do so again now, that these discretionary powers for the FMA were an invaluable component of the Bill. But I accepted that there was a case for our dealing with these powers in a rather different way from that which the Bill uses at the moment. I undertook to look again at the appeals procedure and at the possibility of limiting the FMA's discretion more clearly on the face of the Bill. I promised to consider bringing forward amendments at a later stage. I regret that it has not been possible for us to reach conclusions on these points in time to
110
bring forward amendments for consideration today. We regarded it as essential that we should consult the Council on Tribunals before doing so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also considered this to be important. I am afraid that it was not possible to arrange these discussions in time for us to decide on appropriate amendments before today. I can assure the House, however, that these discussions will take place in time for us to reach a view on what amendments we should propose to your Lordships at Third Reading. If we decide that amendments on these issues are necessary—and I fully expect that we shall—then they will be tabled in time for your Lordships to consider them at Third Reading.
The Government's position on these amendments has not changed since Committee. We accept that there is a case for looking again at the appeals procedure provided in the Bill. As I said in Committee, if we have too elaborate a procedure the FMA and the clubs will not use it; and it will mean unacceptable delays for the appellant. I hope that we can produce a better and simpler approach. I also repeat that I am willing to consider spelling out certain restrictions on the FMA's discretion perhaps by limiting the maximum ban that can be imposed to two years; by providing a right for people to be notified of the reasons for their disqualification, and by requiring that the FMA's criteria for disqualification must be reasonable.
The Government remain willing to consider all these possibilities. It is appropriate that we should consult the Council on Tribunals on them. We will do so in good time to come back to your Lordships on Third Reading. In view of these repeated assurances, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, unhappily I did not have sent to me by the Minister's department the letter received by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Fortunately, the noble Lord showed me the letter. I very much hope that in future I shall also receive copies of letters, particularly regarding matters on which I have spoken and on the issue dealt with by the Minister of the Council on Tribunals. I am glad to hear what the noble Lord said concerning the reasons for disqualification. That is absolutely essential. It would be quite monstrous if the reverse were to be the case; for example, if membership were withdrawn from a member of the scheme without having an explanation given for that decision. Were that to be done, I believe that the tribunal itself would face some difficult issues by way of a judicial review were such a policy adopted. I am glad to hear that the Government are thinking of certain moves in that direction.
Given the fact that the noble Lord said that these matters were being considered between now and the Third Reading, I shall now deal with the composition of the appeal tribunal. I am extremely uneasy about it. Let us be clear about the situation. Perhaps I may describe the football club concerned as. the plaintiff. It would say that Mr. X should have his membership of the scheme withdrawn for a specific reason. The member so dealt with shall have the right of appeal

111
to the tribunal. However, who are the members of the tribunal? Strangely enough, they are members of football clubs. In a number of cases they inevitably have close relations with the club that is the plaintiff in the case. As a matter of fundamental justice it does not seem right that the tribunal should consist exclusively of people who are themselves directly involved in football. It may be argued that they are not independent when they are adjudicating on a case, however unfair that belief may be.
The fact of the matter is that a number of people appearing before the tribunal will feel that there was not much chance of obtaining justice because the judges will all be associated with the club that had brought them before the tribunal in the first place. That is why I put down an amendment which, given the fact that the Government are considering these questions, I do not propose to move later. It sought to establish that the majority of the tribunal would not be involved with the Football Membership Authority or indeed even with football.
These are difficult issues. On the basis of what I have been told, I do not believe that the football authorities are overwhelmed with excitement at the prospect of taking on this responsibility. None, inevitably, has had any direct experience of sitting on tribunals of this kind. I am quite sure that they would be prepared to help it as much as they could, but they have serious doubts whether they could carry out this responsibility by themselves. I hope that the Government will look at this question. There is a case for someone involved in football being a member of the authority—I do not deny the need for that—but it is necessary to ensure that the majority of the members of the tribunal are not directly involved with the FMA or even with football itself.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the issue of arranging for dealing with appeals, including the membership of a tribunal or review body, is one of those which we wish to discuss with the Council on Tribunals. I take the noble Lord's point on the importance of the independent members, but I hope he will not press me to say any more at this moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has made a fair offer to the House. We are anxious that consultations and discussions are able to proceed unimpeded by any dispute about what he intends to do. What he says he intends to do meets with the generality of what I have said tonight and on a previous occasion. It is an absolutely crucial point to those who may lose their national football identity cards. For the real football fan—I am not talking about the football hooligan—who has transgressed and deserves punishment, the possibility of being deprived of that lifeline is a serious matter.
We do not want to prejudice or anticipate what the Minister may bring forward. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are very much in
112
line with my own thoughts. The Minister has invited me to withdraw the amendment against the background that he has promised to bring forward at Third Reading something that will meet these points. The Minister smiles. Have I misinterpreted what he said?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that I said exactly that I had promised on every point. The noble Lord would be well advised to read in the Official Report tomorrow what I said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I do nothing else but read in the Official Report what the noble Lord has said. I shall most certainly do that. If I larded what he said, that is the kind of licence which an opposition spokesman is entitled to. It may not be very effective but it is all that we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) providing for the exercise of the rights accorded to members of the National Football Membership Scheme under Schedule (Rights of members of the National Football Membership Scheme) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 80. This amendment deals with the rights of membership of the scheme. The Minister has said that if one is a member of the scheme one will be entitled to free mail shots. One will be on a computer. It is possible that one's details will be sold to the highest bidder by someone who says to the club, "If you allow us to instal equipment it will cost you nothing because we will get back our money and more by selling the information to other organisations". When I listen to Mr. Colin Moynihan I wonder whether the purpose of the scheme has more to do with the opportunity of exploiting that avenue than with protecting the innocent from the ravages of the hooligan.
We are concerned not only about the rights as regards information to be sold but also those in relation to other matters. Those other rights are set out in the new schedule proposed under Amendment No. 80. If the Minister says, "You must be a member of the scheme", then we are saying to him, "Give membership of the scheme some status and authority".
By means of Amendment No. 80 we are saying that if you are a member of the scheme, then you have,
"(a) the right to participate in the election of representatives to a body".
You also have,
"(b)the right to participate in the election of a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme".

113
And you have,
"(c) the right to call a meeting of members of the scheme;
(d) the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for any proposed withdrawal of membership;
(e) the right to present a defence before any decision regarding membership is made;
(f) the right to appeal against any withdrawal of membership and the right to be represented at such an appeal".
In other words, if there is any value or worth in being a member of a scheme, it should carry with it not only responsibilities but also benefits.
We are also most concerned about this aspect. We may be talking about half a million people here, or perhaps nearly a million, who are members of a national membership scheme. It is a colossal organisation. It is not created just for the convenience of the football clubs, the FMA, the Government or for some direct mail order organisation. If you are a member of the scheme you should have certain rights which go with that membership. Indeed, that is the basis of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in some detail during Committee. The provisions in the schedule focus on the right of members of the scheme in the management and operation of the scheme and in having the FMA's decision reviewed in cases where membership is withdrawn. I said in Committee that I have every sympathy with the sentiments which lie behind the noble Lord's proposals for members' rights in the running of the scheme. It will be for the FMA and the clubs to run and monitor the operation of the scheme. But they will wish to take fully into account the interests of members of the scheme. It is in their own interest to do so. Consultation with members is vital to the success of the scheme, but just as important is the need for the FMA and the clubs to be free to settle the most appropriate way of taking account of members' interests. It would not be helpful to attempt to spell out detailed arrangements like those in the proposed schedule on the face of the Bill.
The other proposed provisions centre on the important right which must be extended to anyone who is disqualified from membership by the FMA to have the authority's decision reviewed. During Committee I said that I would wish to take another look at the FMA's discretionary powers and the rules and procedures to be spelt out in the Bill by which the authority will exercise that discretion to disqualify people from membership. Having made it clear that I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles which lay behind the noble Lord's proposals, I undertook to consider the possibility of bringing forward amendments at a later stage.
I have explained that it has not been possible for us to do that in time for today and that we will be consulting the Council on Tribunals. I have given an assurance that I shall return to this matter on Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will do so. However, without in any way wishing to
114
be ungracious to the noble Lord the Minister—who is not, I recognise, in any way responsible for the absurdities contained in the Bill—all I say to him is that the discussions with the Council on Tribunals should of course have taken place before the Bill was ever produced in Parliament.
We accept what the noble Lord said; namely, that these discussions are now taking place and that the Government will put forward their proposals on Third Reading. However, it must be said that all that is taking place at a very late stage in the Bill's proceedings. Moreover, when the Government complain—as, indeed, they have—about the slow progress of the Bill, I should just like to point out to them that if these matters had been handled properly and professionally we would not have had to have two separate debates on the one issue.
Having said that, I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question. Moreover, I am emboldened to do so by the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who of course we welcome to our proceedings.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is going now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wonder how much longer we shall be kept here tonight. It is now 10.40 p.m. and we have made substantial progress on the Bill. The Government owe us some explanation as to how long we shall he asked to sit here.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the witching hour is a matter of agreement although it has not yet been reached. The witching hour and the agreement are fast approaching. We try to terminate the proceedings at a point which is convenient to the Government and to your Lordships' House. A timescale needs to be observed. If I withdraw the amendment, as I did the series of amendments in Committee, will the Minister say that when he receives the report he will table an amendment on Third Reading which will take account of the gravamen of the matters contained in the schedule relating to the rights accorded to members under the national membership scheme? I am not asking the Minister to say that the matter will be enshrined in the Bill, but, if I withdraw the amendment, I should like to feel that on Report the Minister will bring forward an amendment which relates to the points I am making in this series of amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am asking for some clarification from the Minister first.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that I can go further than I have already gone. We are looking closely at the matter. I cannot say any more than I have said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on the basis that the "matter" includes the content of the amendments, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that when we see the words on the Marshalled List we shall have to decide whether we need to add something further on Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for what I consider to be an assurance that these matters may be covered on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("and in this subsection "accompanied children" means persons under the age of 10 years in the charge of an authorised spectator;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 34, at end insertߞ
("(2A) In the application of subsection (2)(e) above, the Authority shall not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information about such records.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wondered whether the Government spokesman might have indicated that this was a convenient hour at which we could finish. There is a voice coming from I know not where behind me which says that we should take Amendment No. 42.
The amendment relates to the use, misuse or abuse of the police records of individuals who find themselves in some difficulty with clubs. The Government previously said:
"The FMA will not have access to police records"—[Official Report, 14/3/89; col. 132.],
but the Government insisted that the clubs might need to use information supplied by the police when recommending disqualification.
We believe that the disclosure to clubs of police records would fall outside the current Home Office guidelines (Circular 45/1986), which relate mainly to applicants for certain kinds of employment, especially where access to children is involved. There is also a provision for automatic disclosure to bodies responsible for maintaining standards in certain professions.
There is certainly no precedent for disclosure of police records in connection with an individual's leisure activity involving no duty or responsibility beyond obeying the common law. The purpose of Amendment No. 40 is that under subsection (2)(e) of the Bill,
"the Authority—
that is the FMA—
"shall not make use of police records on individuals, nor shall clubs be given information about such records".
We think that is a very sensible and protective amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think and hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The amendment in his name would prevent police records being taken into account or being passed to clubs for the purposes of FMA disqualification.
I explained in Committee that the general principle is that information which is held on police records is confidential and may only be released where there are pressing considerations of public interest. Lord Graham's concerns are that police records should not be taken account of or disclosed to clubs in the context of FMA disqualification. I think that is based on a misapprehension. The disqualification in this clause will arise from a request by a club to the FMA. The club will obviously have to put forward grounds for such disqualification and the case may include information which is supplied by the police to them about the behaviour of a certain individual. That behaviour might well have caused offence but might not have been so serious as to justify a charge.
The behaviour may well have resulted in the individual's ejection from the ground and details of such circumstances are routinely made known to club officials. I think it is right in these circumstances that a club should be able to seek disqualification especially if the behaviour was persistent. Clubs should be able to use appropriate information which was supplied by the police in support of it.
However, that is simply a report about a specific incident. It is not general intelligence and it is not confidential criminal records. These amount to entirely straightforward, sensible and practical reasons why that kind of information might justifiably be disclosed by the police to clubs. It ought then to be available to them to use in support of an application to the FMA for someone to be disqualified under Clause 5(2)(e).
I confirm that there is no question of the police providing anything other than the information which is relevant for this purpose. I repeat what I said in Committee: the FMA itself will not have access to police records.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, just so that I am entirely clear as to what the noble Earl has just told us, I shall obviously look at Hansard tomorrow, to study what he said. As I understand it, he stated that the clubs and the FMA will not receive any Criminal Records Office information from the police. That is the first point. The second point is that they will also not be given any criminal intelligence information from the police. The only information they will receive from the police, again as I understand it from what the noble Earl told us, is information directly related to happenings at a football ground, and nothing else.
I hope that I have put what the noble Earl has just told us accurately. If I have done so, then no doubt he will confirm it. Perhaps I may also ask him whether he has consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and whether it has indicated its

117
agreement to this course of action. That is, given the fact that it is its information.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would prefer the noble Lord to take my interpretation of my words rather than his interpretation of my words. From what he has said, I think that he has gathered the gist of what I tried to intimate correctly. In other words, the police will be able to supply information relating to a certain incident that happened at the football ground, but they will not be able to give police records of any other confidential information. I can assure the noble Lord that ACPO has been consulted.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for teasing out the problem and to the Minister for responding very fairly to a genuine point. We are entitled to seek those assurances. We and those outside the House who advise us in these matters will read what the Minister has said. In those circumstances, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("(2B) In the application of subsection (2)(j) above, the personal data recorded on a membership card shall be limited to the holder's name, address, national and club affiliations, the date of issue of the card, and if necessary, the date and place of the previous match attended and a photograph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 deals with the personal data recorded on the membership card. In his letter to me of 4th April the Minister talked in terms of continuing discussions with the registrar with the possibility of amendments concerning data protection. The Minister stated:
"I can assure you, however, that we will bring forward any amendments which we consider necessary in the light of those discussions for Third Reading.".
The Minister is saying that the generality of this amendment is part of the ongoing discussions and that we can expect to see something coming out of the discussions for Third Reading. We look forward to those discussions. I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment in due course.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as usual the answer is "yes and no". The noble Lord has moved a revised amendment taking account of points made in Committee. It provides for personal details to be included on a card. It provides that those details should be limited to name, address, photograph, national and club allegiance and date of issue and, if necessary, the date and place of the previous match attended. It would appear not to preclude the inclusion of advertising material. This amendment is an improvement on its predecessor. But I am still not convinced that spelling out the form and content of the card in the Bill is a sensible thing to do. The fact that this amendment suggests to the House more categories of information to be included on the card
118
serves to underline the difficulty of attempting to put the details on the face of the Bill. The amendment would preclude the inclusion of the owner's date of birth. This could be a useful check on validity and is something that the FMA will wish to consider. In the light of experience, the FMA and the clubs might wish to include some additional information on the card. For these reasons I think it would be better not to spell out the detail of the card in the Bill.
We remain firmly of the view that the FMA should be free to consider the form and content of the card and settle on what best suits the needs of football and members of the scheme. I emphasised in Committee and do so again today that there is no question here of attempting to ride roughshod over the important issue of data protection. It is our intention that the Data Protection Act shall apply to all aspects of the scheme and we are in discussion with the registrar about this at the present time, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said.
I commend this approach to your Lordships and hope that in the light of what I have said about the need for the FMA to have some flexibility and the assurance that I have given about data protection, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall study what the Minister has said to see whether it coincides with what we seek to achieve. I accept without reservation the Minister's genuine desire to make sure that individuals will have their personal details protected, whether or not they are covered by the Data Protection Act, and his desire to ensure that membership of the scheme will not mean that their details are generally available. We shall wait to read what the Minister has said. We shall take advice from others—not least the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has been giving us its views on these mattters. We may come back again to this matter at Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("administrator of the scheme") and insert ("Football Membership Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  WRNS: RANKS
  WRNS: RANKS
  GATT NEGOTIATIONS
  GATT NEGOTIATIONS
  TAKE-OVER BIDS: COMPETITION POLICY
  TAKE-OVER BIDS: COMPETITION POLICY
  MILK MARKETING BOARDS
  MILK MARKETING BOARDS
  COVENT GARDEN: CAR PARK PROPOSAL
  COVENT GARDEN: CAR PARK PROPOSAL
  NEW PRISONS
  NEW PRISONS
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES IN WATER: CONTROL
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES IN WATER: CONTROL
  CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING
  CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING