Sitting of 13 April 1989

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

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order. for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 20 April.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 April.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 April at 7 o'clock.

    HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
      LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
        WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
          BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
            CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
              REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

                KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Community Volunteers
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain the purposes and duties of the proposed community volunteers schemes.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The Government have not formulated proposals for community volunteer schemes in the field of crime prevention. Members of the public are already contributing directly to crime prevention by joining neighbourhood watch and crime prevention panels. We encourage those wishing to give more active support to the police to join the special constabulary.
    Mr. Morgan: In the light of the Home Secretary's recent speeches on the matter, will the Minister tell the House the relevance of the proposals for unpaid volunteers and special constables to solve the special problems which exist, such as the fear that women feel when travelling on the Underground at night and the problem of lager louts massing outside pubs and night clubs? Is it not really a matter of training workers without uniforms to do the jobs of special constables without wages?
    Mr. Patten: That is quite a good line, but it is totally facetious and fatuous. We need more special constables to join up as active citzens in uniform, to help to relieve the police—as they can do—for their mainstream duties, by carrying out many ancillary duties for them. That will allow better policing. That is why we propose to introduce special constables on the Underground soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
    Mr. Adley: In view of my hon. Friend's remarks, does he agree that the police are hugely overburdened with road traffic work and that it is about time that we considered establishing a highway patrol so that the police can concentrate on criminal matters?
    Mr. Patten: It is the view of both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself that issues of traffic patrolling are best left to the chief constables in each area, who are operationally in charge of those difficult responsibilities.
    Mr. Corbett: Is it not deceiving the still rising number of victims of violence in the west midlands and everywhere else to pretend that community volunteers can stem the alarming increase in crimes of violence? Is it not merely an attempt to powder over the problem rather than put enough feet on the beat to prevent even more people becoming victims of violence?
    Mr. Patten: More well-turned lines, but they are very wide of the target. The hon. Gentleman avoids the fact, which I made clear in my main answer, that we have formulated no proposals for community volunteers. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Rather, we encourage more active citizens to join up as special

    1041
    constables to help the police and the attack on violent crime by relieving the police of the burdens of some of their ancillary duties.

    Stocken and Ashwell Prisons
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring that men sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell are suitable for category C regimes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Only prisoners in security category C are sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell. The prison service takes great care to ensure that all prisoners sent to those prisons are suitable for the conditions there.
    Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall from our correspondence the very real concern of the Prison Officers Association that men are being sent to those prisons who are really suitable for category B? In view of the serious incident which occurred at Ashwell last August, will my hon. Friend ensure that the prison department listens closely to the views of the Prison Officers Association, which represents the people who are at the sharp end every day?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of his constituents for the persistence with which he has acted to ensure that prisoners sent to the two prisons he mentioned are suitable for the conditions there. My hon. Friend will know that he and I are to meet shortly to discuss that particular issue and I hope that what I say then will reassure him.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister ensure that places are left available at category C prisons Stocken and Ashwell, ready for Monday's performance at the Royal Courts of Justice when the law-breaking Lords—led by Lord Donaldson, previous head of the national industrial relations court—decide to go on strike? Presumably the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General will band together to take appropriate action against the lawbreakers, but will the culprits be sent to category C prisons or to somewhere even harsher?
    Mr. Hogg: It is for the prison service to determine whether that security categorisation is right, but persons are sent to category C prisons only if they are not a threat to the public.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend recently advised me in a written reply that of the 32,000 prisoners serving sentences of one year or more, 10 per cent.—3,000—of them are foreign nationals. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they were sent back to their own countries to serve those sentences it would make a great deal of difference to both Ashwell and Stocken and lessen the current problems in our gaols?
    Mr. Hogg: That proposal goes somewhat wide of the question, though it is an interesting idea. The trouble is that if some of those offenders were sent back to their countries of origin they might not have to serve a period in custody.
    Mr. Holt: So what?
    Mr. Hogg: They would then not be punished for what they had done.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is not this problem of categorisation in a local prison symptomatic of the problems in local prisons throughout the country? Such is the pressure on local prisons that categorisation and allocation is haphazard. Prison officers have certainly brought this problem to the attention of the Opposition. Many prisoners are allocated to entirely the wrong prisons, which bodes ill for the forthcoming summer months.
    Mr. Hogg: As I have had cause to say before, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is not master of his material. Stocken and Ashwell are not local prisons, nor are they overcrowded or understaffed. In many respects, they are admirable prisons. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should do a little homework before he next intervenes in questions about the prison service.

    Charities
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to reform the law on charities.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I announced in January last year that we intended to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals made by Sir Philip Woodfield in his efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities. I hope shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals.
    Mr. MacKay: While I welcome the White Paper and hope that it will shortly be published—followed, one hopes, by legislation in the next Session of Parliament—will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirm that the Charity Commissioners can deregister charities found to be fraudulent and remove trustees? Is it not a pity that that does not happen more often?
    Mr. Hurd: The commissioners have powers of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and are ably led and increasingly well organised. The trouble with the existing law is that it imposes on them a number of secondary duties which make it difficult for them to carry out effectively all the important tasks that they would wish.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Home Secretary aware that in the past 12 months many members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have written to me complaining about the running of that organisation—for which we all have great respect? Following the expulsion of the watchdog group of RSPCA members, I convened a meeting and asked those members if they would be prepared to accept me as arbiter between the warring factions. Is the Home Secretary aware that they refused, and that many RSPCA members are making grave allegations against the organisation, about which something should be done? Will he ensure that any reform provides for an inquiry of some sort?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's reputation for calm and impartiality did not serve him on that occasion. It is surely for the RSPCA to sort the matter out. If the question of its charitable status should arise, it will be a matter between the RSPCA and the Charity Commission; certainly it is not my responsibility.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bank accounts around the country contain money collected for worthwhile projects such as children's playgrounds, sports fields and conservation that have come to nothing? Often the promoters have left or died. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to release that money—which may run into millions of pounds—for other suitable, worthwhile charity projects?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Charity Commission is already able to take action if it knows of money having been abandoned in that way. For example. it can appoint new trustees. We propose, however, to strengthen its powers as a result of the Woodfield report. I will write to my hon. Friend with details.

    Cocaine
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new initiatives are planned to prevent the importation of cocaine from Colombia and other Latin American nations; what assessment he has made of the extent to which organised crime is involved in this traffic; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Measures that the Government have taken against the production and importation of cocaine and other drugs include the provision of £1·8 million of drug-related assistance to Latin American countries over the past three years and the setting up of specialist Customs teams to target cocaine trafficking. Organised criminal gangs are often involved with this traffic.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will be discussing the threat to Europe from cocaine at the ministerial meeting of the Pompidou Group in London next month.
    Mr. Tredinnick: When, late last year, I attended an international conference in Washington which covered drug problems, Colombian representatives told me that they did not think that enough was being done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to suppress demand. They stressed their own strenuous efforts to curtail supply, which had resulted in the deaths of their Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, more than 50 judges and more than 1,700 police and law enforcement officers in recent years. Does my hon. Friend recognise the efforts made by the Colombians?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, I do. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a meeting yesterday with the Colombian Foreign Minister. It was a very profitable and helpful exchange. My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of cocaine. In 1988 the Customs seized larger quantities of cocaine than of heroin. We have a range of policies designed to deal with the problems of drug misuse and importation, which of course address the cocaine problem, but in view of the changing figures we are reassessing those policies to establish whether they need adjustment.
    Mr. Skinner: When those officers are engaged in stopping the importation of cocaine from Colombia, will the Minister ask them to stop the importation of coal from Colombia at the same time?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is a drug, is it?
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. You have helped me, Mr. Speaker. The importation of Colombian coal mined by nine-year-old children is not just a drug but a drain on Britain's balance of payments.
    Mr. Hogg: I think that the Leader of the Opposition will become increasingly alarmed at the fact that the sole Opposition spokesman on these important matters appears to be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the importance of intelligence-gathering in dealing with this odious trade? Are we doing enough to stamp it out by working with the authorities not just in Colombia but in Bolivia and Peru where the drug is produced?
    Mr. Hogg: That is an extremely important point. The exchange of intelligence and information goes to the root of our ability, and that of European countries generally, to deal with the problem of cocaine importation. We are establishing ever better relations with the Latin American countries and are extending our network of drug liaison officers.

    DNA Testing
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement concerning a Government DNA testing scheme to assist those seeking to settle in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We are considering introducing a centrally run DNA scheme, the cost of which will not fall on the general taxpayer. The use of such a scheme would not, of course, be compulsory for settlement applicants. We hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Madden: Why are the Government dragging their feet about the introduction of a DNA testing scheme? Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread suspicion that the Government are reluctant to introduce the scheme because DNA testing offers reliable evidence to prove the genuineness of applications from families who wish to be reunited in this country and that that is why the Government are wasting so much time? Over the past 12 months, the Minister has been saying that he hopes to make an announcement "shortly" and "as soon as possible", and last weekend, he said that it would be made within weeks. It is high time that the announcement was made and that families were able to take advantage of the scheme to be reunited in this country.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is taking his usual blinkered and biased view about anything to do with immigration. In the past four months alone, the immigration and nationality department has accepted 750 DNA test reports showing whether the relationship is as claimed, but of the reports submitted to us some 12 per cent. have shown that the parents and children are not related as claimed. One in eight couples thus find that one of them is not the parent of the child although both had thought that they were. That produces many problems

    1045
    —in relation to the admission of illegitimate children, for example—which must properly be considered before we take a final decision on the matter.
    Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has shown his faith in the infallibility of DNA—a faith that I share. Given that faith, can my hon. Friend say when he intends to introduce DNA fingerprinting not only for immigration cases but for everyone convicted of crime?
    Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend knows, DNA fingerprinting has already been used successfully in homicide cases. The figures that I quoted to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) were intended to show that we are already accepting the test in immigration cases. We are now bending our minds as to how to introduce a centrally run scheme which will be fair to all applicants and will avoid erecting financial barriers which could be a deterrent to genuine applicants, without causing the general taxpayer to pay. That is a difficult problem, but we are setting about solving it.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise the problem of people paying for DNA testing themselves whereby it has been shown that decisions to refuse entry taken by the Government in the past were clearly wrong? Should not those people be allowed immediate, priority admission to this country—even if they are now 18 if they should have been admitted in the original instance?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman must consider the fact that when those children were under 18 they applied as dependants. That is the basis in our immigration rules on which children under 18 are normally allowed into this country. The hon. Gentleman must consider whether it is right that those who may already be married, heads of families, with many children living abroad should be introduced with their families into the United Kingdom simply because a DNA test shows that the father is related as claimed. That is the issue to which we must give close attention.
    Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer deserved a rather more fulsome welcome than it received from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? My hon. Friend is right to believe that such a scheme should be voluntary. If DNA testing became widely available on a voluntary basis at the earliest possible date to establish conclusively the blood relationships which need to be proved in the case of dependants seeking settlement, it would be welcomed by the ethnic minority communities in this country.
    Mr. Renton: I accept fully what my hon. Friend has said. We accept DNA testing now when the results have been voluntarily produced, but the cost of producing them is a serious financial burden. That is why we are trying, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to arrive at a scheme that would avoid the burden falling on the ordinary taxpayer but would not financially harm individual families too greatly. We hope to do that and to announce the results as soon as possible.
    Mr. Darling: As DNA testing has shown that many people were wrongly refused entry to this country, does the Minister accept that DNA testing could eliminate queues and paperwork and save vast amounts of money and that to impose high charges will simply erect a financial barrier
    1046
    in place of a bureaucratic barrier? The Minister says that the test may not be compulsory, but does he not accept that it may be necessary because of the haphazard and inefficient way in which entry clearance officers work? Will he not reconsider allowing entry to those dependants who are now over the age of 18? A manifest injustice has been done to them. The Minister should not seek to stand in the way of family unity—a cause that I should have expected the Conservative party to espouse.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's attack on members of the immigration service was totally unjust, although I would not expect him, from his hideout in Edinburgh, to have great experience of immigration matters. DNA testing will not, as the hon. Gentleman put it, eliminate queues if the Labour party sticks to the policy to which it was committed in 1987 of repealing the immigration and nationality Acts. All the fair but firm immigration controls that we have introduced would disappear overnight.

    Juvenile Offenders
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of making it obligatory for parents to attend court alongside alleged juvenile offenders.
    Mr. John Patten: In addition to the recent questions from my hon. Friend, in the past 12 months the Home Office has received about 40 letters stressing the need to involve parents in the consequences of their children's misbehaviour. Some referred to parents' attendance at court with their children.
    Mr. Gill: On the very day when it is reported that three children, aged six, seven and nine, carried out a depraved sex attack on an elderly, disabled and defenceless woman, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is high time that society made it clear that it will hold parents entirely responsible for the actions of their children?
    Mr. Patten: On the second point, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we need to make considerable and rapid strides forward by making parents more responsible for their children's criminal acts. On the first point, I cannot and should not comment on press reports, but I agree entirely with Superintendent Martin Burton—reported in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true—who says:
    "Parents should be responsible for bringing up their children, teaching them to tell the truth, to respect other people's property and to look after those less fortunate. They should be told it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal and bully."
    Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell that to other Ministers. In view of his comments today, and more particularly his recent utterances on children and parents in court, does he agree that instead of seeking to punish parents for the acts of their children, whom the parents are sometimes not in a position to control, it might be better to investigate the root cause of juvenile crime and make efforts to provide help for those families which, at an early stage, have problems with their children?
    Mr. Patten: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's serious interest in the issue. He is right that parents who, for a variety of reasons, cannot control their children, or who have sought help because of their children's unruly

    1047
    behaviour, should not be punished by the law. However, it is right that we should follow the signposts provided by the Labour Government's Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which provides that parents can be bound over on a recognisance of £500 to ensure the proper conduct of their children. I look forward to new and imaginative thoughts on the issue in the forthcoming Labour party policy review, though heaven knows what they will be.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As parents are already required to go to court in truancy cases, and as most children who are at risk indulge in criminal activities at the age of 14 or 15, will my hon. Friend reconsider the time limit? It can take up to two years to get the parent and the child to court. Will he also reconsider the penalties which can be imposed? Will he ensure that such cases are dealt with as quickly as possible as there is no point in taking children to court once they have left school?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best form of justice is the swiftest form of justice, particularly when dealing with children. Such delays are undesirable and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters. In addition, I agree that the attendance of parents in court when their children are being tried is very desirable indeed, and I am sure that all of my hon. Friends would wish to see that happen on every such occasion.
    Mr. Randall: How would the Minister's much publicised new proposal dealing with the failure to prevent child crime, to which he indirectly referred just now, distinguish between parents who turn a blind eye and those who genuinely cannot cope with the behaviour of their children? Does the Minister realise that his proposal is unworkable and, at best, would increase family breakdown and create even more homelessness? Is he aware that there are already enough powers to make parents accountable for the behaviour of their children? Why, therefore, does he not throw his proposals in the dustbin, where they belong?
    Mr. Patten: I answer no to the hon. Gentleman's second and third questions. As to his first question, if he had bothered to read my words he would have seen that in the four or five-page document in which these ideas are presented the methods are very carefully set out. Should we proceed with such an offence, those parents who are not able to deal with their offending children can be separated from the deliberately delinquent parents and the deliberately delinquent children, about whom the Labour party has no ideas at all. If the hon. Gentleman's question is good evidence of the new thinking emerging from the Labour party's policy review, heaven help the Labour party.

    Neighbourhood Watch
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.
    Mr. John Patten: At the end of March 1989 there were 66,423 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3¾ million households. This is a new record—28 per cent. more neighbourhood watches than a year ago.
    Mr. Carrington: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the neighbourhood watch schemes have led to a reduction in the number of burglaries, particularly in London, and that their proven success in reducing crime is the best way of increasing the number of schemes and of encouraging residents to join and to participate?
    Mr. Patten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that one of the best ways of accelerating the present happy decline in domestic burglary is to have more neighbourhood watches. Perhaps more district councils could follow the recent example of Brentwood district council, which has appointed its first neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. That could do a lot of good.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that, whale Opposition Members support neighbourhood watch schemes, they believe that those schemes must be linked into a positive partnership between the police and local authorities, and that if we are to have proper crime prevention we need to give democratically elected authorities a lead role in crime prevention? Will the Minister and the Home Secretary give those authorities the resources and the powers to do that job constructively?
    Mr. Patten: Many Labour-controlled local authorities—in Hull, for example—are very happy to co-operate with the Home Office in the efforts to reduce crime through crime prevention measures. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would bother to go to a county like Cleveland and advise the Labour-controlled local authority o co-operate with the neighbourhood watch movement instead of attacking it.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success of a neighbourhood watch scheme stems directly from the relationship of the police constable on the beat with the people themselves? In my constituency—where, two years ago, there were 60 break-ins a year in one particular area—since there has been a neighbourhood watch scheme, with a first-class police officer in charge, and co-operation from the local people, we have had no break-ins?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that if my right hon. Friend extends an invitation to me he will let me meet the police constable and the people involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme. It is not just neighbourhood watch schemes in areas like Castle Point—my right hon. Friend's constituency—that produce these remarkable results; similar results are being produced in the rather more difficult territories of Islington, Rochdale and many of our great northern cities, and they deserve the support of the Labour party. That is why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) should go to Cleveland and give the Labour-controlled council there a good talking to.

    Autocrime
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action taken by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry to reduce levels of car theft.
    Mr. John Patten: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry have played an active part in the preparation of British standards for vehicle security and for anti-theft alarms. They have also taken steps to increase public awareness of the opportunities for preventing car theft and the insurance industry has established a central register of total loss claims. It is encouraging that, in 1988, theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles and theft from motor vehicles fell by 6 per cent.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. The 6 per cent. fall in crime will be welcomed by motorists throughout the country. Can my hon. Friend say what further measures might be taken to reduce crime? Does he think that if motor manufacturers improved the locking on vehicles, it would reduce crime?
    Mr. Patten: We have some good new British standards on car security. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that motor manufacturers can do more. Some manufacturers such as the Rover group and Vauxhall are already doing a great deal. Also, the British insurance industry should strain every sinew to try to introduce new forms of discount to promote car security. It is through such measures that we will produce the admirable results we have seen in Warwickshire—to name a county at random —in the past year where car crime has fallen by about 4 per cent. and theft from cars has fallen by 25 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that some of the devices fitted to cars cause crime rather than prevent it? Is he aware that I have heard many complaints from people who have had a car noise device go off close to their home and who, having gone out to check that the car was not being stolen, have been extremely annoyed to find that it is not possible to turn the device off?
    Such people often have their sleep or their day time greatly disturbed by those devices. What steps are being taken to ensure that the car noise devices turn themselves off after giving a proper warning?
    Mr. Patten: If the car alarms have been properly fitted and conform to the excellent new British standards that we are trying to promote throughout Europe—thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—the problems, which, as the hon. Gentleman said can be a considerable nuisance to local residents, can be obviated. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will Government Members please desist from holding private conversations?

    Terrorism
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet Ministers of other European countries to discuss international co-operation against terrorism.
    Mr. Hurd: I shall be attending a meeting of Trevi Ministers under the Spanish presidency in Madrid on 12 May. I shall also be having bilateral talks with my French counterpart on 19 May when our discussions will include measures to counter terrorism.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind that since 1979 in Great Britain alone, leaving aside the carnage in Northern
    1050
    Ireland, 323 people have died and 344 have been injured as a result of terrorist activity, only part of which relates to Northern Ireland and, bearing in mind that increasingly terrorism has an international dimension, will my right hon. Friend ensure that appropriate and adequate measures are being taken internationally to combat such crime? What has been achieved and what does he intend to achieve?
    Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I can give three short examples of what we are achieving through the work of the Trevi Ministers. We are ensuring the flow of timely and accurate knowledge between forces of a type that enabled the French authorities to intercept the ship Eksund from Libya, which was loaded with guns and explosives and bound for Ireland. We are assessing the work of terrorist groups in Europe and the extent to which they are helped by states outside Europe and we are looking at the legislation in different countries and encouraging countries to adopt legislation such as that which this Parliament has just passed to deal with terrorist finances.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has convinced any Ministers from other countries to join him in his campaign to combat terrorism?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. That is our common aim.
    Mr. Allason: Given the disagreements that appear to have arisen between the various investigating agencies involved in the Lockerbie disaster, would my right hon. Friend recommend the inclusion of the United States in the kilowatt anti-terrorist European group? At present, it seems that the bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States do not appear to be working very well.
    Mr. Hurd: I advise my hon. Friend not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers but to rely more extensively on what Parliament is told about the progress of the Lockerbie inquiry by the Lord Advocate, who is the Minister responsible.
    As regards the United States, my hon. Friend is on to a fair point. He will be glad to know that the United States has regular and useful contacts at various levels with the Trevi group of European Ministers.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Bearing in mind that no Scottish Law Officer is accountable to this House, will the Home Secretary ensure that his colleague Lord Fraser comes to this place, perhaps to a Committee room, to explain to interested hon. Members exactly what is going on regarding the Lockerbie atrocity? Will he do that, bearing in mind that clearly on the Opposition side of the House we believe in open government and in getting answers to very important, pertinent questions that have been raised on both this side of the Atlantic and on the other? Clearly, this has to be addressed and should not be simply a matter for debate in the press.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree at all with the hon. Member. The Lord Advocate has a very high reputation in these matters and he has gone out of his way to keep Parliament informed.

    Drug Traffickers
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of assets confiscated from convicted drug traffickers in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the first quarter of 1988.
    Mr. John Patten: Our information is that the courts have made confiscation orders totalling more than £5 million since the relevant powers came into force on 12 January 1987. No precise valuation is made of assets frozen pending trial at any one time, but we believe that between £10 million and £12 million is at present subject to restraint and charging orders.
    Mr. Couchman: I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend has not got more precise figures to offer on this innovative form of punishment for drug pedlars. Drug peddling is an international crime and much of the ill-gotten gains are laundered internationally. Can my hon. Friend say what agreements he has with other countries in terms of confiscation of funds held overseas?
    Mr. Patten: Pretty good progress is being made, with some £5 million confiscated and between £10 million and £12 million frozen. We are making good progress with arrangements with other countries. Bilateral agreements have been signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department with five countries, and letters of understanding with two others. We are now seeking to make arrangements with countries such as Jamaica and Nigeria, which will also be very important.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: What happens to these confiscated assets? Can I have an assurance that they will be handed over to the police forces concerned so that all these assets can be used in the fight against drugs?
    Mr. Patten: The money, of course, goes to the Treasury in this country. Record allocations are being made to the police at the moment. These have gone up by some 52 per cent. since 1979, and the allocations take into account the severity of the drug problem in different parts of the country.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison in the most recent count.
    Mr. Hurd: At unlocking on Wednesday 12 April 49,274 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 87 prisoners were held in police cells.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the fact that the figure is rather lower than it was, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far too many people in prison at the present time? Does he really think that it is necessary or desirable to lock up so many people?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the total prison population is about 800 lower than it was 12 months ago, and that the remand population at the end of February was 1,200 lower than it was 12 months previously. We may be beginning to make some progress
    1052
    in the direction which I know my hon. Friend would like. which is towards having more severe sentences for those who are guilty of serious violent crime but finding disposals other than imprisonment for non-violent offenders.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What steps are the Government taking to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of mentally ill and mentally handicapped persons in prisons, many of them there because the courts can think of nowhere else to send them?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right. Such people should not end up in prison simply because the other agencies cannot find a place for them. This is something which my colleagues and I are discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether or not we have too many or too few people in prison, we simply do not have enough drug traffickers in prison? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to make certain that continuing high priority is given to ensuring that drug traffickers are locked up, and locked up for long periods?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what percentage of people, who were charged with shoplifting offences and who pleaded not guilty, were acquitted during the last year for which records are available.
    Mr. John Patten: Ten per cent. of those prosecuted for theft from shops in 1987 were acquitted. We do not have information centrally about pleas. There was, however, a welcome 12 per cent. fall in the number of cases in 1988.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise the vast danger of innocent shoppers being arrested for and, in many cases, charged with shoplifting offences? Does he know of the Tesco case, in which two women who established their innocence found themselves with a massive costs burden because of the payment-into-court system? Will he please discuss with the Attorney-General possible ways of remedying that vast danger and injustice?
    Mr. Patten: I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's longstanding interest in these matters. I am aware of the case to which he refers. If those who are caught allegedly thieving from shops can prove that they were simply absent-minded or confused, the case will fall. We must remember that there is no special category of shoplifting as a crime in this country. Theft is theft, wherever it occurs.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Campbell: Official figures show that the number of people in this country living below the poverty line increased by 55 per cent. in the past 10 years. Therefore, will the Prime Minister call for a commission of inquiry to find out how that happened?
    The Prime Minister: The moment we alter the standard of what is called poverty and raise the threshold, obviously it is possible that more people will come in. We have a very good, comprehensive social security system. It contributes to the living standards of a large proportion of the population, and to nearly one sixth of the disposable income of the population as a whole. The £51 billion that we are now spending on social security benefits is more than the Government collect in income tax.
    Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumours about increased inward investment in this country, by international firms from Japan, for example? Does she agree that that has nothing whatever to do with Government subsidies or Socialist planning, but a great deal to do with a good work force, single-union deals, and an atmosphere of encouragement for business which only a Conservative Government can provide?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The inward investment record into this country is excellent. Other people have great confidence in the policies that are pursued by this Government, and confidence that they will continue to be pursued without controls in the future.
    Q2. Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: May I ask the Prime Minister during her busy day to consider the plight of one of my young constituents, Mr. Robert McKee, aged seven, and that of his grandmother? Young Robert was born without any arms. When it rains or snows, his grandmother must hold him by the scruff of the neck in case he falls. He has been refused a bus pass and his grandfather is denied a companion's pass. On seven occasions he has been before a tribunal for a mobility allowance. If the right hon. Lady really cares about the poor and the disadvantaged, why does she make people go through such humiliating hurdles?
    The Prime Minister: Of course one would be deeply concerned about any case such as that—[Interruption.] Of course one would, and every hon. Member would. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has taken the matter up with the appropriate authorities. As I said in reply to the last question, the taxpayer in this country pays about £51 billion towards social security, which is higher than the entire yield of income tax. That is the extent of our commitment.
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Steen: Will the Prime Minister spare a thought this afternoon for the frail and elderly living in private residential homes who can no longer make both ends meet because of the limit on the board and lodging allowance which the DHSS has set for 1988? While there must be limits on public expenditure, even for the elderly, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say something to ensure that those living in private residential homes will not be pushed out if there is not sufficient money forthcoming from the DHSS?
    The Prime Minister: In accordance with the general uprating, we have reviewed many of the payments paid to those who live in residential care or in nursing homes, and I think that that is the group to whom my hon. Friend is referring. From Monday, we have provided extra help to nearly nine out of 10 people who claim income support to meet residential care or nursing home fees. We are now helping 150,000 people in such homes compared with 12,000 when we took office, and expenditure has risen from £10 million to £890 million. That is because the economy is successful, and it demonstrates—[Interruption.] Yes, it demonstrates also the extent of our commitment: £10 million when we took office and £890 million now.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why is the Prime Minister continuing to lose the battle against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I notice, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in some very percipient replies upstairs, that the level of inflation—it was a miracle that the Labour Government ever achieved it—was a cause of concern for us.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why is the rate of inflation in Britain twice the European average?
    The Prime Minister: It is not on precisely the same basis —[Interruption.] I would add that the level of unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in all of the European main countries put together.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister explain why unemployment, by her reckoning, is still nearly one million higher than it was when she came to power and why, when the rate of inflation was at the average of Europe in 1979, it is twice the average now? Will she give an answer?
    The Prime Minister: The rate of inflation in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, was a lot higher than it is now—[Interruption.] There are now more than 1·5 million more people of working age than there were in 1979. There are today more people in work in this country than ever before and we have a bigger proportion of our people in work than in almost any other country in the EEC.
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that the French and Italian Governments should be spending vast sums of money every year directly in subsidising their own nationalised industries to

    1055
    undercut British competition, which is costing this country jobs? Will she add her weight to the campaign to make Europe a place in which there is free and fair competition?
    Mr. Tony Banks: So that we can all go down the pan.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, state aid is incompatible with the concept of a common market, which is why we must get permission from the EEC in any case where it is given. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind we shall of course take them up vigorously, because state aids may be phased out before we reach 1992 and they should already be the subject of permission. The Commission has recently said that it intends to make much more active use of its powers to scrutinise existing state aids in all member states, and it has our strong support in doing that.
    Mr. Steel: When, in her next Cabinet reshuffle, the Prime Minister is looking for somewhere to send her right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which is further away than Wales, will she consider Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—where the policies and principles that he outlines will be more acceptable than the present ones?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need worry—I should hardly be sending for him—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: In fact, Scotland and Wales are doing very well because of the economic policies of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Scotland has the second highest average male earnings of the whole of the United Kingdom, thanks to the Conservative Government, and to private enterprise.
    Mr. David Evans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Union of European Football Associations to allow English clubs back into Europe in the 1991 season, subject to Government approval?—[Interruption.] Does she agree that the Football Association and the Football League would have had their application turned down had it not been for the Government's intention in the Football Spectators Bill, which will drag English football into the next century?
    The Prime Minister: In so far as I heard my hon. Friend's question, I agree that the decision is welcome and I wish English football teams well when they return to Europe.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Prime Minister aware that when, in response to the vision and courage of Mr. Gorbachev, she continues to use the tired old language of the arms race, she is not speaking for the British people?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The British people are not as easily taken in as the hon. Gentleman. The British people noted that last weekend, for example, East German border guards shot at two people who wished to enter West Berlin, and they are noticing other things that are taking place in the Soviet Union. They know that we must keep our defences sure and that the nuclear deterrent has preserved peace for 40 years—and Conservatives think that peace is important.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: While recognising that the Green Paper on the reform of legal services is a legitimate matter for discussion by judges, does my right hon. Friend share my relief that the judges' proposed discussion in work time of that paper on Monday is off?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that the judges will hold their discussion on Saturday, 20 May, at a time when the Lord Chancellor will be able to address the meeting as he wishes. That decision is very welcome.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: If, during her busy day, the Prime Minister has time to go to the supermarket, how much would she pay for a large white and how would it compare with the price 10 years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, we do not buy large whites.
    Mr. David Davis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that port employers employing 90 per cent. or more registered dock workers have given guarantees today against the casualisation of the docks and, accordingly, there is no need now for the dock labour scheme, which we intend to abolish, and there is no need for the dock workers to go on strike?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that in a major statement issued today, the National Association of Port Employers gave a public guarantee that it will not return to casual employment systems after the repeal of the dock labour scheme in July. The guarantee was endorsed by employers representing over 93 per cent. of Britain's registerd dock workers. It stated:
    "This unprecedented promise deals with the major fear voiced by the dockers since the Government made its announcement … The historical justification of the scheme was to end casual employment. Today's promise carries forward that principle. As such, there is obviously no case for inventing a substitute or revised form of the Scheme or equally calling a futile and unnecessary strike."
    It went on to say that it would of course be prepared to enter into discussions in the coming weeks and months about the scheme and conditions of employment which would supersede the ending of the dock scheme.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Did the Prime Minister see the sad and remarkable television programme by Esther Rantzen last week which revealed the disgraceful under-resourcing of hospitals and facilities for people who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped? Will she give some sign that the Government know and care about those people and that they propose to provide resources not merely to close

    1057
    down mental hospitals, but to provide facilities for people outside which is better, but which cost much more?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to those in hospital, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, expenditure has
    1058
    gone up on all hospital services from £8 billion in 1979 to £24 billion this year. With regard to the proposals for community care in the Griffiths report, the Government are considering those and will in due course make an announcement about their decisions.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 APRIL—Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill.
Motion relating to the Housing (Change of Landlord) Regulations.
Motions relating to the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Mathematics) and (Science) Orders.
TUESDAY 18 APRIL—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day, 1st half). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Social Democratic party motion entitled "The Commercialisation of the National Health Service".
Motion to take note of EC documents on the single market. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL—Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day). Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Investing in the Future—The Next Decade". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Care in the Community—The Next Decade". Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—There will be a debate on private bill procedure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure (HC 625) will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 21 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 24 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
[Debate on Tuesday 18 April

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 9756/88

Completing the internal market

(b) 10413/88

Information on technical standards and Regulations

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-vii (1988–89), para 2

(b) HC 15-ix (1988–89), para 2.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and in particular I thank him for including the report of the Committee looking into private Bill procedure and for providing time to debate that report next week.
When can we expect the promised debate in Government time on the future of the National Health Service? There was a rumour that that would be held over until some reputable body to do with the Health Service came up with an expression of support for the Government's proposals. Will the Leader of the House tell his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health that that is not going to happen and that we cannot wait much longer?
When are we likely to have the long-promised debate on the Government's proposals to substitute student loans for student grants? What progress is being made to bring forward the Bill to outlaw the buying and selling of human tissue? Has the Leader of the House made any progress in
1060
the discussions which he set in train with a view to establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or finding some other proposal which might prove acceptable to the House and in particular to Scottish Members?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that Thursday's debate on private Bill procedure is important. It is a complicated subject and I look forward to hearing the views of the House on the matter. The hon. Gentleman asked about the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that it will be possible to raise Health Service matters in the debate on Tuesday—subject to your approval, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the general debate that I have promised, he shares with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health a desire to have that debate as soon as I can arrange it. Finding the time is causing the difficulty.
As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, there are consultations and discussions going on about student loans. The right time for a debate is after those have finished.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of kidneys. Discussions are taking place through the usual channels about legislation on that matter. I am glad to say that there is considerable support in all parts of the House for the appropriate legislation, and we shortly expect to announce the introduction of a Government Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had discussions with two of his hon. Friends about Scottish affairs. I told them that I did not see an easy solution, although I thought that their contribution to the discussion was helpful. I am working on it to see whether I can come up with some satisfactory proposals.
Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the opinion of the House about human rights, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the matter? Such a debate would reveal that the human rights issue is now international and not just confined to the Soviet Union or south American or to any specific part of the world. If we could have a debate on the subject—contrary to the views of The Times—we might be able to establish some sort of international control.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members in wanting a debate on this subject. If I were able to arrange it in the short term I should look forward to hearing his contribution. However, I am sorry to say that he must be a little patient with me because I cannot find time immediately for such a debate. I recognise that human rights is an important subject.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will acknowledge that another year has elapsed since publication of the Griffiths report on care in the community, yet during that time the Government have miserably failed to come up with a response. Will he congratulate my party colleagues on initiating a debate next week on that subject which will give Ministers an opportunity to spell out the Government's position? Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the precise status of the decision taken last night by the European Parliament for tighter controls on car exhaust emissions? When will the House get an opportunity to endorse that decision?
Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the first point about the Griffiths report, I welcome the choice of subject by the

1061
hon. Gentleman's party and think that we shall have a useful debate. I do not think that I can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be in a position during that debate to announce the final considerations of the Government. Nevertheless, we welcome the debate and will have to find another occasion on which to discuss matters further.
The hon. Gentleman asked about car emission standards. We shall, of course, carefully study the European Parliament's vote and decision yesterday, and in due course we shall study the Commission's revised proposals that we expect it to put to the Council of Ministers in June.
Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the implications for both East and West of recent developments in the Soviet Union and the stirrings that are now taking place in eastern Europe linked with new hopes about the awareness of human rights, when can we expect an early debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise a general interest in this subject in all parts of the House, and the support by my right hon. Friend of the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) is an important addition. I wish that I could find time in the near future for such a debate. I shall look for the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House state that hon. Members who act as consultants for port companies will not take part in the Committee on the Bill, and will not be allowed to vote in or take part in debates on the operation of the dock labour scheme?
Mr. Wakeham: Statements by me do not govern those matters. They are matters for the House and for my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and his colleagues on the Committee. It is not for me to make statements on those matters.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware that earlier in the week the Attorney-General indicated that the object of the Green Papers produced by the Lord Chancellor was to generate as wide a debate as possible on the future of the legal profession. There has been an extensive debate in another place. The judges are apparently having a debate on Saturday. Everybody except the House has had a chance to debate the Green Papers. Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity for a debate here before the end of the consultation period?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend that promise. Had he been here at a late hour early in the week, he would have found that there was a debate in which the contributions were, if I may say so, of variable quality.
Mr. David Winnick: Can we have a statement next week on how the same sort of stories appeared in yesterday's papers saying that the Secretary of State for Wales was likely to be an earlier victim of a Cabinet reshuffle? Did those stories originate with Mr. Ingham? Is the Leader of the House aware that in any such statement next week the point will no doubt be made that it is undesirable for a civil servant, a close member of the
1062
Prime Minister's kitchen Cabinet, to have such influence in the country, bearing in mind his dishonourable conduct at the time of the Westland affair?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman uses Parliament to express his point of view. I do not complain about that, but he makes disgraceful and disagreeable remarks that are not based on substance. I do not think that they are worthy of a reply.
Sir Hal Miller: Further to the vote in the European Parliament on vehicle emission standards, does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be in the interests of car owners, environmental lobbyists and motor manufacturers alike for a definitive decision to be reached as soon as possible because of the probable expense for the car owner and the technology likely to be involved for the motor manufacturer? May we have an early indication of what the Government seek to achieve on the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter and that there are alternative solutions to the problem. The announcement that I made, that the Government will study carefully the decision of the European Parliament and in due coure the Commission's revised proposals, is the most constructive way forward.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the announcement that there is to be a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. Can the Leader of the House tell us why there has been a delay in giving the Government's response to that report? Is he aware that highly controversial Bills, such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, are going through the House at the moment? The objectors to that Bill are at a grave disadvantage compared to the promoters. Is he aware that the delay in implementing the Government's response to the report, which we hope will be favourable, means that we are continuing to cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Lady recognises that the subject is considerably more complicated than the way she phrased her question would lead one to believe. Whether or not the Government can come to a clear view on all aspects of the report next Thursday, from many readings of the report it is clear that it would require a substantial amount of primary legislation to enact it. That clearly cannot be done at this stage in the Session. The right procedure is for the House to express its views next Thursday. I hope that the hon. Lady is called to express her view. I hope that hon. Members will use the occasion to debate the principles underlying these important matters rather than deal with particular cases. I hope to learn something from the views of all parts of the House. Then we shall decide how best to proceed.
Sir Richard Body: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Baptiste), will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision concerning a debate on the Green Papers on the legal profession? Last week in another place, a succession of dinosaurs were trundled through at the behest—we understand—of the Lord Chief Justice, giving a very unfortunate impression of the legal profession. Some of us who are more in touch with public opinion would like to put another point of view.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I attended part of the debate and read it. Some of the analysis was not as accurate as it might be. A considerable number of noble Lords spoke in favour of the proposals. I believe that a majority of those who spoke and who are not lawyers were in favour of them. However, I shall still find it difficult to make time for a debate in the very near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the judges go on strike on Monday—[Interruption.] If there are further developments, and if there is an unofficial strike, will the Home Secretary make a statement in the House? If that demonstration takes place in the Strand, will appropriate plans be made for a road block? If the leader of that gang, Lord Donaldson, ex-head of NIRC, finishes up in gaol, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the Official Solicitor to fetch him out? If people like me want to attend that spectacle, will passes be needed?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important issues, and I do not have at my fingertips all the details that he will need for his voyage of discovery. However, I can tell the House that a press release about that matter was issued this afternoon and that the judges council has decided to postpone the meeting to a Saturday. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that decision.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend note the report in The Scotsman that the Opposition intend carrying out line-by-line trench warfare against the Bill now being considered in Committee room 12, to give Scottish parents the right to govern their own schools? As Opposition Members who are members of that Committee have already shown that they are more interested in time-wasting than in reasoned argument by, for example, filibustering an amendment that the Minister had already accepted, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a timetable motion so that the will of Parliament, as expressed on Second Reading, will be carried out?
Mr. Wakeham: I find it hard to agree with my hon. Friend. I thought that any Opposition worth their salt would use reasoned argument in debate. I have not studied in detail what is going on in the Committee, but I shall be extremely surprised if the Opposition are devoting themselves to trench warfare and other ploys, which I am sure would be quite disreputable.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House find time next week or in the near future for a debate on the prison conditions and the circumstances surrounding the reference to the Court of Appeal of the Guildford Four? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is continuing concern about the health and condition of all four prisoners while awaiting discussions at the Court of Appeal? There is also considerable concern about a report in The Guardian last Monday of a dispute between the Home Office and Somerset and Avon constabulary about non-payment of money by the Home Office for that constabulary's inquiries, and the statement that it has refused to undertake any additional preparatory work in connection with the reference to the Court of Appeal until the constabulary has been paid for the last inquiries that it undertook. Does the Leader of the House agree that that matter is serious and warrants debate?
Mr. Wakeham: It is a serious matter, and I have grave doubts whether it would be right and proper to have a debate in the House at the present time. However, if the hon. Gentleman will write to me with more information, I shall ensure that he receives an answer.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the provision of television licences at a concessionary rate to pensioners living alone, with their spouse, or with another pensioner? That is an important matter, because for some pensioners television is their only form of companionship, and for many of them it provides a window on the world.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is important to make that concession to some pensioners but I cannot see a way to find time for a debate at present. My hon. Friend might care to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall bring the Leader of the House back to the debate on private Bills. It would be helpful if the Government's response to the report were made official because it is difficult for people who are considering promoting Bills to know when the procedure may change. Is he aware that by the time a public notice has been put out about the Bill until the time it is brought forward is about two years? It would be helpful if he could tell us whether he intends to accept the report in principle and whether he expects it to be implemented about this time next year.
Mr Wakeham: We held discussions through the usual channels and felt that it was right and proper to debate this on the Adjournment to enable everybody to put their point of view. The Government will give their initial considerations next Thursday. That is the best way to proceed.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the leak in today's Guardian which says that the Government seem to have suffered a most welcome degree of repentance over their hard-line views on the Official Secrets Bill? Is it true, as the newspaper says, that the very amendments that the Government refused to accept in this House—strengthening the harm test—are to be introduced in another place? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall be given an opportunity to debate these important issues in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I am certainly not in a position to state what amendments will be tabled in another place. My hon. Friend may already appreciate that if the amendments are accepted in another place, he will be able to debate them in this House in due course.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Leader of the House was considering whether there should be debates on the numerous reports produced by the Procedure Committee, was the absence of time a consideration in his mind?
Mr. Wakeham: The absence of time is a consideration in every debate that I organise in the House. We had a debate on the outstanding Procedure Committee reports some time ago. It was not well attended but it was useful, nevertheless. We shall no doubt have to return to the subject again. Time is always a problem but getting the answer right is probably more important.
Mr. Michael Latham: When he answers a parliamentary question next week, will my right hon. Friend explain why the House can act as a legislative sausage machine all the time, but our best minds cannot solve the problems of how to prevent constituents standing in the rain when they wish to go round the Line of Route? Can we solve this problem as soon as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: There are difficulties, and some problems to which there are no easy solutions. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we last had a Bill as controversial and unheralded as the Dock Work Bill, which the Government are steamrolling through the House in the shortest possible time? It is a controversial Bill and there is no question of it going through with co-operation from the Opposition. Is there a conspiracy between port employers and the Government to try to provoke a strike within the dock industry to cover up the domestic problems now confronting the Government—such as the local elections—and create a domestic equivalent of the Falklands war? Why will not the Leader of the House give us proper time to consider the proposals, reach a conclusion and have a proper debate, rather than merely put a legislative stamp on a piece of nasty conspiracy which is being carried out between them and the employers?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's views are flavoured by the colour of his tie today. The Dock Work Bill has been introduced in proper time for consideration at appropriate intervals and will be dealt with in a correct and constitutional fashion.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for a debate on the need to reform and tighten the law on trespass, particularly the problems connected with large gipsy convoys and illegal gipsy encampments?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that that causes concern in some constituencies, and I was asked about it by one of my hon. Friends last week. I cannot promise early legislation, but I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Max Madden: May I again ask the Leader of the House if he will make early arrangements for a debate on issues arising from the publication of the book "Satanic Verses"? Does he agree that Moslems living in Britain have a democratic right to have their deep sense of grievance and offence over the book's publication recorded by the House, and should not the general public have a democratic right to a debate in the House on how we can promote better understanding and respect in a multiracial, multi-faith Britain for all traditions, cultures and religions?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Views expressed by the Government—and, indeed, by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—have shown the considerable concern aroused by those serious events. I do not, however, feel able to promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is a democrat—with a small "d"—without
1066
parallel. On the subject of exhaust emissions in the European Community, as I understand it, this was the Commission's revised proposal. The Commission, of course, is not a democratic institution and has connived with the European Parliament—an institution of somewhat flawed democracy, as it is seen in this country—to produce this new solution. It has not been agreed by a British Minister—a British Minister who is responsible to the democratic control of this House. What can the House now do about it? Have we had it? Is it all over?
Mr. Wakeham: We cannot do anything about it in Business Questions, that is for sure. I think that my advice to the House was right: we must see the Commission's revised proposals, which we expect it to put to the Council of Ministers in June. We shall then be able to reach a view.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Leader of the House recognise the concern of many hon. Members that the Government have again failed to announce that time will be made available for a debate on foreign affairs next week? Do they not provide insufficient time annually to discuss foreign affairs—at a time when important developments are taking place in, for instance, Namibia and South Africa—so that we must depend on Adjournment debates such as tonight's? Should not the Government provide more time for us to discuss their role of influence in such matters?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's view. I do not suppose that I would take him with me if I said that we have a substantial amount of important legislation to get through, but dealing with these matters is always a question of balance.
I have corresponded with a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the foreign affairs debate. There is something that the House can do: perhaps some hon. Members could speak rather more briefly in the foreign affairs debates that we do arrange. I recognise, however, that that is not the sole problem, and I agree that it would be highly desirable to find a bit more time.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding this afternoon's announcement of the retreat of the judiciary, may I join the request from both sides of the House for a debate on the Green Paper proposals on law reform? Many of us believe that the judges behaved very insensitively, but the great majority of our constituents do not now place much credence in their views on the reforms.
Mr. Wakeham: One of the advantages of the postponement of the meeting from a Monday to a Saturday will be that the Lord Chancellor will be able to address the judges. That, I think, is a wise step.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I ask the Leader of the House in all seriousness whether, if the Government want to avoid a national dock strike, it would not be right for them to allow consultations with the union—which have not taken place so far—and for the House to debate the matter before Second Reading of the Bill? I believe that all concerned want to avoid a national dock strike——
Mr. Neil Hamilton: We don't.
Mr. Loyden: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. If there is no response, we are bound to take the view that the Government want a dock strike.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that all sensible hon. Members want to avoid a dock strike, but I cannot accept the proposition that a democratic House of Commons cannot discuss legislation introduced in it by a Government with a clear majority in a proper constitutional fashion.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that as of today 272 hon. Members, including many Conservative Back-Benchers, have signed an early-day motion calling for the introduction of a dog registration scheme. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that on each day since the motion was tabled, 1,000 dogs have been put to death, which amounts to 100,000 dogs. I appreciate that it is not a matter of burning international importance, but it concerns many people. Will my right hon. Friend either find time for the House to debate the matter or, at the least, draw the significance of those figures to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of early-day motion 348 and the strong views of hon. Members. Nevertheless, the Government have made it clear that they do not consider that a registration scheme would do anything to assist dog welfare or control. I regret that there are no plans to implement section 37.
Mr. Ray Powell: I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House has to allocate time to certain Bills and has to define priorities. However, he might have listened to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) during which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that he would like to see a strike being called by the dockers. Why was priority given for the Bill on the dockers to be discussed next week, where there are more important items and Bills waiting to be discussed in the House, such as the Children Bill? Why do the Government delay such Bills just to get legislation they want on to the statute book?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair or reasonable. The arrangement of business in the House is done through the usual channels and there are discussions about the most convenient days for business. I have already announced the programme agreed and it is the best way to proceed.
Mr. Robert Adley: For many years, I have pestered my right hon. Friend for some action to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway line. May I take the opportunity formally to thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues for a historic decision, which has been universally acclaimed in the House and far beyond? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision made by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is historic? There has never before been a refusal of a closure of that nature. If it is a U-turn by the Government, it merely refutes those who say that the Government are always inflexible and never listen. In view of the rising environmental clamour, which we all understand and support, and which points to a happy future for the railways, will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to debate the investment criteria that the Treasury lays on British Rail?
Mr. Wakeham: Until the last sentence, I was going to say that that was a nice question from my hon. Friend. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for most of what he said and I shall convey his congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I do not see myself able immediately to find time for a debate on the subject of the investment criteria for British Rail. However, it seems that there may be several occasions in the not too distant future on which the subject could be brought into the debate.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the hypocrisy of the Opposition Front Bench? Is he aware that the Labour party has an industrial policy group, which is charged with the responsibility for evolving a policy opposed to privatisation without frightening off the voters? A leak of documents from that committee has been roundly condemned by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) as mischief-making and disloyalty. He has said that he will have strong words with the leaker at the national executive meeting or the industrial policy group meeting this afternoon. Can we assist him by offering the use of the special branch or the police to investigate? Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition are delighted to welcome leaks when information is leaked from the Government, but when their own information is leaked, they are all in favour of secrecy?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can find time for a debate on that important subject during the coming week, but my hon. Friend makes his point in his own way and it will be noted.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard that the Second Reading debate on the Dock Work Bill is to take place next Monday. Before the debate, I should be most grateful if you could advise the House about the position of hon. Members who stand to benefit if the Dock Work Bill is passed and the national dock labour scheme is abolished. Ought they to be allowed to vote at the end of the Second Reading debate? The Register of Members' Interests suggests that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have directorships or parliamentary consultancies that are connected with the docks. The abolition of the national dock labour scheme would directly benefit the interests that they serve in the House It is important that you should consider giving advice as to whether it is proper that such Members should vote on Second Reading.
During Business Questions there were exchanges, particularly involving my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), about the selection of members for the Standing Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading on Monday. The Leader of the House said that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee of Selection. I am advised that the Chair of that Committee—who is up to his eyebrows in commercial interests, but I leave that on one side—cannot take into account Members' interests when he selects the members of Standing Committees. As the Chair of the Committee of Selection is not allowed to take such matters into account when selecting members of Standing Committees, it must therefore be a matter for you. It is for you to consider whether it is appropriate that hon. Members who will directly benefit from the abolition of the national dock labour scheme should be selected to serve on the Standing Committee.
I ask you to look at the Register of Members' Interests. I have looked at it this afternoon and found that it is littered with the names of hon. Members who have a very direct interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was clearly heard by a number of Opposition Members to say a few minutes ago that he wants a national dock strike. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Tatton is a consultant to the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators. Opencast operators will benefit if more profits are to be made in dockland by the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Those are the interests that the hon. Member for Tatton serves.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I can deal with this matter. It has always been in order for hon. Members to vote on a matter of public policy. That is an established principle. It is not just the Chairman of the Committee of Selection but the Committee of Selection as a whole that decides who should be nominated to serve on the Committee.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling about the precedent for the selection of hon. Members, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It is an important issue. As we know, the Transport and General Workers Union has a great deal of interest in the outcome of the Bill. If we were to consider the position of a few of my right hon. And
1070
hon. Friends, would it not also be in order to consider the position of a great many Opposition Members who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, not least the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: The same principle applies. It is a matter of public policy, and it has always been in order.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, like me, have always admired the skittish sense of humour of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), exhibited once again this afternoon. In respect of the point that he made about my own interests, declared in the Register, it certainly would not be in the interests of opencast coal producers in this country to encourage imports of coal. Therefore, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I can hardly be said to be a slavish follower of my own pecuniary interests.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has said: it is appalling that Labour Members should seek to impugn the integrity of other hon. Members, in whatever part of the House, for outside interests that are properly declared. I hope that, in speaking about the various policies that we have to debate, we do so untrammelled by personal interests. For instance, I do not impugn the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for accepting a roof over his head from the Transport and General Workers Union, nor the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose roof is provided by the same body. I certainly do not believe that, in their opposition to the Government's proposals for the docks, they are influenced in any way by the financial advantage that they gain from union sponsorship.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can profitably carry on this exchange.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same point?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has now said that he is happy to associate himself with the proposed dock strike that is being organised by the Prime Minister and her Front Bench. Everybody in the country—at least most people—recognises that it has all been set up. As the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to declare his association, as he does not deny my hon. Friend's comment that he relishes the idea of a dock strike, and as he is quite happy to talk about the declaration of interests, of which I have none, perhaps he would be happy to tell us how much money he gets from all his interests.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two seconds ago you heard—indeed, we all heard—the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) refer in disparaging terms to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). It used to be the custom of the House that, when one Member wished to say something disparaging about another, he gave that Member notice. I wonder if you can tell us whether that is still the convention and will you invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether, in this case, he did give notice to my hon. Friend?
Mr. Speaker: That is the convention, and in that connection may I say to the whole House that I hope that

1071
all hon. Members will read the recent report of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter and on the question of the conventions and of good order in the House. So far as the Bill is concerned, I trust that the debate on Monday will be carried on in the best parliamentary traditions.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave general notice to the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) in early-day motion 702, which points out that the hon. Member, who is Chairman of the Committee of Selection, holds seven directorships and four parliamentary——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not in order now.

Orders of the Day

  Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.14 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Driver licensing is designed to improve safety and reduce casualties. May I quote "Another Voice":
  "Others have lost sisters before. Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this, one realises that under the surface of a polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important. The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to he heard is to give those as yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface of their lives before they sensibly turn away and think of something else."
  Those words, written by Auberon Waugh, come from the Spectator of 15 February 1986.
  This Bill, introduced in another place at the beginning of December, makes provision for a number of improvements in road traffic law. It should again be widely welcomed as a sensible and largely uncontroversial piece of legislation. This debate will give the House a chance to discuss broader issues of transport policy. Some were highlighted during our consideration last Friday of the Parking Bill. We welcome each opportunity to publicise the Government's sensible policies for traffic management.
  The Bill is in two main parts. I shall start with the reduction of road casualties which is relevant to two proposals in part I.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today announced provisional road casualty figures for 1988. These show a fall of 2 per cent. in deaths compared with 1987 and a 1 per cent. drop in serious injuries. To put that in a more historic context, since 1975 there has been an average reduction of deaths on our roads of 30 a week. With just over 5,000 people killed on our roads last year and over 63,000 seriously injured, that reduction is not enough.
  Over 400 children under 14 were killed last year, with nearly 8,000 seriously injured. Of those aged between 15 and 59, more than 3,200 died and nearly 47,000 were seriously injured. Of those aged 60 and over, nearly 1,400 were killed and over 8,000 seriously injured.
  Parents, relatives, neighbours, colleagues and friends shared the tragedy of over 68,000 loved ones lost through death on the roads or with lives wrecked by serious injury. Over a quarter of a million more people of all ages were slightly injured. More than 320,000 people suffered directly last year as a result of accidents on our roads.
  In July 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. Overall, deaths are now down 10 per cent. on the 1986 figure of 5,600 a year. That is encouraging when set against a 25 per cent. increase in

  1073
  traffic over the same period. Overall, for deaths and serious injuries, casualty rates have fallen by 20 per cent. but we still have a long way to go to meet the target in the year 2000.
  Clause 6 deals with training for new motor cyclists. It will make a significant contribution. Motor cyclists are one of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Motor cyclists' casualty rates are the highest for any type of vehicle. Motorcycles and mopeds make up less than 2 per cent. of road traffic. A seventh of all deaths and a fifth of all serious injuries are to motor cyclists. In 1988 that meant that over 670 motor cyclists died and over 12,000 were seriously injured.
  Lack of skill, lack of experience and inadequate defensive riding techniques are the reasons. I do not want to hide the fact that in many accidents involving motor cyclists another road vehicle is involved and the driver of that vehicle often was a contributory fault. In the past five years some 40 per cent. of all motor cyclist casualties were under 20 years of age. That means that over 100,000 families have been affected.
  There is no requirement for motor cyclists to take any training at all. Learners can ride for two years on a provisional licence. If they wish to carry on riding, they must pass both parts of the motorcycle test. In practice, many riders take neither training nor tests. They simply give up riding after two years—or sooner, if they have a serious accident.
  Clause 6 will make training of new motor cyclists compulsory by introducing new limitations on the condition of use of provisional motor cycle and moped licences. It will become illegal to ride on the road unless the motor cyclist has successfully completed the prescribed basic training course or is in the process of being trained.
  This proposal has been widely welcomed by road safety organisations and the police, by motor cycle manufacturers and dealers, by training centres, individual motor cyclists and by motor cycling groups and their representative bodies. We are discussing the content of the new course with training groups. We shall introduce the new system as soon as possible.
  Our road safety record may be the best in Europe but it is still not good enough. Accident rates are falling but not fast enough. This proposal will make one good contribution to the reduction of deaths and injuries on our roads.
  Clause 2 deals with a different road safety issue. It provides that in future licences to drive any prescribed class of goods vehicle or fare-paying passenger-carrying vehicle will generally need to be renewed every five years once drivers pass 45 years of age. Drivers of more than 65 years of age will need to renew their licences annually. A medical report will be needed with each application for renewal. This change will ensure that drivers of large vehicles are subject to regular medical checks. It will reduce the risk of the driver of a lorry or a bus collapsing behind the wheel and endangering a great many lives.
  The remainder of part I paves the way for a new unified driver licensing system in Great Britain.
  At present, the familiar car licence is issued by the Secretary of State through the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea. Licences to drive heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are issued through independent
  1074
  traffic commissioners in 11 traffic area offices. One professional driver can therefore have two or even three separate licences and is answerable to two different licensing authorities—the Secretary of State and the traffic commissioners.
  Professional drivers who go abroad can face problems. Authorities in other Economic Community countries are not used to the idea of dual licensing. Virtually all other member states use a single licence showing all driving entitlement.
  The Bill provides for the United Kingdom to introduce a single licence showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State will become the sole licensing authority. All driving licences will be issued centrally from Swansea. Professional drivers who go abroad will have the benefit of an internationally recognised licence. All drivers will benefit from a more efficient streamlined licensing system, because the DVLC's lower costs will be reflected in the fees charged for all licences.
  The introduction of the new licence will enable the United Kingdom to meet its commitments under the first Council directive on driver licensing. The Economic Community initiative to harmonise driver licensing systems was fully debated by the House on Tuesday night. As I explained then, this Bill does not compromise our position on the Commission's proposal for a second directive to complete harmonisation.
  In particular, this Bill enables us to maintain our opposition to the proposal that drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles should take two tests and meet higher medical standards. I repeat that we are distinguishing here between professional drivers of minibuses with fare-paying passengers and the non-professional drivers of minibuses whose passengers do not have to pay fares.
  We shall continue to press the Commission strongly on this issue. The firm support which the House expressed for the position will be helpful. The Bill is drafted on the assumption that we shall win the arguments in Brussels. If we were unsuccessful in Brussels and had to adopt any of their proposals, we should need to come back to Parliament before we could implement further changes. I am not contemplating failure.
  Part II of the Bill provides for the licensing and regulation information systems. These are systems which give drivers, through special in-vehicle equipment, route guidance and warnings on traffic conditions. The best known example of a driver information system is autoguide. Some hon. Members have had an introduction to autoguide through the demonstration scheme which the Department of Transport is now running in the Westminster area. I take this opportunity of inviting other hon. Members who would like to see the demonstration to let me know. We believe that autoguide and systems like it can do much to ease congestion and speed up traffic.
  Road spending has increased substantially under this Government. Provision in this financial year for motorways and trunk roads is over £1·2 billion. New roads alone will never provide the complete answer to congestion.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Can my hon. Friend tell the House now, or ensure that it is told in the winding-up speech, the answers to the following questions? First, in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, page iii, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill", in the second paragraph,

  1075
  should not the reference be to clause 10 and not clause 9? Secondly, on the subject of clause 10(8), can my hon. Friend tell the House why the Government feel it necessary to regulate the charges that may be made by a licence holder to motorists for information from a driver information system? Does this not smack of Socialism? What is wrong with a free market operating in this area?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am tempted to remind my hon. Friend of the various other Bills and Acts of Parliament which have gone through recently and which seem to me to do a hit more on regulating charging by various larger bodies which do not face an enormous amount of competition. But it may be better to take his invitation to answer his questions in winding up.
  Mr. Gary Waller: On the second of the two points which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised, am I right in thinking that it is planned that the Government will make a choice of which system is to operate, that it would be very difficult to have competing systems operating in this country and that therefore it is inevitable that there should be some kind of regulatory regime?
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not likely that two people will set up a pilot scheme in London, or a full scheme in some part of Derbyshire, for example, or on the Airedale route. I do not think that I am regarded as one of those who are most likely to want to regulate the price of these things. Perhaps it is a detailed point which, if not today, could be discussed in Committee. Perhaps we can reach a conclusion if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading today.
  I was saying that new roads alone will never provide the complete answer to congestion. Scope for new roads in the middle of towns and cities—where congestion is worst—is strictly limited. New roads will not solve the problem of the lorry that overturns on the motorway and causes a 10-mile tailback.
  Autoguide was conceived in the United Kingdom by the Government's transport and road research laboratory. TRRL has estimated that an autoguide system throughout London could help drivers to reduce their average journey times by about 10 per cent. and reduce mileage by about 6 per cent. The system has the potential to make even better use of existing roads and cut congestion. The success of autoguide will depend on co-operation between a number of different interests. The Government have been involved in the early development of the system and in promoting this legislation. Under clause 9, my right hon. Friend will be the licensing authority for autoguide and other driver information systems.
  The future development and financing of autoguide will fall to the private sector. The success of the system depends on commercial development and marketing. It should therefore be promoted and financed by the private sector. My right hon. Friend has invited the private sector to make proposals for a large-scale autoguide pilot scheme in the London area. If the scheme were successful, the operator would have the right to upgrade it to a fully commercial system to which the public could subscribe. Proposals are due to be submitted to the Department by 21 April.
  The autoguide pilot scheme will involve participation by local authority associations and the police. They will want to be sure that the system will not prejudice road
  1076
  safety or good traffic management. So will the Government. A special group is being set up, comprising representatives of local government, the police and the Department of Transport, to oversee the monitoring of the pilot scheme.
  Autoguide involves collaboration with our European partners. There is already an Anglo-German draft standard covering an important part of the technology. Discussions with other member states are starting. An experimental autoguide-type system is already operating in West Berlin. Trade barriers within Europe are disappearing. In time, and with further successful collaboration, it may become possible to drive from London to Paris, Rome or Berlin, receiving route guidance all the way.
  The fact that part II of the Bill is concerned with autoguide-type systems does not mean that we are pursuing advanced technology at the expense of other approaches. The Department of Transport is engaged in a number of initiatives to improve information to drivers. At the other end of the technology spectrum from autoguide, we are doing a major review of the statutory traffic signs regulations. We have designated 1989 the "year of the sign".
  Part II of the Bill is necessary for two main purposes. An operator of autoguide—and possibly of other types of driver information system—will need powers to install roadside beacons and certain other apparatus. Much of the infrastructure will be installed by the existing public telecommunications operators—currently British Telecom and Mercury. Other parts will be installed by the operator of the system, using the new powers in clause 12.
  Legislation is also necessary to ensure that the introduction of advanced driver information systems can be properly controlled. Clause 10 will enable my right hon. Friend to attach conditions to licences to operate driver information systems. A licence could, for example, provide that a particular system could direct traffic only on certain roads or classes of roads. The proposed autoguide pilot scheme will give us a good idea of what licence conditions are necessary for a commercial system.
  Perhaps I could take this opportunity to spell out our policies for transport in London. It is our policy to improve the quality and capacity of rail and underground links into and around central London. It is our policy to secure more reliable bus services which are better matched to the needs of customers. It is our policy to make the best possible use of existing roads, through good traffic management, support for enforcement of parking controls and the use of advanced technology such as autoguide and like systems, now being extended to most of outer London, which give buses priority at traffic lights. It is our policy to provide through traffic with good alternative routes around London. It is our policy to build new roads to relieve the very worst congestion black spots and to provide for better orbital movement and better access to poorly served and developing areas.
  It is equally important to state what are not our policies. It is not our policy to drive new motorways through London. It is not our policy to build any new roads unless they can be justified within the normal planning procedures which provide for consultation with local residents and others. It is not our policy to pander to those who wish to commute to central London by car in

  1077
  traffic jams when they could get to work more easily and safely by rail. It is not our policy to write a detailed master plan which would be out of date before the ink was dry.
  The more vociferous commentators and pressure groups should take note of these policies. In particular, groups such as the Association of London Authorities should stop misleading people with visions of a new motorway box being cut through leafy suburbs. That is emphatically not our policy.
  Mr. John Prescott: The Government must be sensitive about that.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is not just a question of being sensitive.
  Mr. Prescott: They have to be sensitive on that one.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman would listen with his ears rather than with his mouth, he might hear what I am saying. Radio stations such as LBC, which cannot distinguish between motorways and other roads, needs to listen clearly because its listeners are interested, and I suspect that many others in London are interested as well.
  We can consider the details of the Bill in Committee. This is not a major piece of legislation. Its provisions will be of benefit to many road users. Drivers of lorries and coaches will be able to obtain their licences quicker and at lower cost, new motor cyclists will be properly trained and less likely to be killed or injured and all road users will benefit from less traffic congestion and fewer delays when systems such as autoguide are in use.
  I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  4.31 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill's provisions. As he knows, I am quite new to this brief, though I am having to learn quickly this week. Indeed, such is the speed of political events, if not of the traffic around Westminster, I thought that I should have to ask for a statement this afternoon.
  I am delighted to learn that the Department has today denied that it has ordered an inquiry into Sir Keith Bright's allegations about the London emergency services which so sullied the debate on the Fennell report yesterday. We believe that Sir Keith's allegations had more to do with his contract than with anything else, but I shall be writing to the Secretary of State about the matter.
  As I said, I am new to this brief, but even as a lay person I had grasped what were the major transportation concerns and problems of this country, and certainly of London. In my naivety, when I saw that the Government were introducing a new piece of legislation, I thought it just had to be the Road Traffic (Integration of Transport Policy) Bill that we had all been waiting for. Might it, I asked, be the measure to set in motion the backlog of proposals necessary to bring some order to our transport chaos? But that was not to be. We are delivered instead of the Road Traffic (Tinkering with the Problem) Bill, not to mention the Road Traffic (Private Funding Solution) Bill.
  None of the measures in the Bill is necessarily objectionable and, as the Minister pointed out, its provisions, by excluding non-commercial minibus drivers,
  1078
  protect our common position of opposition to regulation of the voluntary sector. Most of the measures are commendable, but we have grave reservations about aspects of part II. Together, however, the measures are unlikely to have more than a marginal effect on our transport problems, particularly in London, which will be the location of the pilot scheme for autoguide. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that, as parliamentary time is being made available to facilitate commercial transport schemes, it will be made equally available to provide for and resource public transport improvement.
  The first part of the Bill is consequent on the EC directive on the Community driving licence and will centralise the issuing of drivers' licences, bringing all forms of licence entitlement together in one document. This part of the Bill also lays down more stringent requirements for the renewal of vocational licences. Drivers with those licences will have to seek renewal from the age of 45 every five years and from 65 annually, accompanied by mandatory medical checks. In general, we support this part of the Bill, although I have some questions for the Minister.
  The Government estimate that savings of 100 jobs or £1 million per year will be made by centralising the process at Swansea. I questioned the Minister about that on Tuesday but as he failed to give a concrete answer, I shall ask him again. Will he take the opportunity to increase the number of staff at Swansea so that delays in obtaining licences are reduced?
  My second question relates to the medical tests proposed for all holders of vocational licences. I am aware that many drivers already complain about the appeal system and I foresee apprehension among drivers about the new proposals. Perhaps in Committee the Minister will give us some comparisons about how such procedures are carried out in other European states. It is clear from the proposals that some drivers who undergo more rigorous medical tests may find that they are debarred from driving and thus lose their livelihood.
  The Minister will remember that, in 1984, his Department's medical advisory committee recommended paying compensation to drivers who were prevented from working because they failed medical tests. What is the Minister's attitude to that? As he has not taken this opportunity to introduce compensation arrangements at the same time as imposing more severe requirements on drivers' ability to do their jobs, what does he plan to do? We shall return to this question in Committee if we fail to receive a satisfactory answer this afternoon.
  I turn now to clause 6, which implements one of the Government's proposals on motor cycling as set out in their White Paper, "Motor Cycling Safety". As the Minister said, increasing motor cycle safety must be a top priority. Motor cycling has by far the worst accident risk, as the Minister outlined so clearly. However, many motor bike accidents result from other drivers paying insufficient attention to bike riders and there is clearly a need for car, bus and lorry drivers to be made more aware of road safety in relation to bikes.
  One of the encouraging signs for us—and I am sure for the Minister—and one which we applaud is the way in which the motor bike organisations are now encouraging riders to take training courses. I hope that the Minister will consult the motor bike organisations thoroughly, because we politicians often disregard too easily the needs, problems and aspirations of young people. The fact that

  1079
  those organisations opposed the introduction of crash helmets in the past and that they were clearly wrong to do so has meant that many of us have perhaps not given them enough credit for a more positive attitude today. I understand that the motor bike groups, as well as safety organisations, are readily supporting the Bill's compulsory training course to replace part I of the motor bike test. We are delighted that that is so and wholeheartedly give our support to the measure.
  However, concern has been voiced by the organisations that are responsible for safety and for running the courses which the Government failed to meet in the debate in the other place. I take this opportunity to raise those concerns here, although, again, we shall doubtless return to them in Committee. First, there is concern about the number of training places available. In the other place an assurance was given that there are over 900 training centres. However, an informal survey shows that the centres are by no means evenly distributed throughout the country and there are gaps, especially in rural areas. In some places, therefore, aspiring drivers will be unable to take the course that would allow them a provisional licence. Does the Minister agree that the scheme should not come into effect until it has been ascertained that there is adequate national provision for the courses?
  Secondly, I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance also that the instructors on the courses will be of a sufficiently high standard. The instructors have an examiners' role, so they should be tested themselves. I understand that every training centre must be authorised by the Secretary of State and I suggest that a scheme similar to that for car examiners should be introduced, with every examiner having to be qualified. It is important at the outset of a scheme to ensure that the highest standards are obtained and that there is uniformity of testing throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what arrangementss he is making for regular monitoring of the training centres.
  Has the Minister any ideas about the likely level of charges? He has the power to set the maximum charge for the course. Perhaps he would like to comment on an unofficial suggestion that a course might cost up to £50. As he will realise, that is a lot of money for a young person, and the course lasts only one day. As no minimum figure is set, the cost is likely to be less in areas where there are more training centres according to the rules of supply and demand, but in rural centres the cost may be near the maximum permitted figure.
  I am sure that many motor cyclists who read the reports of our debate will want to know what sort of figure the Minister has in mind. Clearly, it will be desirable for motor cyclists to continue training beyond this inevitably cursory one day. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage more people to take up advanced training courses? Will the Minister give us an idea of the likely time scale for the changes in the length of the provisional licence, the right to carry pillion passengers and the entitlement of car drivers to ride motor bikes?
  We have some disagreement with the Government over autoguide. The Minister has explained to the House how autoguide operates and I do not propose to repeat his explanation. I acknowledge that autoguide could have some useful effects in helping drivers find a quick, less congested route to a given destination. It would doubtless be useful, as the Minister suggested, for longer journeys and for journeys throughout Europe. It would be
  1080
  especially valuable for diverting motorists from accidents on motorways, and it could therefore clearly contribute to preventing the motorway snarl-ups with which we are all so familiar. I am aware that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in its original research suggested that autoguide could result in 500 fewer casualties a year and a saving of journey time of about 10 per cent.
  Naturally, the Opposition, like the Minister, are in favour of such reductions. However, I suggest that it is impossible to judge the effects on casualty figures of one specific proposal in isolation. Ministers have not always favoured schemes because casualty figures would be reduced. I remind the House of the Government's attitude towards the GLC's low fares policy which was specifically designed to take people off the roads and put them on public transport to reduce accidents, which it did.
  Where is the Minister's strategic plan for dealing with the chaos and congestion on our roads? We have heard nothing about that today. It is extraordinary that, of all the measures which the Minister might have brought to the House, he has prioritised this measure. As the impact of autoguide will be felt principally in London, at least in the first instance, I want to consider its likely effect here while accepting that it will be useful on long-distance journeys outside the capital city.
  The scale of the traffic problem in London can scarcely be over-estimated. According to Government figures, about 160,000 people commute into London every day by car. About 3 million vehicles are registered in London and the home counties. People sit in traffic jams every day, get impatient and try to make progress by driving via residential roads and rat runs. They park illegally, thereby aggravating the problems and the dangers. In 1986, about 500 people were killed and 50,000 injured on London's roads. The emergency services are now severely affected by delays, sometimes with fatal results. In 1975, the average speed of an ambulance was 25 mph. Now it is little more than 11 mph.
  Public transport in London has become less reliable and more overcrowded. The Minister talked about his hopes for improvement. I was delighted to hear that, and I look forward to those hopes being realised. Because of the difficulties with public transport, especially with buses, people are tempted to drive to work, and that leads to increased congestion. There is widespread agreement between the Government and the Opposition that urgent action is needed. A recent Confederation of British Industry report said that London was "strangling itself to death". That report draws special attention to the need to move quickly on repairing roads, on completion of road works and on cracking down on parking offenders. The difficulties caused by such matters could be eased by proposals that are already drafted and agreed by the relevant organisations and that are waiting in the queue for parliamentary time.
  The Minister says that autoguide will help to ease London's traffic problems. I doubt it. There is even a danger that autoguide will encourage greater use of the car. That was denied in the other place, but will a measure designed to aid the motorist through London not encourage more people who might previously have decided to make the journey by public transport to attempt car journeys? The Minister must assure the House that, if it appears from the pilot project that more people will be interested in using their cars as a result of the autoguide, he will reconsider authorising its use. At the

  1081
  very least, autoguide will do nothing to discourage the use of the car and the Minister has said that there must be such discouragement.
  I accept that, in their consultation documents, the Government have acknowledged the danger of encouraging the use of rat runs. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has the power to tailor licence applications to the needs of particular areas. We think that that safeguard is insufficient, especially given the lack of prior consultation and participation by local authorities. I shall return to that matter.
  The Minister will be in something of a dilemma when he comes to license different routes. He will be under pressure to agree as many roads as possible. If only the main trunk roads are authorised, the usefulness of the scheme will be severely limited, but there are major problems in authorising the use of unclassified roads in London. The primary problem is safety, to which the Minister gives top priority.
  Several organisations have already expressed concern about the safety aspect of autoguide. The Department of Transport document entitled "Transport In London" draws attention to the fact that about 48 per cent. of accidents here were among the most vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. The majority of child pedestrian accidents occur within 400 m. of home. That means that they occur on residential roads. Any measure that increases the likely use of residential roads increases the possibility of accidents on those roads, even if accidents on trunk roads were to decline as a consequence.
  A further danger may arise from the expectations of people who purchase autoguides. The motorist who buys it will do so in the expectation that he—I expect that the majority of purchasers will be men—will have a quicker journey. That will give rise to the danger of cars speeding down unsuitable roads and the drivers paying less attention to road safety than they would have done if they had not been directed to a specific road. There are ways to control the use of residential roads and the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and local authority organisations have said that the involvement of the highway authority is absolutely crucial.
  Our concern has been heightened by reports emanating from a recent consultation by GEC, which is a member of the RAC consortium, with London boroughs. I understand that the boroughs were told that autoguide would be commercially viable in London only if it included roads other than categories A and B and aimed at 20 per cent. of the traffic flow. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if that is an accurate assessment and just how many vehicles that would be.
  In my constituency I am dealing with a strong residents' protest movement in Gellatly road where residents face the passage of 15,000 vehicles a day. It is a typical south London rat run. Lewisham council and I are desperately seeking a solution to the problem, but we see it immediately being exacerbated by autoguide. The Minister must tell us how he would view such a case.
  The response of a local authority to a newly created rat run is likely to be environmental measures to slow down the traffic and restraints to limit it. What will happen when a local authority publishes a traffic order to that end and
  1082
  autoguide objects? Arguably autoguide could show traffic going back to the designated network, thus bringing the Department of Transport into the argument. How does the Minister propose to adjudicate in such cases when the Department is so wholeheartedly behind the autoguide proposals?
  I give notice to the Minister that in Committee we shall seek to give the highway authority statutory involvement in the planning and monitoring of the system. Only in that way do we think that the needs of ordinary people can be protected from the development of more rat runs and more danger in their neighbourhoods and more difficulties in their homes. At least the rights of the authority should be guaranteed. The minimum should be the right of an authority to intervene if something goes wrong. We shall table an amendment to that effect. I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns of local authorities in that respect.
  I have explained in detail our misgivings about the autoguide system. We are aware, of course, that a similar project is being carried out in Berlin, but there is one crucial difference. That project is being carried out as part of a set of traffic management measures, financed predominantly by the public sector and integral to already existing traffic management schemes. That is not the case here. None the less, despite our misgivings, I assure the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I will take the opportunity that he has offered us to see autoguide in operation for ourselves.
  There are other measures in the pipeline that could have a real and lasting effect on London's transport problems. We welcome the publication of the White Paper, "The Road User and the Law", following the North report. I hope that legislation will be brought forward on that in due course. However, the Minister will be aware from the debates in the other place that there is a strong feeling on this side of the House that no more time should be wasted before bringing forward legislation on the Home report.
  New street works legislation becomes more vital every day as the level of building activity in London increases. New legislation is needed desperately to deal with the problems caused by holes in the road. Hon. Members will appreciate the irony of giving priority to the measure before us rather than to street works legislation. By providing the operator of a private information system with power to install apparatus in the highway, the Bill will add to the problems and complexities that the Home recommendations are designed to tackle.
  I have concentrated on our differences in approach and on the contentious points in the Bill. No doubt we will return to those in Committee. It will help the whole House if the Minister can give a further account of the Government's attitude when responding to the points that I have raised.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to concern myself with one part of the Bill, clause 6. I think that everyone is in favour of training for young learner motor cyclists. I have had discussions recently with the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain Ltd., so I think there are various points that it is important to raise at this stage. I begin by declaring an interest; I think that I am one of the few Members who ride a motor cycle

  1083
  regularly—in the summer months, I hasten to say. I often use a motor cycle to go to and from the House during that period.
  Motor cycles, especially big ones, are potentially very dangerous machines unless they are treated with the greatest respect and concentration. If one rides a motor cycle, one soon learns that there is very little between oneself and the road, and one remembers that an accident is nearly always more damaging to a rider of a motor cycle than to a driver of a car.
  I well remember being in the Isle of Man, and riding with the marshals around the 37½ mile track between races, "sweeping up" after a great parade of the champions of the past. I came to Braddon bridge after one of those great heroes had spurted oil all over the track. I found myself arriving at the bridge at 50 miles an hour on my bottom, an extremely uncomfortable experience. I think that I was Chief Whip at the time, so that was probably the least that some hon. Members would have liked to happen to me.
  We must always remember that riding a motor cycle is one of life's most exhilarating experiences. I hope that no misplaced zeal by any Government will reduce further the enormous pleasure that motor cycling brings. I applaud very much the Government's desire to encourage better training through clause 6. According to the explanations that we have had up to date, the provisions of clause 6 will lead to serious problems in rural areas. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that it has not been made clear how many training centres will be established. I have heard a similar figure to the one that she heard.
  Let us say that there are to be 1,000 training centres around the country. I understand that that would be one for every 80 square miles. Even then, in many parts of the country there would be only one for every 150 square miles. I shall be surprised if many people in my constituency, for instance, do not live more than 20 miles from a training centre. That will cause a major problem for those who have to travel long distances to training centres from their homes or from wherever they purchased their motor cycles.
  I am told that the courses may last between four and six hours. No doubt at certain times of the year it will not be possible always to fit in the course in one session. If there have to be two sessions to complete a course in a rural area, a considerable distance may have to be travelled within the triangle of place of purchase, training centre and home. Especially, there will be the problem of the person who fails to satisfy the examiner and who finds himself, perhaps fairly late at night, more than 20 miles from home, with no public transport available. What is he to do? It is a serious problem to which the Minister must address himself.
  The Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain believes, as I do, that there is only one solution. There must be a special exemption for those who live, let us say, more than five miles from a training centre. There is a dispensation in the MOT test for cars when the previous MOT certificate is out of date. The Government will have to think about making a similar dispensation in respect of motor cyclists travelling directly, on a single occasion, within the three-cornered route that I described.
  An amendment was made to clause 6 in another place to allow certain exemptions. That may be the means by which the Government will be able to meet my point. It is important that, during the Bill's passage, the Government
  1084
  make their intentions clear. They have already said that they understand the problems of islanders, and have promised to consult on that point. However, the Government must give specific answers. If that is not done, the situation will become impossible for many young people in rural areas, many of whom have low incomes.
  A motor cycle provides the young man living in a rural area with the only reasonable method of getting around, but it could become an impracticable option—especially if the cost of the test is prohibitive. The hon. Member for Deptford was right to ask about that aspect. I heard that the cost might be nearer £25. Even so, that is a large sum of money for a young man living in a rural area who has already laid out money for his motor cycle.
  I am very bothered by those aspects. I hope that the Government will grant exemptions of the kind that I have described. My hon. Friend the Minister might reflect on the fact that many young men in rural areas in particular learn to ride motor bikes at 10 or 12 years of age. My own sons could ride a motor bike around my farm like demons when they were aged about 10. Many young men in the country learn to ride off the roads and are perfectly competent. They have much greater opportunities to learn the basics of riding a motor cycle than do young people in the towns. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond sympathetically to the points that I have made.
  5.1 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: The clauses dealing with the proposed unified driver licensing system are sensible enough. However, I note that there were two substantial debates in another place on amendments relating to eye testing of drivers. Substantial arguments were made for requiring regular eye checks for older drivers and for extra resources to be made available for research into how many road accidents are attributable to bad eyesight with a view to amending driver licensing legislation the next time around.
  My belief, based on personal experience and on private anecdote, is that regular eye tests are an important factor in road safety in respect of older drivers. I am sorry that the Minister in another place was not more forthcoming. I hope that, before the Bill reaches the statute book, the Department will be able to say that more resources will be made available for research. I note also that we shall have to return to this subject in the comparatively near future, because of the European harmonisation programme and the regular system of consultation with our European partners. Several member states have more stringent eye tests in the granting of driving licences than we have. We shall inevitably be compelled to return to that aspect in 1991, if not before.
  I welcome those provisions of the Bill that deal with the training of motor cyclists. I recognise, as do all right hon. and hon. Members, that motor cycling can be exceedingly dangerous and that a motor cyclist is 14 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the driver of a motor car. That was brought home to me when I was a duty Minister in Northern Ireland about nine years ago. One weekend, nine motor cyclists were killed on the roads of Northern Ireland. Had nine residents of Northern Ireland been killed in a terrorist attack, on Monday afternoon there would have been a statement in the House and everyone would have expressed concern. But because

  1085
  those killed were just motor cyclists, no one bothered about them, and those deaths were barely reported this side of the Irish sea.
  I welcome also the Bill's provisions for training. It is ludicrous that we have gone for so many years without making any requirement for training motor cyclists. However, I would not place too much store by this measure. About 45 years ago, in the Army, I was given excellent training by former TT riders. We learned to ride faster than otherwise we would have done, and very exhilarating it was. However, I am not sure that we became much safer riders.
  The Bill's provisions will result in a cut in the number of casualties, but I attach more importance to the proposals, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred before, for limiting the engine size of motor cycles that young, inexperienced riders can use. My hon. Friend referred to limiting engine capacity to 400 cc for riders with only two years' experience. I hope that a measure will soon be introduced giving force to that recommendation. However, in that respect we are being held back by European consultations, because not all our EEC partners agree on that proposal, which has been around very much longer than our membership of the Community. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that action will be taken.
  I welcome also the Government's proposals for autoguide, which is an exciting and important potential development. I notice that the Government say that the system will have to be linked to an urban traffic control centre and that the pilot scheme will take place in London. I hope that means that we shall soon have a proper urban traffic control centre in London, because one of the glaring deficiencies in London at the moment is the absence at the highest level of a London traffic management unit. I hope that the introduction of this autoguide pilot scheme will mean that we shall soon have a traffic management unit at a high level.
  The great majority of drivers will certainly not have autoguide before the end of the century. I hope that more effort will be devoted to warning ordinary motorists about road works which may lie in their path. Earlier this afternoon, I drove up the M3 from a meeting in Southampton; warning signs about road works ahead were admirable in size and placing, and motorists were warned well in advance of any problems that lay ahead.
  In London, in the course of last week, I wasted more than an hour in traffic jams that were caused by road works, for which absolutely no warning was given in time for motorists to take evasive action. I hope that the Department of Transport will take this matter seriously, because it affects traffic flow in London.
  It would be churlish not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the fact that road traffic casualties have reached a record low for 34 years. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend on these issues, but he has done a great deal to raise the political visibility of this issue. The Bill is another small step towards improving road safety. I hope that, in the next Session, a much bigger Bill will be introduced to implement the sensible recommendations of the North report and the Government's White Paper.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I welcome the Second Reading of the Bill, which contains some extremely valuable proposals. With regard to part I, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the road freight industry is entirely in favour of the change to a unified system. Even if that had not been a requirement of the European Commission—a directive laid down for us to follow—we would have been wise to get rid of our present system and adopt the system proposed in the Bill. The present system is extremely confusing, and can be described as an anachronism. The new system will be an improvement for employers and drivers because it will make life simpler for them and improve their relationship.
  We should consider a number of consequences which flow from the change. The licence system for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles will be brought into line. There is nothing in the Bill about how the provision for medicals will operate. As I understand it, that will be incorporated in regulations. It would be helpful if, when winding up, my hon. Friend the Minister said a word or two about the system of medicals, which is important for drivers.
  The changes that implement the first European Community directive—the proposals in the Bill—can be related to the further draft directive debated in the House on Tuesday. During that debate, concern was rightly expressed about a requirement for a new threshold requiring drivers of minibuses used by voluntary groups to be tested, and for there to be a requirement to obtain a licence to drive public service vehicles.
  The new draft directive also requires a change in the threshold from the present 7·5 metric tonnes to 3·5 tonnes for heavy goods vehicles. Identical concern has been expressed by those who operate smaller goods vehicles, and this is something we should consider when talking about the proposals that are incorporated in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take as vigorous a view on that point as he has said he will on many other matters in the second draft directive. If implemented, the change would double the number of drivers needing heavy vehicle tests and put an additional strain on resources. We must ask—as with so many other issues—whether that is justified in road safety terms. Is this merely a matter of harmonisation which in itself is good only if it achieves a valuable objective? The consequences of that change will be much more severe in Britain than in other Community member states.
  All organisations—as I do—welcome the proposal for training motor cyclists. A report recently published by the Institute of Motorcycling entitled "Characteristics of Urban Motor Cycle Accidents" has just come to my notice. It draws some interesting conclusions.
  My hon. Friend the Minister conceded that other road users were sometimes to blame for accidents. It is interesting to note, that on the basis of the 9,600 accidents in the Greater London area investigated by the researchers, 62 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles, mopeds and scooters were primarily caused by other road user groups.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: That does not wash. It is about that proportion of accidents that involve another vehicle. It is incredible to believe that every one of the crashes and collisions is the fault of other vehicles. The plain truth is

  1087
  that some vehicles do turn right without their drivers making the life-saving check in the mirror to see whether a motor cyclist is overtaking. At T-junctions drivers look left and right, do not notice a motor cycle and pull out in its path. However, that is only one part of it. It is easier to find examples—especially in urban areas—of motor cyclists taking action which does not allow other motorists a chance to escape unscathed. I think that what we need to deal with is mutual risk-taking. I hope that my hon Friend will forgive me, but he was saying something that has been said by a number of motor cyclists—a diminishing number, I hope.
  Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend interrupted me before I was able to qualify what I was saying. I certainly maintain that a large proportion of accidents are caused primarily by other road users. Of course, by riding defensively motor cyclists can sometimes, perhaps often, avoid accidents that would otherwise be caused by the actions of other road users; an experienced rider will be able to anticipate those actions and thus escape disaster.
  I urge my hon. Friend to read the report. The research was carefully carried out and shows that 35 per cent. of accidents were caused by motor cyclists themselves. The findings are based on statistics from the Metropolitan police, and I do not think that we should ignore the report's conclusion that, at the very least, a substantial proportion of accidents involving motor cyclists are attributable primarily to other road users. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his Department's efforts to make those road users more aware of motor cyclists. At one time leaflets were included with car licences——
  Mr. Bottomley: That is still being done.
  Mr. Waller: I am glad that the practice continues. Because of the nature of their machines, motor cyclists are peculiarly vulnerable.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has listened to what motor cycle organisations have to say. That goes for the British Motorcyclists Federation and for the Motorcycle Action Group, which is not always kindly disposed to my hon. Friend: indeed, the way in which it has directed some of its diatribe at him has been very regrettable. I welcome my hon. Friend's willingness to consider again such matters as leg guards. His attitude contrasts with many motor cyclists' picture of a Department that is deaf to any representations that it may receive.
  I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about aspects of the training system. We need to be satisfied that training facilities will be adequate to meet demand, and also that arrangements will be made to ensure that training standards are high enough. All motor cyclists will of course be required to undergo and complete a training course, but I wonder what would happen if a trainee, having completed the course, nevertheless gave indications of unsuitability to ride safely on the roads. There seems to be no requirement for a test to be passed at that stage.
  There is also the practical difficulty, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, of the motor cyclist who needs to get to the training centre. Often suppliers of new machines will arrange for the machines to be delivered to the centre,
  1088
  which is a responsible approach, but many motor cycles are bought second hand and dealers may not be able to deliver them, especially if long distances are involved.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the MOT test exemption. If the keeper of a vehicle needs to get it to the testing centre, because in such circumstances he may not possess a tax disc, special provision is made. That demonstrates that a certain amount of flexibility has been used in the past to deal with practical difficulties. To deal with another such difficulty. it could perhaps be arranged for the trainer to meet the new possessor of a motor cycle somewhere other than the training centre and to accompany him to it. In any event, I hope that further thought will be given to the problem, which will no doubt apply to many new motor cyclists. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way of those who are keen to embark on motor cycling, as I share his enthusiasm.
  Mr. Jopling: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that that last suggestion would work. If two young men wished to attend a training centre and each was more than 20 miles from it, for someone to collect them individually would involve a round trip of 40 miles. That really is not a runner, particularly late at night.
  Mr. Waller: My right hon. Friend has a point, although I do not imagine that such a problem will arise in the case of all participants. A certain amount of flexibility would help the minority who may have a problem.
  Autoguide is a welcome development. I think that it will be particularly helpful to motorists who are unfamiliar with an area, especially in overseas countries. I hope that it will be possible to obtain a measure of co-operation from other countries—perhaps through the European Community—to ensure compatibility and interchangeability of roadside and car equipment.
  There is no doubt that autoguide is not a solution to the problems of congestion. Like many others, I believe that an expansion and acceleration of the road programme must be an important facet of our approach to the problem—which, as we know, costs the country many billions of pounds a year through the companies that operate within it. Nevertheless, autoguide can play its part. It is, of course, only one of many current developments; another is the digital radio system, which I am sure will be used in the next few years by many more drivers than have access to autoguide.
  Autoguide, however, has the great benefit of being an automatic and interactive system. It does not necessarily require information to be fed into it, involving the intervention of individuals, as is required for announcements to be given out to motorists through the digital radio system. It is one way in which we can approach the solution of many problems which cost this country dear each year and it should, therefore, be pursued.
  I regret the rather negative approach of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to autoguide. She is, of course, right to say that we have to pursue other solutions as well and I agree that autoguide is not the only answer. But that should not preclude us from seeking a system which has a great deal of novelty and value. The hon. Lady was concerned about rat runs. I understand that the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the two consortia involved are very

  1089
  much aware of that concern and are determined that they will not go in for rat runs as a way of enabling motorists to avoid congested areas. We should turn our faces against the idea that one should introduce rat runs through residential areas.
  Ms. Ruddock: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is possible to avoid creating rat runs in residential areas, as most people in London live in areas where there is a great deal of overcrowding already and autoguide will transfer many people from one road to another? In theory, at least, it is difficult to see how one would not create new rat runs by that procedure.
  Mr. Waller: To the best of my knowledge, the consortia are determined that they will not adopt that approach. It is important that we should not allow the scheme to be strangled by red tape. Although we should be aware of the problems and difficulties, we should not allow a preoccupation with bureaucracy to prevent it from taking its place within a reasonable time scale.
  The hon. Lady said that she regretted that we were not adopting an integrated transport system at this stage. To me, such a system involves direction rather than choice and that is the difference between the approaches of our two parties to transport. It is interesting to note that, although the Labour Government gave themselves powers to direct freight transport operators, they did not use those powers. Powers of direction are often quite impracticable, however much one may like to theorise about them. The Government are in favour of giving choice to the consumer of transport services. Nevertheless, it is the task of Government to provide the framework in which road transport is safer and more convenient, so that individuals can exercise their choice in a way that is more satisfactory to themselves. The Bill meets those criteria and I welcome it warmly.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that 1989 would be the year of the sign. He should be aware that motorists, especially angry motorists, are capable of more than one kind of sign and, in his experience and mine, many of them have been directed at the Minister for Roads and Traffic. It would be interesting to know just what the year of the sign will entail. If we are talking about driver information services, a great deal of anger is caused when the road-signing system appears to break down. It would be helpful to know about the programme that will be of benefit to motorists during the year of the sign.
  I very much welcome the Bill and the constructive approach from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and the Opposition. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) found the hon. Lady's approach rather negative, I thought that it was fairly positive. She brought to the Dispatch Box an element of charm, a weapon not often deployed by the principal Opposition spokesman on transport, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I expect that she will be more successful than he is at persuading the House of the merits of the case.
  However, when she talked about the autoguide system, she was on somewhat dubious ground, first weeping
  1090
  crocodile tears for the poor motorists caught in traffic jams every day. She then said that she hoped that autoguide would not be a means of attracting more motorists into the capital or other cities. But presumably the object of autoguide is to avoid congestion and to make life easier for motorists, in that they will not be so frustrated. The hon. Lady is trying to have it both ways. If autoguide works—and we hope it will—it will undoubtedly make life better for motorists and perhaps will attract more of them into cities. The hon. Lady must make up her mind whether she espouses the policy of discouraging motorists through congestion or the policy of helping them by making their lives easier.
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member will know that whenever there is an easing of congestion it attracts more motorists. If motorists perceive that autoguide will give them a smoother passage, they may exercise the choice about which hon. Members have spoken and instead of making the journey by public transport, which they may perceive to be slightly difficult, they may decide to make the journey by car because of autoguide. That point must be taken on board.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Lady is simply repeating the dilemma, but she has not solved the problem. Autoguide is designed to make life easier for motorists. She is either for or against. I choose to believe that she is in favour of it, judging by her fairly constructive remarks.
  I went to see the autoguide experiment at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I went in a sceptic, but came out an enthusiast. I want to pay a compliment to the laboratory. It is not often that Government establishments are complimented on the work they do. The laboratory has produced a scheme that is admirable because it is technically advanced. The cost of applying autoguide even to the whole of Greater London seems to be relatively small in capital terms and the system could become available to motorists in a relatively short time scale. It is practical and economical and could contribute greatly to reducing traffic delays, journey times and costs. It is a welcome development and it is also an exportable system which will bring valuable benefits for this country. Equally, it is not a panacea and it is not meant to be. It is simply one method of easing the problems of motorists.
  This country has not yet realised that congestion has nothing to do with party politics or the success or failure of past or present transport policies. This country has not taken on board the scale of congestion we shall face in years to come. If we look at the forecast growth in vehicle traffic on roads for the next few years, not just in the number of vehicles but in the extent of the usage of those vehicles, we ain't seen nothing yet. Our streets will become grossly more congested and none of us has yet come up with the method of tackling the problem, whether in London and our other cities or in our smaller towns. Some pretty painful nettles will have to be grasped in the years ahead. For the moment, we should welcome autoguide, as it will undoubtedly be of help, it will work and it could turn out to be most popular.
  The next aspect of the Bill to which I shall turn is uncontentious, but of considerable importance to the motorist. This is not an insignificant or unimportant Bill. The driving licence, for example, carried in 31 million pockets, wallets and handbags, is precious to all motorists. If one tries to take it away from a motorist, one realises

  1091
  how precious it is to him. The format of that driving licence is almost as important and delicate a matter as the format of the passport, which is another contentious matter. Like many others, I deeply regret the passing of our old driving licence, that rather nice, maroon, stiff-covered document that could be tucked away and did not become too tatty. It was replaced by a rather tatty green bit of paper in an awkward plastic container. I believe that the newest licences are pink, but mine is green. They are tatty, bureaucratic pieces of paper.
  I welcome in principle a unified licence and a common format for Europe and for the whole world. However, the international driving licence never caught on. A unified driving licence would have great advantages, but I plead for a return to a decent format. We should persuade Europe to adopt a driving licence that drivers would be proud to carry rather than these poor, tatty pieces of paper. Alas, if one has to produce them too often or if one has to have them endorsed too often they soon become very tatty indeed.
  On the question of a common format and a unified licence, I understand that it is difficult to endorse the licence of foreign drivers. It is vital, therefore, in the interests of justice, fairness and of the irate victims of foreign drivers that there should be powers to deal promptly with foreign drivers, including the confiscation of their licence, if necessary. I hope that the Minister will say what powers the courts will have to take stringent action against foreign motorists and the drivers of heavy goods vehicles from the continent who infringe our laws and are involved in accidents. Our powers to deal with them are limited.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) referred to eye tests. The Bill provides for more stringent medical tests for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles. However, I am not clear about how much more stringent the tests will be. That should be spelt out, either now or in Committee. Millions of people need a driving licence for their job. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the requirement that drivers of heavy goods vehicles must have a medical test is to be extended to the drivers of smaller, lighter vehicles—3·5 tonnes as against 7·5 tonnes. How many more people will be affected by the new requirement? If they are to be required to have regular medical checks, that is an important matter for them. We ought to be told about the scale of a change of that significance.
  Mr. Waller: In case there is any doubt about the matter, I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposed change will take place only if the second draft directive of the European Commission is implemented. However, there would be a knock-on effect if it were to be implemented in that form. It would have an effect on the medical examinations that are provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made an important point. A number of draft directives affect our licensing procedures. We are entitled to know what chance we have of persuading the European Community to adopt our point of view about minibus and heavy goods vehicle licences and other matters. If we are not successful in persuading the Community, what powers do we have to resist the directives? If we have no power to resist, is it inevitable that these changes will be made? They
  1092
  are not necessarily bad and they are not necessarily wrong, but the implications for British drivers ought to be spelt out.
  I do not believe that regular medical tests or eye tests are against the interests of the motorist. They are designed not to hinder but to help him. If the driver of a heavy goods vehicle has regular eye tests, the intention is not to push him off the road but to ensure that he wears glasses, if he needs to do so, or has adjustments made to his glasses. The tests are designed to help drivers to stay on the road without causing accidents.
  The Minister knows that I have strongly urged the introduction of regular eye tests for motorists. I should like such a provision to be included in the Bill. However, the Minister and his Department have been somewhat sceptical about eye tests. Their case is that there is no evidence that a significant number of accidents have been caused by poor eyesight. However, one knows from experience that that is wrong. Police forces have carried out eye tests. They believe that bad eyesight causes accidents. A strong case has been made out for regular sight tests.
  I am delighted that a few days ago Swinton Insurance —one of the largest motor insurance brokers in the country that arranges insurance for about 1 million motorists—announced that it had issued a notice to all its motorists saying that they ought to have regular eye tests, otherwise they would be in danger of invalidating their insurance.
  Stringent Government action would not be needed and it would not involve them in any expense. All that the Government need to do is to encourage the British Insurance Brokers Association to tell all motorists that they are in danger of invalidating their insurance policies if they do not have frequent medical and eye tests. That would help the Minister in the tremendous campaign that he has waged so consistently over the years to reduce the number of accidents on the roads.
  While I have been a Member of Parliament I have spoken in debates on various transport Bills. Each time we have referred to new tests for motor cyclists. However, we have not achieved the desired objective. There is to be another requirement. I hope that it will work. I have been visited by groups of motor cyclists in my constituency. We. have disagreed from time to time about crash helmets and other related matters, but generally speaking they have adoped a responsible attitude and have been very responsive. I hope that if new tests are to be introduced we can give to motor cyclists the message that training facilities will be made available for them. It would be frustrating to impose restrictions that caused long delays and made it difficult for new motor cyclists to obtain a licence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was a member of the Cabinet when these groups of people came to see me. That helped me greatly. They thought that Conservatives do not like motor cycles and never ride them, but I was able to tell them that the Minister of Agriculture rode a motor cycle. That was a very persuasive argument. Unfortunately, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that it is an exhilarating experience. I tried it only once. I thought that I was using the brake, but it turned out to be the throttle and I ended up in a rose bush. It was all very painful. Four wheels are very much safer than two. However, I accept that many people gain much satisfaction from riding

  1093
  motor cycles. If we are to introduce regulations that affect motor cyclists, we must ensure that improved training facilities are provided for them.
  My hon. Friend the Minister wandered slightly away from the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I may do so also. He referred to his general policy for transport in London. We have talked a great deal about congestion. Much emphasis has been placed on the rail study. The Government assume that that is the last word to be said about new railway services in London. I do not believe in an integrated transport system. It never works. We shall make a serious mistake if we believe that these rail proposals are the last word.
  One part of London directly affects my constituency in Kent, but there are no Underground services in south-east London. The rail study said virtually nothing about easing the congestion on the roads and on British Rail by providing new Underground services to that part of our capital city. It deliberately ignored that matter and argued that its brief and remit did not extend to trying to relieve congestion on the roads, that it was simply a matter of trying to ease the existing congestion on the central railway line. I hope that my hon. Friend will very soon tell us a little more about what studies the Government intend to launch into the question of extending the Underground rail system to other parts of London to reduce some of the congestion, which is massive at present but will increase in intensity in years to come.
  With those remarks, I welcome the Bill very much. I am glad that it appears to have the support of all parts of the House.
  5.50 pm
  Ms. Ruddock: By leave of the House, I would like to respond to a number of points that have come up in this debate and to reiterate briefly some of those that I made earlier.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) talked very effectively about the difficulties in rural areas. Like him, we are particularly concerned about the provision of training centres. It is very clear that young people in these areas need motor cycles. We all know that there is often a lack of public transport suitable for getting a younger person, for example, to a first job, so a motor bike becomes essential to that young person's future. I think the hon. Member referred only to young men. These days, many young women too want to use that cheaper form of transport to help them have a reasonable life in rural areas. I reiterate that the Minister should not begin this scheme unless he can assure us that there will be sufficient centres and that everyone, no matter where he or she lives, will have a choice as to mode of transportation, where that is not in direct conflict—as, in this case, it certainly is not—with community interests as a whole.
  It is particularly important that the training proposals be supported. As I said earlier, Opposition Members are very much in favour of mandatory training for motor bike users. However, I am sympathetic to the points that were raised by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about how a young person might be enabled to take the test on his own machine. That is desirable, but
  1094
  within the provision at the moment it would seem to be very difficult. I hope the Minister will be able to help us on that point.
  The question of eye tests and the possibility that they will become more stringent was raised. By introducing charges for eyesight tests, the Government have created a particular disincentive to people doing the best for their own eyesight, and we are very fearful that more stringent, difficult and lengthy tests would attract even higher fees.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) expressed regret about the lack of an urban traffic control centre. I reiterate that what this capital city needs is a strategic planning authoritiy. Nothing will deal with the present chaos unless we can plan strategically and take account of all possible modes of transportation and all possible solutions to the problems that we encounter.
  The question of roadworks and the difficulties that people have in circumventing them was raised. That is bound to bring to the Minister's attention just what will be the nature of the roadworks involved in the provision of the autoguide scheme itself. They might be considerable, but we ought to know. Let me reiterate what we are in favour of. We are very much in favour of the harmonisation of the licensing scheme; we are very much in favour of better training for motor bike users; and, of course, we support the Minister in everything he does to bring forward measures to improve road safety. Equally, we reserve our right to be critical of measures which come in isolation—autoguide is an example—when other methods and other measures might produce even better results.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) appeared to support our case that, because of the potential immense growth in car ownership and usage, we can solve these problems only by greater and better provision of public transport.
  As I said at the outset, we believe that, while autoguide may be very useful in other parts of Britain, there is no justification for piloting it in London as though it might provide a real solution to London's transportation chaos. I suspect that the results will be marginal. I have yet to encounter in London a road that does not have a lot of traffic, and I believe that the possible problems and risks are very considerable. I know that my consituents in south London will be extremely concerned at the possible creation of rat runs—a question which I believe has not been dealt with adequately in this debate, though I have great hopes for the Minister's response, which is about to come. Perhaps he will tell us specifically whether autoguide routes can be restricted to A and B roads. If so, he will put a somewhat different complexion on these proposals and on the information that I gave him, which I believe came from a meeting involving GEC—a member of one of the consortia—which stated categorically that it would not be profitable if only A and B routes in London could be used.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: By leave of the House, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. Their contributions may make matters easier. It may make it easier to prepare for the Committee stage to have some of the detailed points available and ready. I shall do what I can now to answer many of them.
  I am rather surprised that there are no Liberal or SDP Members here. We seem to be missing some of the

  1095
  nationalists also. I am grateful that we are back to two-party politics. It has always struck me that liberals like myself ought to be dominating each of the major parties——
  Mr. Greg Knight: On that point, is it not a fact that there is a good case for making the pilot autoscheme available, free of charge, to Liberals and Democrats so that they might on occasions find their way to this Chamber?
  Mr. Bottomley: It is true, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, probably recall, that on Tuesday we were talking about how they could all fit into a minibus. It looks as though they did not have the autoguide system to bring them into the Chamber at the right time.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) did well to ignore totally the beguiling talk of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). It is not a lack of charm but intemperance that we have noticed in her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). His storming into the Chamber just after 11 o'clock last night to tell the House what it should or should not be doing, based on a badly sub-edited report from the Press Association, destroyed much of what had been a fairly important debate. The more often that the hon. Lady is allowed to take these debates for the Opposition, the better we will move forward. It may be that her hon. Friend will be promoted back to the Department of Energy fairly shortly.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): No, no.
  Mr. Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment.
  I want to turn to some points that have been made in the debate. An important point concerned other Bills that could come before this House in the future. The Home report will be moving towards legislation and we fully accept the case. Obviously it is not possible to give a commitment to a date of introduction, but the time has not been wasted. The utilities, the statutory undertakers, the highway authorities and the Department of Transport have been doing essential development work on fleshing out the Home report, and agreement has been reached on contentious issues. That means that when the legislation comes before the House it should be possible to consider it in detail without too much dissension. It is important to recognise that the Home report and the replacement of the public utilities and streets works legislation should lead to cost reductions both for the statutory undertakers and utilities and for the highway authorities, and should lead to a better deal for those who pay the charges of the utilities, those who fund the local highway authorities, and should provide better movement through the streets for bus passengers, car drivers and, for that matter, pedestrians on the pavement.
  There has been a reference to the North committee. The response to the North committee report was published recently. It shows the Government's commitment to improving the contribution that the law can make to road casualty reduction. Legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time can be found for the major package of reforms. There are some details outside the North committee report on which the Home Office is still expecting responses to its consultations about some police powers.
  1096
  We need to recognise that it is not legislation that has brought about the dramatic reduction in road casualties in this country. Legislation can contribute but the major change has been a new culture on the roads in which people expect co-operation, care and courtesy and in which people recognise that we all make mistakes and that room must be made for the mistakes of others.
  My hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of motor cyclists rightly said that they are more vulnerable than others, are involved in crashes more often and that the consequences of each crash are worse for them. We should all try to remember that pedestrians and motor cyclists are human beings. Because we are in a one tonne steel vest—a motor car—whether we are commuting or using it as a sales representative or an engineer, we must not forget that we share the responsibility for those more vulnerable than ourselves.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the time scale for some of the other measures mentioned in the motor cycle safety package. We hope to announce decisions shortly on some of the other elements. We have done the best we can to bear in mind the views and responses we have received. The Motorcycle Action Group has done a great deal to promote defensive riding techniques and it concentrates on important issues. However, I am not sure that it is necessary for the group to advertise a
  "Loadsatrouble (Riders' Rights Day) T-shirt—as worn by your Transport Minister! Still available. Black on Grey only. £4·99 plus 30p postage and packing."
  It is available from PO Box 750, Birmingham, B30 3BA.
  The serious point made by Mag News on defensive riding techniques is that the road user, who is often at fault—not always—usually manages to pick on an inexperienced motor cyclist with whom to tangle. The ratio of risk for motor cyclists up to the age of 20 used to be 20 times as great as for motor cyclists aged 25-plus—that describes my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—and it is now a ratio of 13:1. Therefore, there has been an improvement in safety for the younger motor cyclist. That is important, but the risk is still too great and must be reduced.
  I can give an illustration of the importance of training. Research shows that three quarters of motor cyclists do not use their front brake for straight line braking. That is perhaps the biggest single mistake we are making and it shows that the training has not been adopted into the habits and practices of motor cyclists. It also demonstrates the importance of initial basic training so that we do not simply rely on someone's experience as a cyclist. We need them to understand that motorised two-wheel movement—mopeds and motor cycles—is different. It is important to keep what is good about motor cycling rather than to accept that it should be eliminated. No one wants that to happen. I would be happy to see much more motor cycling—there used to be more in the past—as long as the casualty rate keeps coming down. That is the real test for motor cycling.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the motor cycle training course fee. It is important to realise that we are not necessarily talking about compulsory basic training as a one-day course or any other fixed format. We want to ensure that people become competent as soon as possible. Some may be able to do that in a day but others may take longer and some may want to train in a collection of hours put together. However, that is not for us to dictate

  1097
  immediately. There may be a range of provisions. We do not have a preconceived idea of what the course fee is likely to be. We hope that it will not be necessary to fix a fee. The powers given by clause 6 are to safeguard the position of trainees so that they will not be faced with exorbitant charges.
  We hope that training organisations will offer full packages of training of which the basic element is only one part. It is important that people taking up motor cycling should realise that it will not be a matter of, "Come and see us for a day and then do not bother to come back until the end of the time during which you can ride on your L-plates." It is better to follow the line taken by motor cycle retailers, manufacturers, training organisations and riders groups who say, rightly, that if one is to take up motor cycling, one should have full training in order to gain experience and skill with good instructors and experienced motor cyclists. I pay tribute to many in the police, road safety organisations and other groups who give their time to provide that training for new motor cyclists.
  The hon. Member for Deptford also asked whether there would be enough training sites to meet demand. That point was rightly picked up on behalf of the rural interests by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. There are now 190 different organisations authorised to provide training and the part 1 test. They operate from over 900 approved sites throughout Great Britain and employ more than 4,000 instructors. If all those training sites and instructors were to operate the new compulsory basic training, there would be enough to cope with likely demand. We are currently conducting a survey through local authority road safety officers to find out how many instructors are based at each site, whether training machines are available and to discover the current and potential throughput of trainees. The survey will identify approved sites which are not currently being used and parts of the country that are not well served by training facilities. In those areas, local motor cycle dealers may have a role to play in providing training facilities if they wish to continue to sell learner machines.
  As assurance was given in the other place that the scheme will not be introduced until adequate facilities exist. I am happy to repeat that assurance now. We will take full account of the special problems of rural areas. I do not want to be led into giving too full an assurance that exemptions will be given simply on grounds of distance. We would need to find a way to overcome that problem. It is important to obtain safety for new motor cyclists whether they live in rural or built up areas. We need to recognise the widespread nature of the population and the absence of a town or city in which one could obtain a good throughput of trainees on a regular basis.
  I was asked about the monitoring of standards of motor cycle instruction. The Department is already responsible for the appointment of training bodies and those who sign part 1 test certificates. The Motor Cycle Association—I pay tribute to its work in discussing the proposals—has made tentative proposals to set up a body to monitor and train the training instructors. I expect to meet the director general of the MCA on 3 May to discuss training and I hope to hear the MCA's proposition. I would not want to
  1098
  prejudge the reaction to the proposals until I hear from the experts how they think we should move forward. We want to move forward together.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made the important point that motor cyclists could experience the course and demonstrate to the instructor, rather than the examiner—that is a better way of putting it—that he cannot ride safely. Trainees would successfully complete their basic training only if they demonstrate that they are able to ride unsupervised. I do not want people to believe that we are substituting a new test. We simply want people to demonstrate that they can ride competently. I may be splitting hairs, but that is not supposed to be seen as a test. Hopefully, trainees will accept that they should go on to further training and try to pass the proper test as soon as they reasonably can. The days are gone when people should expect to ride around on L-plates year after year without having to ride a motor cycle under an examiner's eyes for half an hour or more.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley also mentioned lorry and bus licensing and many hon. Members have made the same points. We are trying to bring lorry and bus licensing into line. The first full licence will run to the age of 45 and renewals for professional drivers will be every five years until the age of 65. Thereafter, an annual renewal will be needed. Medical reports will be required on each application. The medical profession generally agrees that the mid-forties is the time when serious medical conditions begin to appear. The incidence of medical conditions affecting drivers aged between 18 and 45 is small. That assertion is borne out by the cases coming before the medical advisers at Swansea. In reaching decisions on the fitness of applicants the Secretary of State will be guided by advice published by medical experts as well as by the honorary medical panels.
  The hon. Member for Deptford raised the issue of compensation for time lost at work because of more frequent medical checks. I want to take this opportunity of reminding every licence holder that it states on every licence, whether it is a green or a pink licence:
  "You are required to tell the Drivers Medical Branch, DVLC, Swansea, SA1 1TU at once if you have any disability (includes any physical or medical condition) which affects (or may in the future affect) your fitness as a driver if you expect it to last more than 3 months."
  That is an obligation on each of us.
  I welcome the fact that many drivers notify Swansea. They are not always disqualified if they raise a question. In fact, it provides an assurance for the driver just as much as for anybody else. I suspect that many elderly people who notify Swansea of an eyesight or other medical condition are pleasantly surprised when they discover that they can continue driving. They may be subject to continued regular medical checks, but this is an assurance for the driver as well as for the rest of us. So people should not be worried about notifying conditions to Swansea. They certainly will be committing an offence if they hide a condition that should be notified.
  We realise that some people in professional driving are worried about the possibility that they may have to give up driving midway in their career. The medical standards are applied to protect other road users from the consequences of collapse at the wheel of bus, lorry or other large-vehicle drivers. It is important that drivers who are not able to meet the standards do not drive such vehicles.

  1099
  The provision of compensation is not a matter for Government; it has to be worked out through normal employer-employee relationships.
  Drivers whose work depends on meeting certain strict health standards may also insure against unexpected deterioration in their health. It is important to recognise that this applies equally to someone who may be a service engineer or a sales person in that their job may depend upon having a driving licence. People should have the opportunity of anticipating whether their health will determine their work, and it is well worth considering insurance and, in organised groups, seeing if that can be part of negotiated contracts of employment. Otherwise individuals can do it.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked about appeals. The vast majority of reconsidered decisions are decisions taken on medical grounds and the medical adviser is the best person to apply the standards in individual cases. The courts are the most appropriate appeal forum in general. They are in the best position to give the necessary weight to additional factors that may be introduced. The ordinary licence holder has no reconsideration procedure. There is no indication that this has resulted in any unfairness, although, as I have said, the loss of an ordinary licence can be just as severe for those who depend on cars for their livelihood as the loss of a vocational licence can be to a lorry or bus driver.
  The driver licensing systems and judicial processes in other European Community member states are quite different. We shall be looking closely at their arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked again, as she did on Tuesday, about the staff implications of the transfer to the DVLC in Swansea and the effect on the speed of service. Vocational licences are currently issued manually by staff in traffic area offices. When these licences are issued in Swansea it will be through the fully computerised facilities there. By replacing a manual licensing system by a computerised system and unifying vocational and ordinary driver licensing within a single system, with the economies of scale at Swansea, we shall both save staff and improve the quality of service. There may well be some increase of staff at Swansea.
  The staff and administrative savings have been estimated at about £1 million a year. The turn-round times for dealing with lorry and bus driving licence transactions will be speeded up by about 40 per cent. or more. So we ought to get both a more efficient system and one that provides more advantages to the person applying for a licence or a variation of one.
  I turn now to the autoguide system. The hon. Member for Deptford asked whether this would lead to rat-running. I believe that it will lead to a reduction in rat-running because often many of the rats are continuing to move but are taking longer to get to their destination. It is important that the designated roads, the main roads, are the ones that carry the through traffic. I have given strong support over the years to traffic management arrangements, whether they involve physical restraints or efforts to ease the junctions which at present encourage rat-running. That is why we have in London designated roads and some trunk roads. We want to make sure that there are not changes which lead to greater chances of rat-running.
  There is no reason to think that autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic. The main roads generally
  1100
  offer quicker journey times and certainly should. The proposed large-scale pilot autoguide system will allow local authorities, the police and the Department to evaluate in detail the likely effects of a commercial system, including the effects upon minor roads. The Secretary of State would be able to impose licence conditions about the roads on to which the system could direct traffic. This power is in clause 10(8)(b).
  It is quite important not to set down in advance that local authorities should be able to have a veto. When the hon. Member for Deptford was talking about integrated transport authorities, I was reminded of the county London Plan 1943, the Bressey report 1938 and "History of the London County Council 1889–1939", by Gibbon and Bell. From those we see that it was local authorities that banned the expansion of the trolley bus system in London because they did not want to see overhead wires. We must regret those decisions; it would have been nice to see an expansion of the trolley bus system.
  It is important that we get the experience of the pilot autoguide system. Then we shall have better information on whether my assertion is right that we should end up with less rat-running, or whether the fears which the hon. Lady has quite rightly expressed are justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised the question of the private sector and whether the Secretary of State would use his powers. We hope that he will not have to use his powers, but we have to make provision in legislation to cover eventualities. Some of us may remember the little difficulty we had on Friday in getting the cashless parking Bill through. That was to provide primary legislative cover for local authorities to charge for off-street car parks without using cash. It would be ridiculous to lose this opportunity of giving the Secretary of State the necessary powers, but we hope it will not be necessary for them to be used.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and also, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked questions about clause 10 and the conditions which the Secretary of State might seek to include in licences for the operation of autoguide and other systems. As I have said, we hope that it will not be necessary to use these powers.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the effect of autoguide and similar systems on road safety. It is quite plain that if people know where they are driving—this applies to autoguide as well as to conventional signing and to the digital radio system to which reference has been made—they get there more quickly and by a shorter route and do not have to cover unnecessary parts of the route. That reduces the exposure to risk. It also means that they can concentrate on their driving instead of wondering whether they are going in the right direction. So all the ways of improving signing are important, including variable message signs on motorways, the BBC's radio data system and a review of the traffic signs regulations.
  I mentioned that 1989 is the year of the sign. We reissued our little booklet and also a traffic advisory unit guide to road signs last week in Brighton at an exhibition. We are making major moves forward. Anyone who wants can go and look at the demonstration sign project in Guildford or the A3 signing which is coming forward and will see some of the improvements. We hope shortly to announce new ideas for signing in London and autoguide will fit in with the system, subject to Parliament. I ought to say perhaps that as a result of the agricultural crisis we

  1101
  have changed the name of the illustrative motorway service area from "Good Egg" to "Good Food", in order to keep up with the times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has reminded us again of his enthusiasm for a London traffic management unit. At the moment we have organised control of the traffic system. In King's building we have the Metropolitan police with their supervision. My hon. Friend has made various suggestions following up his Adjournment debate in December and more recently there have been reports in the papers of steeper parking fines, red lines on important routes and better parking enforcement generally. All this has been very much welcomed—except by those who have been caught. I met a group of bus and coach operators this morning who also mentioned my hon. Friend's proposals.
  The hon. Member for Deptford talked about autoguides and Berlin. Berlin is a scientist's dream. There is no commuting traffic; people cannot drive in from the suburbs. The traffic management arrangement is significantly different from London's. We shall continue with the close Anglo-German co-operation.
  There is much support in Europe for the British approach, which places the investment responsibility with the private sector and control and licensing in the public sector with the Secretary of State.
  I will finish by referring to the eyesight point. Most of the people who have the highest involvement in injury accidents have the best eyesight. The problem in general is not people's quality of vision but the processing of the information they get through their eyes. It can be befuddled by drink or misguided by youth and inexperience. I can see that the hon. Lady does not agree with me. Perhaps we had better have another meeting with the college of opthalmologists—if that is the appropriate group—and see if we can find scientific evidence from this country or other countries showing that eyesight makes a major contribution. I suspect that if one could get younger drivers to see a psychiatrist one would be able to spot the ones who will have real trouble.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to motorists from other European countries and that is a point that we can perhaps take forward. As I said on Tuesday, there is no provision for endorsing foreigners' licences. Most countries do not have that kind of system.
  1102
  People in many more countries are interested in our systems and are going to Swansea to see how they work. In time, the European Community may move forward to our system, so that people cannot wantonly commit offences in other countries. However, courts have power to seize the licences of foreign drivers when they commit serious offences.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley talked about light goods vehicles. That point follows the consideration of minibus driver licensing as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham talked about the format and durability of drivers' licences. We think that they are reasonably good, but we will see whether we can improve the plastic wallets for licences.
  Having heard hon. Members' comments, I welcome the general support for both parts of the Bill. Whether we are concerned with the future of motor cycling, of autoguide or the other provisions, I hope that we can move forward and increase safety and provide a better service for those who use the roads.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVER LICENSING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS) BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVER LICENSING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS) BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]
  Resolved,
  That any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords] may—

  (a) authorise the inclusion in licences for operating driver information systems of terms requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State; and

  (b) provide for the payment of those and other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  Atomic Energy Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant document: Third Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1988–89 on British Nuclear Fuels plc: Report and Accounts 1987–88 (HC 50).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  A prime purpose of the Bill, defined in clause 1, is to raise the financial limit imposed on British Nuclear Fuels plc by the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Acts of 1977 and 1981. The limit is currently set at £1,500 million, and clause 1 proposes that it should be increased to £2,000 million.
  The financial limit consists of payments for shares in the company, the principal on outstanding Government loans to BNFL, and the guarantees given by the Government in support of BNFL's borrowing from commercial sources. We need to raise the limit so that BNFL can borrow with Government guarantees the sums required to complete its current investment programme.
  To keep its place in the forefront of the nuclear fuel cycle industry, BNFL must invest for the future, and it has in hand a massive capital programme amounting to more than £5 billion to the end of the century, mainly in support of its waste management and reprocessing business at Sellafield.
  The company raises its finance in the private sector, backed by Government guarantee, and under successive Governments has been classified as a private sector body for public expenditure purposes. Its borrowing is therefore not part of the public sector borrowing requirement. Guarantees are issued only for specific loans, and each application for a loan guarantee is scrutinised by the Department of Energy, the Treasury and the Bank of England before we agree to accept the liability.
  BNFL expects to breach the existing statutory limit in 1990. As acknowledged yesterday by the Energy Select Committee, the main reason for this is BNFL's need to finance, up to 1992, £500 million worth of extensions and improvements to the low active waste treatment plants at Sellafield. Those plants ensure that active effluent discharges are kept as low as reasonably practicable. Radiological effluent is already less than 5 per cent. of what it was in 1978, and with this further expenditure should be reduced to near zero by the mid-1990s. Expenditure on the scale required to achieve that level was not envisaged when the current limit was set in 1981.
  It is expected that BNFL's total borrowings will peak at around £1,700 million over the next four years, provided that all present income projections are realised. In the mid-1990s, as the plants now being built come on stream and start to generate funds, BNFL expects to have sufficient funds available internally to meet its capital expenditure requirements and progressively to pay off its borrowings.
  BNFL has been consistently profitable since its inception, and has provided the Government, as shareholder, with a dividend for the past 12 years. In 1987–88, the dividend payment amounted to £36 million. There is no current expectation, therefore, that we would need to seek any further increases in the limit.
  Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the costs of nuclear safety research which the Health and Safety Commission
  1104
  sponsors to be recovered from nuclear site licensees and licence applicants. The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy announced last year that the role of customer for much of the safety research currently sponsored by his Department would be transferred to the Health and Safety Commission as from 1 April 1990. That will enable the commission to ensure the future adequacy and balance of nuclear safety research programmes. The programmes will be managed by the Health and Safety Executive on the commission's behalf.
  The principal objectives which the commission will be asked to fulfil will be set out in agreed guidelines provided by the Secretary of State for Energy. The commission will be charged with ensuring that adequate and balanced nuclear safety research programmes continue to be carried out, and that the results of the research are disseminated to maximise their contribution to safety. This will, of course, require the commission to maintain close collaboration with the nuclear industry and the UKAEA so as to be fully aware of what safety-related work the industry is doing on its own account. The commission is establishing machinery to do that.
  The commission will, however, also need to sponsor research on its own account to ensure that the totality of research is adequate and it will need to see to it that a sufficient independent nuclear safety research capacity is maintained.
  The present cost of the research being transferred is about £20 million per year. The effect of the transfer will therefore be to reduce Government expenditure by that amount. Clause 2 will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover the costs which it incurs in connection with its licensing function from nuclear site licensees and applicants for licences.
  Costs relating to a licence application are not at present recoverable until a licence is granted, and cannot be recovered at all if the application is refused or withdrawn. The new provisions will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover its costs before, and whether or not, a licence is granted.
  Clauses 3 and 4 make technical amendments to the rules on insurance cover for meeting third-party compensation claims in the event of nuclear incidents. Section 18 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 sets out the method for determining the maximum contribution which the Government might make towards meeting the cost of compensation claims. Factors which have to be taken into account are those amounts which are available from nuclear operators' insurance arrangements, and any contributions which may be available from other Governments under relevant international conventions.
  At present the UKAEA, because of its position as a public sector body, is not required to cover its liabilities by commercial insurance arrangements. However, following the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986, the authority's operations are now being undertaken on a more commercial "trading fund" basis, and occasions may arise—for instance, when a trading partner is involved—when commercial insurance is considered a more attractive option than the self-insurance which is normal for Government bodies. This clause will remove any doubt which might exist about whether funds available from any such commercial insurance should be taken into account when computing the Government's contribution. It also removes any possible doubt about whether insurers would have a liability to pay.

  1105
  Clause 4 is designed to overcome an unintended defect which has come to light in the drafting of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It will avoid the need for new insurance cover to be taken out when a new nuclear site licence has to be issued for purely technical reasons—for instance, where the boundaries of an existing site are extended.
  Clause 5 makes the necessary changes to our domestic law to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the international convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, widely known as the mutual assistance convention. That is one of two conventions negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency following the accident at Chernobyl. The other relates to early notification.
  We need to make no changes to the law in respect of the early notification convention, but we intend to ratify both conventions at the same time. The Government have already agreed to act as though bound by the two conventions.
  Before ratification of the mutual assistance convention, two changes to our domestic legislation are required. Clause 5 makes the necessary financial provision to enable payments to be made in the event of the United Kingdom responding to a request for assistance and to receive payments if we decide to seek the reimbursement provided for in the convention. It also provides the necessary cover for affording certain privileges and immunities to persons from a state which is providing assistance. The United Kingdom was one of the first signatories to those conventions, which have been in force for some time. It is important that we should be able to ratify them as soon as possible, and the provisions of clause 5 will enable us to do that.
  This is a largely technical but nevertheless important Bill. I have made my opening remarks about it essentially factual, but I will answer any points that hon. Members wish to raise if, with the leave of the House, I speak again at the end of the debate.
  I should make two comments about the report of the Energy Select Committee which was published yesterday and which Mr. Speaker has ruled is debatable today. The first concerns the question of BNFL's costs. The Committee's report focuses attention on the eightfold increase in costs at the low level disposal site at Drigg. That has been interpreted by some commentators as a general criticism of cost control at BNFL. Clearly, that is a misinterpretation of the facts put forward by the Committee. The Government believe that a privatised electricity industry, in which nuclear costs in particular will be much more clearly exposed, will motivate BNFL further to improve its cost controls, especially as the switch is made from cost plus to fixed price contracts.
  Secondly, I believe that the Committee has been grossly misrepresented on the question of the dumping of foreign nuclear waste from the pre-1976 contracts. All contracts for the reprocessing of spent fuel signed after 1976 are subject to clauses requiring the return of waste to the countries of origin. Reports in the press have talked today of 1,500 tonnes of waste from the pre-1976 contracts requiring storage in this country. That has resulted from a
  1106
  misreading of the Committee's report. In fact, the 1,500 tonnes is spent fuel, 97 per cent. of which is recovered in the form of plutonium and uranium.
  About 100 cubic metres, or two bus loads, of high level waste—rather different from 1,500 tonnes—will arise from that reprocessing, which is a small portion of the total waste arising up to the year 2000. All contracts signed since 1976—in particular the vast majority of the £2 billion worth of business signed up with the Japanese, which makes THORP the largest earner of yen in the country—require the repatriation of waste.
  Should the House wish me to do so, I will elaborate further on the Government's initial views on the Select Committee report.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of what appears to be an innocuous Bill. As he said, they are designed primarily to raise the borrowing limits of British Nuclear Fuels plc, to tidy up current legislation and to bring us into line with Europe so that we may comply with the convention to which he referred. Opposition Members have no wish to oppose any of those aims. Indeed, from the point of view of the convention and the tidying up of current legislation, we regard the Bill as a step forward.
  We applaud the timing of the Bill, for two reasons. First, the measure relates to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; secondly, it forces us to reiterate many of the doubts that were raised in the report of the Select Committee on Energy which was published yesterday and which Mr. Speaker has ruled is relevant to this debate.
  We are told that the borrowing limits must be increased to finance the completion of THORP, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. The history of that construction, like that of much of the nuclear power industry, is littered with increases in costs and time scales.
  When permission was first granted for the THORP plant in 1978, it was to take nine years to complete, at a cost of £300 million. By 1983, the time scale had been extended to 12 years and the cost to £1·2 billion. By the beginning of this year, the start-up was expected to take place 14 years after permission was first granted, at a cost of £1·1 billion more than the first estimate of £300 million. There has been a truly incredible increase in capital cost and time scale. Some, if not all, of those additional costs have occurred as a result of the nuclear installations inspectorate having examined the original plans and decided—presumably because of lessons that were learned about the nuclear industry—that it was necessary to alter the plans substantially.
  While all that has been going on, the cost of reprocessing oxide fuels has risen sharply. As a result, there will be an operating loss, certainly on the earliest contracts that were made on a fixed cost basis, a subject to which the Minister referred and to which I will return. May we be told how much the loss is likely to be on those early fixed-price contracts? Who will shoulder the burden of that loss—BNFL, as a result of this measure, or the taxpayer?
  BNFL reports that the cost of the construction of THORP will be recouped by about the year 2000, taking into account the early contracts that were signed with the British nuclear industry and some foreign companies.

  1107
  What the future holds, after those contracts have been completed, one cannot say. After all, the reprocessing plant has a potential life of 25 years. The potential for acquiring contracts after those already signed have expired is questionable because, by that time, there will be continental reprocessing plants bidding in competition. It is clear that, at that stage, BNFL will not be seen as the only organisation capable of handling nuclear waste. Clearly, a number of question marks hang over the future of the reprocessing plant.
  In the home market, the CEGB—which will become National Power if the Government have their way and nuclear generating is handed to the private sector—and the successor company in Scotland to the SSEB suggested, have no contracts for reprocessing. There is also doubt about whether fuel from the AGRs and PWRs to be built at Sizewell and Hinkley should go for reprocessing.
  Nobody questions the fact that Magnox waste must be reprocessed because of its dangerous condition and deterioration after its useful life in a reactor. We must therefore take action on it. Whether or not the reprocessing of AGR and PWR fuels will be necessary in the future has been questioned in the Select Committee's report and several times previously by people who are eminent in this subject, who believe that dry storage of such fuels would perhaps be a safer and cleaner way of handling them once they have come to the end of their useful lives in nuclear reactors.
  The market to which reprocessing was to sell its plutonium—the fast breeder reactor market—has currently been suspended by the Government. No doubt the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will want to mention that later. It was envisaged that THORP might be a place where fuel could be prepared for the fast breeder reactors, and not just in this country—we do not limit ourselves—because we might have found a market elsewhere in the world. Although it was envisaged that THORP might have played a useful role, the report has brought that into question.
  The world price of uranium is lower than the cost of reprocessing recycled uranium, and is likely to remain so. The report also highlighted the fact that, in the past decade, there has not been the increase that people thought there might have been in the cost of uranium. Although the availability of that type of fuel can be limited, at the moment it is still plentiful on the market and hence there has been only a reasonable increase in its cost, which is not as excessive as that of some other fuels.
  As the Select Committee report states:
  "The public perception of the safety record of BNFL and the well-known difficulties here and abroad of accounting accurately for plutonium stocks have not helped the environmental case for reprocessing."
  It is interesting that the Minister has said that his Department has scrutinised each and every contract entered into by BNFL. One would think that that is only right because the Government are the only shareholder of the company, but if there has been scrutiny at the level that the Minister suggested we must question why we have not had any proper explanation about increasing the cost of the THORP project.
  More importantly, there is also a question mark over the further use of THORP because the first contracts that were signed on what, until the debate started, we were led to believe was a cost-plus basis have ended and, over their time scale, have presumably paid for all the extra expenses
  1108
  involved in the construction of THORP. As we are being asked to grant permission for BNFL to borrow more money, it is only right that we ask the Government to justify their already massive investment and that involved in their future plans, especially in view of what I have said about the likely use of the THORP project.
  The experience of THORP does not bode well for the planned large-scale thermal mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility that is currently being contracted and built at THORP. From the Select Committee report, we understand that neither the CEGB nor, presumably, its successor, which will comprise the same people in the same business—National Power—nor the SSEB, nor its successor in the Scottish nuclear power industry, has any plans at this stage to use the mixed oxide fuel, which is also known by the abbreviation of MOX. While BNFL says that there will be a price advantage over conventional fuel, the electricity generating companies say that there will not. The fact is that £50 million may seem a small amount now but that money is currently being expended and, as the report rightly points out, there is some doubt about whether the project will produce fuel for the nuclear electricity market in years to come.
  As the report stated, perhaps the Government will assess who is correct before the proposals are advanced. That point is worthy of an answer at a later stage in our proceedings on the Bill, if not tonight. I think that we shall wish to take the Bill into Committee, perhaps for just a short time. Hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Electricity Bill will he pleased to know that. Nevertheless, the report has highlighted many questions that need answering and I hope we shall receive answers to them.
  Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Minister to tell us who is to take over the ownership of the stocks of plutonium and whether the private sector electricity companies will police that. In our earlier debates on the Electricity Bill, I used the phrase, "selling off the family plutonium". Without question this important issue concerns many people.
  I am sure that people are well aware of the trade in weapons-grade plutonium throughout the world. If we can believe much of the international debate, many countries that we, as a country, feel are unstable are handling such fuels. We have heard on several occasions that publicly owned or part publicly owned companies have not always been too good at handling weapons-grade plutonium. Indeed, we are led to believe that it has left these and other shores that are supposed to be responsible when handling it and that it has ended up on shores which we may not like to be used as a basic material for nuclear weapons. We are concerned about that, and this debate gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us what the Government envisage will happen in the new framework.
  That issue also begs the question of some of the strong rumours that we have heard, that BNFL itself may be a candidate for privatisation in the years ahead. If the present ideology continues, perhaps the only thing that is likely to be saved from privatisation is the air that we breathe—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the Government are considering it, because the Minister is nodding his head. As some of the people who currently advise the Government probably are considering it, we shall have to wait and see what happens. If BNFL were to go into the private sector, that would again raise the question of

  1109
  exactly who will look after plutonium in the future. We hope to hear one or two comments from the Minister on that at some stage.
  As the Select Committee report stated, it seems that the Government have maintained
  "the profitability of BNFL, a Government-owned plc, but"
  reduced
  "greatly the profitability of the public corporations which the Government is about to privatise."
  The Minister will remember the famous draft letter of January—one of many to which we referred in our proceedings on the Electricity Bill—written by Mr. John Baker, the chief executive-designate of National Power, who had grave concerns about privatised nuclear electricity generation and about who would have to pick up what has become, week by week, a growing and expensive bill. That fact was highlighted in the Select Committee's report. Back in January, in the letter that was drafted but not sent, Mr. Baker warned the Government that the flotation of National Power was at risk and that one of the reasons for that was the prices charged by BNFL for the nuclear fuel cycle.
  Mr. Baker stated:
  "we do not see how National Power with an arms length contract with BNFL is in any position to put additional incentives on BNFL…if HMG as its shareholder cannot."
  It appears that Mr. Baker won the argument at the time. At least, we can assume that, because we have not had a statement from the Government. However, on 23 March, The Guardian stated:
  "The Government signalled its willingness to provide a nuclear indemnity after ministers were told that financial institutions would not invest in a venture with as many financial uncertainties as nuclear power."
  Therefore, if, according to Mr. Baker, the newly privatised National Power is only to meet the costs of nuclear power which, as The Guardian put it, are "within management control", what will be the status of its contracts with BNFL?
  At the moment, contracts are made on a "cost unknown" basis at the time of signing. Have those contracts been renegotiated as the CEGB and the SSEB have wanted for a considerable number of years? If so, what effect will that have on the reprocessing plant at Sellafield? If those contracts have been renegotiated, how much will the Government give BNFL to buy out the existing contracts? That is very important, because someone will have to pay if the cost-plus contracts are being bought out.
  People interested in the nuclear industry, and British taxpayers, will want to know how the change in cost-plus contracts will take place. If they have been renegotiated, are the Government content to see the contracts continue under their present terms? I understand that the overseas contracts have also been made on a cost-plus basis. Will there be a change in the British element in THORP, but no change in the foreign element? The Bill gives us an opportunity to debate those matters and seek answers to those questions.
  If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we should also scrutinise the process which has been established for the costs of decommissioning. BNFL's customers' liability for BNFL decommissioning costs has risen more than fivefold despite a 58 per cent. reduction in the present value of the total liability by the use of a 2 per cent. a year discount.
  1110
  However, that is based on present prices. By the time decommissioning takes place, depending on when the very expensive third phase is finished, the costs are bound to have risen considerably. The history of the nuclear industry suggests that that will happen and that back-end costs are likely to rise in the same way as front-end costs have risen.
  We can only assume that BNFL is postponing decommissioning to avoid the costs today. By putting off for 100 years the non-productive high cost end of the nuclear fuel cycle, BNFL reduces the cost for its customers today.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy which sought oral evidence from BNFL in November last year, will be able to clarify a point for me. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who asked Mr. Neville Chamberlain a question, part of which was:
  "Since the nuclear industry has always claimed that decommissioning presents no technical or safety problems, could you perhaps take this opportunity of reassuring the Committee that this delay is not designed to boost short-term profits?"
  Mr. Chamberlain replied:
  "We can certainly give the assurance that it is designed to boost short-term profits."
  There may be a printing error in that memorandum to the Select Committee. For the year under consideraton, there would have been a difference in terms of annual profits involving £14 million. If BNFL believes that spreading decommissioning over a long period helps its annual costs, we can assume that the CEGB and the SSEB—and presumably National Power—are thinking along the same lines. Their policy will be much the same.
  My next points relate to the Electricity Bill, which has just completed its Report stage in this House. The Select Committee on Energy and many other people have suggested that the time scale for decommissioning may be brought forward, while Mr. Chamberlain has said that the time scale is an important accountancy factor. Bearing those two points in mind, schedule 12 to the Electricity Bill might be triggered.
  In Standing Committee, when we debated clause 88, we asked how the money in schedule 12, which is not Government money, as the Prime Minister often tells us, but taxpayers' money, involving billions of pounds, could be triggered for use in the nuclear industry if the regulatory body or the Government decided to change the time scale.
  Mr. John Baker's draft letter revealed his deep unhappiness at having to buy the nuclear part of electricity generation along with a substantial tranche of fossil fuel plants. If Mr. Baker is now satisfied that he will not incur any additional costs, has his satisfaction been gained through the possible use of the triggering of schedule 12 of the Electricity Bill? Has that trigger made Mr. Baker happy about taking on board the nuclear industry, because he was deeply unhappy about it last January? Post-privatisation—in a few years' time—will there be a change in the time scale for decommissioning? Will that trigger schedule 12 and bring taxpayers' money into this very expensive nuclear industry to satisfy the people who will take it over?
  We welcome certain aspects of the Bill. We welcome the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive with the nuclear installations inspectorate and the United

  1111
  Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Hopefully, that will improve people's perception of nuclear safety. Obviously, spreading the financial responsibilities is welcome.
  We welcome clauses 3 and 4, which relate to insurance cover. We assume that the proposals are the right way to proceed, although we hope that the provisions are never put to the test. However, we never know with this industry. There are large questions marks hanging over the nuclear industry, although thankfully not because of anything which has happened on a large scale in this country. But there are questions about liability should a major incident arise on the scale of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
  Clause 5 provides that the mutual assistance convention should be ratified. While the Opposition are pleased about that, we hope that it is not undermined in a way that was described in The Independent today. A civil servant was giving evidence to the Select Committee on Defence yesterday about the scuttling of nuclear submarines. I think that "scuttling" is the correct term, and I should know because my father served in the Navy for a considerable time during the war. I had understood that the London dumping convention to protect the environment would cover such scuttling and the Government claimed that the signing of that convention was a victory and a major step towards cleaning the world's environment.
  However, Mr. Nigel Paren, a senior MOD official, is quoted in The Independent as saying:
  "The Royal Navy's decommissioned nuclear submarines could be dumped at sea, despite the international convention against sea-disposal of vessels and harmful waste."
  If that is the case, I hope that, as soon as the convention in clause 5 is ratified, the Minister will tell all his civil servants exactly what that means. I hope that the convention will never need to be used, but these plans need to be made in case there are more incidents of the type that we saw in America and the USSR. I hope that the Government have a strong commitment to the convention. I shall be interested to see how our nuclear submarines are removed. I understand that one of them is in dry dock.
  I hope that the Minister will attempt to answer my questions either during the debate or later in Committee, because these issues are important for the industry and the British taxpayer. Our electricity generating industry and BNFL have been in public hands and perhaps that means that things are not as transparent as they will be in future.
  No matter what happens in future, we are talking about considerable nuclear costs. All the rights given by the Government to BNFL to borrow more money should be accompanied by instructions to use the money in a proper way. Whether or not we build new generators, Britain's nuclear industry will be with us for decades. We must make sure that it is soundly based and that investment in it is for good reasons. We must not invest in forms of technology that do not have a useful life. It is not our intention to move against the Bill, but perhaps we shall discuss it at greater length in Committee. We support much of the Bill, but some of it begs many questions.
  7.1 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: Once again, when one surveys the vast expanse of naked green on both sides of the House, one realises that when the House is tempted to discuss technical matters it is rather inclined to rear like a temperamental horse overtaken by an unsilenced motor
  1112
  car in a country lane. Perhaps that is not surprising in view of the many technical terms and facts in the Bill and the issues surrounding it. I shall come to that.
  I know that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (M r. Barron) prides himself on two apprenticeships that he served in the energy industry. The one in which he probably takes the most pride was his experience as a coal miner. The second, in which I hope he takes some pride, was his service for a time on the Select Committee on Energy on which we were very glad to have him. I was, therefore, pleased to hear him say at the end of his speech that he accepted the undoubted fact that the nuclear industry will be with us, and probably worldwide, for a long time. If some of the preliminary evidence that we have seen on the greenhouse effect, not only in this country but in virtually all the major industrial countries that are examining this issue, proves to be what is suggested, it looks as if there could be a dramatic and major expansion of the nuclear industry.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy for raising the two points on which he thought my Committee had been misrepresented. I accept without hesitation or qualification that we were rather misrepresented on the question of the so-called dumping of nuclear waste. That is a highly emotive phrase. and unfortunately when it appears in any Government document or Select Committee report it tends to be the first thing that the press seizes on because I think that i t shares the rather limited public perception of what exactly is meant by the results of the reprocessing of all kinds of nuclear materials.
  I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Minister on costs. He suggested that my Committee made an innocent—I think that was the word he used—misinterpretation of the situation at Drigg. That may or may not be so, but later I intend to deal with cost increases that my Committee and I regarded as serious matters. In a sense, the discussion on the Bill, which will increase the borrowing limits of BNFL by £500 million, is purely financial and technical. However, it raises much larger problems and graver issues.
  The task of the Select Committee on Energy is to examine annually the major energy industries in the public sector. Our report was both relevant and timely, although I concede and fully understand the dismay that it may have caused to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. I have the greatest respect for BNFL both as a company and an organisation and for what it is trying to do in and for Britain. I have also the greatest respect for its management. However, if I cannot escape the obligation of scrutiny, BNFL cannot: escape its consequences.
  To some extent, both the Committee and BNFL were the victims of tendentious selection in the way that our results were presented. For example, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, it has apparently been widely reported in the press that the Committee recommended the renegotiation of contracts. We did not do that at all. What we said was carefully considered. We said that we would strongly favour a recommendation that BNFL should renegotiate those contracts "were that practical." That phrase was quite deliberately inserted. We see no prospect of BNFL customers wishing to receive waste when they have entered contracts under which BNFL has undertaken to look at that matter. That is the first and quite serious misrepresentation.

  1113
  We were told that BNFL has been criticised for accepting contracts that made the United Kingdom a dumping ground for nuclear waste. The Committee strongly supports what BNFL is doing and believes that it is doing it well. There are some aspects of costs, with which I shall later deal, but BNFL's technical capacity is undoubted. We understand that it is immensely profitable for BNFL and for the United Kingdom for BNFL to do this work. However, we call, I think with some justification, for circumspection or caution over contracts that allow the United Kingdom to become, in the words of the Committee,
  "a repository for waste generated abroad."
  That was a deliberately low-key phrase and I emphasise the low-key intention of the Committee in reporting it in that way. The reason for that is that BNFL cannot handle it safely and profitability in the public relations sense if the public perception of all the problems surrounding the storage and proper technical handling of nuclear waste are such that the appropriate solutions cannot be adopted for what has often properly been called the "not in back my backyard" syndrome. That is a powerful syndrome when it comes to dealing with anything in the nuclear industry. It is because this public perception of the risks involved is seriously flawed that the Committee reached the conclusions that it did. We have advised caution.
  In terms of radiation we all live on one planet. It is in the interests of the whole human race for nuclear waste to be skilfully handled by those who have the technical competence to do it, and not many have. About three or four major countries can do it and nothing would be more disastrous than to encourage countries that do not have the skills or technologies to set out on their own.
  BNFL believes that we have been inaccurate in referring to very large price increases. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister. BNFL quoted Drigg in its press release this morning. Let us look at the facts. All these are taken either directly from BNFL's evidence or from the evidence that the Committee received from the Central Electricity Generating Board or the South of Scotland electricity board. I shall give the first example by quoting from page 9 of our report.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: In my speech I did not in any way criticise the Committee for its interpretation of the facts. I said that it concentrated on particular costs and that people outside then generalised on the Committee's arguments.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and I accept what he says.
  I shall now turn to the specific instances that justify my Committee's conclusions. On page 9 of the report the CEGB evidence suggested that in three specific areas the increases in price over a short period were 129 per cent., 20 per cent. and 27 per cent. On page 34 of our report there is a memorandum from the South of Scotland electricity board which drew attention to another area where the increase was 75 per cent. On page 36 the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in its memorandum gave the amounts that Harwell paid BNFL for the disposal of low-level waste at Drigg. For the year 1985–86 the cost was £26 million, for 1986–87 it was £29 million, for 1987–88 it was £145 million and for 1988–89 it was £260 million. The
  1114
  percentage increases available from those figures are 10·8 per cent., 388 per cent. and 79 per cent. Those are dramatic increases. On page 37 of the report the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pointed out that the decommissioning charge for 10 years had been estimated in 1986 at £85 million, but by 1987 it had gone up to £164 million.
  I turn to BNFL's own submission to raise much more serious issues. Evidence was taken from BNFL by the Select Committee on 10 December 1986. It estimated the total cost for decommissioning the nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom at £143 million; for Calder Hall and Chapelcross the cost was £30 million per station, and for the CEGB £60 million per station. When we considered the question again in 1987 the CEGB upped its estimate to £330 million and the evidence suggested that the figure lay between, at the most optimistic estimate, £185 million, and, at the most pessimistic, £1,000 million. My Committee recommended that the CEGB clarify its costings.
  Meanwhile, roughly at the same time, the Select Committee on the Environment reported. I shall return to that because the inference of its report has been quoted in defence, understandably, by BNFL. BNFL's own figures appear in annex 1 on page 27 of our report. They show that the total liability for decommissioning has grown from £438 million to £4,605 million. Those figures are my major concern. I wish to examine them. The Select Committee has sought, and will be seeking, more information on them.
  I should like to give the House a benchmark by which we can perhaps validate my and other judgments on the matter. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced an extremely interesting report in 1986 on the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. What comes out of it is an interesting range of costs for decommissioning what one might describe as standard pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors. It is £140 million to £150 million per reactor. The figures are available for anyone who would like to see them.
  The most informative analysis, which is also contained in that report, is from the United States, understandably, because that country has the largest civil reactor industry. Therefore, its analysis is most complete. Here we find some extraordinarily interesting information. The surplus facilities management programme of the Department of Energy in the United States plans to decommission 350 nuclear facilities over 20 years from 1986 to 2006 at a cost in total of $1·4 billion, or roughly $4 million per facility. The 1986 United States budget provision for that was a mere $56 million.
  There are three other interesting figures. The stabilisation of uranium tailings piles is to cost a total of $745 million, or $30 million per pile. The West Valley reprocessing plant will cost $136 million to decommission. The Shippingport reactor, which is the world's first commercial reactor to be decommissioned, will cost $98 million.
  Now I come to a very interesting table which sets out the total picture for the United States. We glean the following facts from the table. There are 77 reactors in a large sample, of which the costs of 65 are known and the costs of 12 are unknown. The total known cost of decommissioning that large amount of nuclear power is estimated at $3·7 billion, or $57 million per reactor. If we take an average of $57 million for each of the 12 plants for which no figures are known, we achieve a total cost for the

  1115
  whole of this major segment of the United States nuclear industry of $4·42 billion or—I deliberately translate it into sterling—roughly £2·6 billion. That is over the period from 1984 to 2119. It is remarkable that we should even be contemplating anything for 2119 when obviously no one here will have much interest in what is happening. I want to draw the attention of the House to the scale of that: £2·6 billion is roughly the cost of a major new nuclear facility such as Sizewell.
  Let us turn to BNFL's figures for the United Kingdom. They have risen from £438 million to £4,605 million. That is a total of $7,800 billion at $1·7 to the pound. Now comes the crucial comparison. Let us consider the size of the respective nuclear industries in the United States and the United Kingdom. Because statistics are so often carefully selected by those who choose to achieve one result or another, I have deliberately taken three bases of comparison—the use of oil equivalent, that is, conversion of nuclear power to oil; megawatts, electric capacity; and terawatt hours. The figures for the first are 124 million tonnes and 11 million tonnes; for the second, 101 million MWe and 14 million MWe; and for the third, 455 TWh and 48·9 TWh.
  So the United Kingdom has roughly one tenth of the United States' nuclear capacity and one third of the nuclear capacity which is summarised in the report of the OECD; the decommissioning costs have been estimated at a total of $4·42 billion. That third is now forecast to cost $3·42 billion more than the total estimate for the United States programme, which is three times as great. That is an astonishing figure. It suggests that we are proposing to spend on decommissioning resources of the order of two Sizewells, the Channel tunnel or the Severn barrage. I use those figures to give the House an idea of the scale.
  I come now to BNFL'S explanation. It says that it responded to a suggestion made to it by the Select Committee when it appeared before us that it should look more carefully at decommissioning costs. We certainly made that suggestion. BNFL would probably plead in its defence that it took even more seriously two suggestions by the Select Committee on the Environment. That Committee recommended that the industry should do better than the shoestring approach, and then said that the industry should really embrace the concept of a Rolls-Royce solution. It would be very easy to say, "Some shoestring"; I prefer to say, "Some Rolls-Royce".
  The whole issue is complex, confused and, because of its scale, alarming. Britain cannot expect to agonise over the budgetary constraints, as we do in virtually every Department of state, and vote almost £4,000 million on the nod of the basis of the information that we have. That is why we must discover much more about the scope and cost of that programme and what raised the estimate by £4 billion.
  As my Committee warned, the City's judgment of the whole privatisation procedure is bound to be affected by those figures. How can it be otherwise? Some months ago in the House I warned my right hon. and hon. Friends in the kindest possible way that I suspected that those costs would provide a major obstacle to what I believe they were trying to achieve. I cannot help but conclude that they will prove to be just such a major obstacle.
  As to the carriage by air of plutonium, the Select Committee on the Environment made a specific recommendation, which I endorse—particularly after Lockerbie. The Committee stated that that practice should
  1116
  be prohibited. Has it been prohibited? If not, has the whole question been considered? If it has been considered, what conclusion was reached? My judgment is that if plutonium is to be transported between this country and Japan, or to any other distant part of the globe, the only way that should be done is in a triple-hull, unsinkable ship escorted by a frigate. Even that would present certain dangers.
  We are in a sense considering the long-terra implications of our current nuclear industry, which could grow dramatically if, as a consequence of analysis of the greenhouse effect, the developed industrial world—all power-using countries—decides that there must be a significant increase in the use of nuclear power. If that occurs, all the known problems and the whole analysis on which they are based will become dramatically more important.
  Public and other misconceptions will arise and grow naturally, and they will often be fed by vested interest groups of one sort or another. Sometimes, the public are fed those misconceptions with great irresponsibility. Nevertheless, those misconceptions must not be allowed to foreclose the nuclear option. That is why we must insist on the most accurate, verifiable information that can possibly be obtained, and that it be made available to the House, where it can be fully discussed. Where there is risk assessment, it must be thorough and realistic. There really is no alternative.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) made an extremely important speech to which the whole House will have listened and, more importantly, will read with great attention. However, it must be said that this occasion is not wholly suitable for considering the wider implications of the Select Committee's important report. It is in a sense unfortunate that the debate follows within 24 hours of the report's publication. That may explain to some extent the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—the emptiness of the Chamber this evening.
  The hon. Member for Havant rested his speech on the frail support of this relatively modest Bill—although one recognises that the terms of the Select Committee's report were specifically allowed by Mr. Speaker, and that is welcome. The hon. Gentleman began his speech by drawing attention to the consensus in all parts of the House that the nuclear industry is here to stay and that, whatever decisions may be taken about the commissioning of new power stations, we shall continue to be affected by it for many decades to come. The hon. Member for Bother Valley (Mr. Barron) concluded his speech on that important point.
  The Bill deals with three principal, discrete matters—the first of which is the increase in British Nuclear Fuel plc's borrowing powers. That is to some extent a technical matter, but it allows one to raise the wider question as to whether the reasons for BNFL's increased costs are as have been stated by the Minister. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on the argument made by his hon. Friend the Member for Havant about decommissioning costs. However, I realise that the Government must give a considered reply to the Select Committee's report and will not be able to answer in full this evening all the points that have been and will he made.

  1117
  I want to reinforce a question asked by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. So many questions have been asked that the Minister may be tempted not to deal with them all. However, he ought to say something about the extraordinary report that appeared in today's issue of The Independent of a proposal by a Ministry of Defence official that nuclear submarines could be scuttled as a way of dealing with the decommissioning problem. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that such is not the Government's intention, because that solution is neither acceptable nor in accordance with our international agreements.
  The first principal subject I want to address that is directly related to the Bill is the need for a commitment to long-term nuclear research and development, which arises directly out of clause 2. From 1 April 1990, the Health and Safety Executive will, under the terms of the Bill, assume responsibility on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission for managing certain nuclear safety research currently undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and financed by the Department of Energy. It is vital to have a long-term programme of nuclear safety research and development, and it is insufficient to contemplate fire brigade action—turning out a task force of scientists and engineers to respond only when a nuclear safety problem rears its head. Instead, a dedicated team undertaking long-term research is needed, whose advice on safety matters would be immediately available if required, and whose foresight would ensure that sources of concern about nuclear safety are averted.
  That view was expressed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which stated in volume 1 of its report of 22 December 1987, entitled "Research and Development of Nuclear Power":
  "Companies in commercial production often feel the need to cut back on activities that do not show immediate commercial returns. Long-term research and development is by definition such an activity, but it is nevertheless essential. If the privatised industry fails to make its own arrangements, the Committee believes that the Government should make arrangements for them. It is ultimately the Government who are responsible for the long-term security of the nation's supplies of energy. Privatisation does not change that."
  Legislation, or at least firm Government policy, may be needed in the context of current plans to privatise the electricity supply industry in order to preserve intact vital long-term research and development programmes. The Minister spoke of a £20 million reduction in Department of Energy expenditure. All the Government propose is a change in the route by which funding from the industry reaches the authority. I fear that that direct use of industry money to fund research and development programmes may dangerously distort long-term safety research programmes, and starve vital projects of funds in that way.
  My next point concerns an omission from the Bill that is both surprising and significant. I refer to the lack of any provision to make good a defect in the legislation under which the UKAEA handles contracts and consultancy work and the fruits of its research and development. The staff of the Atomic Energy Authority represent a unique national resource—comparable with our resources of coal, oil and gas. It not only founded a major industry in this country, providing half the electricity in Scotland through nuclear power stations but now it is increasingly expanding its non-nuclear research and development
  1118
  activities. It is able to offer the benefits of its research and development to British industry.
  The authority should be able to derive full commercial benefit from the results of the research and development programme which it is permitted to carry out in non-nuclear areas. Its main enabling statutes—the Atomic Energy Authority Acts 1954 and 1986, and the Science and Technology Act 1965—restrict the ways in which the authority can pursue this commercialisation. It is not permitted to carry out non-nuclear manufacturing or commercial service activities based on its research findings, which is a major disadvantage. The Government have known of this for some time.
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology clearly saw this matter in the same light as I did. Volume 1 of its report on research and development in nuclear power says:
  "The UKAEA now operates on a trading fund basis. The Government wishes the UKAEA to be managed as far as possible commercially: but it proposes to continue the statutory restrictions which prevent the UKAEA from participating directly in the commercial exploitation of its expertise. The Committee feel this is inconsistent and they recommend that these restrictions be relaxed, providing there is no element of subsidy in tendering for commercial contracts."
  Why has the opportunity not been taken to include in the Bill that modification of these constituting Acts to allow the Atomic Energy Authority to engage in that commercial activity directly? It seemed the ideal vehicle by which to do so.
  I shall turn to a wider, third issue—the Bill does not reflect a national policy or strategy concerning the generation of electricity from nuclear power stations. The atomic energy industry is in disarray as a result of the Government's disaggregation of the supply industry—proposed through privatisation and the setting up of new companies. Formerly, the Central Electricity Generating Board had taken upon its shoulders the business of formulating and promulgating a national strategy.
  However, present signs are that National Power, the biggest of the companies in the disaggregated supply industry, is not prepared to take the same responsibility for formulating and promulgating a nuclear electricity strategy. The Government recognise this difficulty because they have ring-fenced the nuclear industry. However, that is a sterile, and inevitably temporary, measure. They define the industry as one which has the present size and type of nuclear installation, and offer no plan for adding to, or substituting for, those installations in a systematic way. That is sterile because, as Ministers have acknowledged, the ring fence will remain in place for only a few years. What will happen after that? Ministers have been vague about that in debates on the privatisation Bill. They seem to imply that nuclear power will have to stand on its own feet at the end of that period, or perhaps for 10 years. However, we all know what that is likely to mean—a process of erosion where, as reactors are shut down, they are replaced by whatever is the economic flavour of the day. At the moment, that would be stations fuelled by natural gas.
  This is not a strategy, a policy or even a proper response to market forces in an industry in which planning and constructing a nuclear power station takes a decade, and the station may operate for half a century. A national energy policy is needed. Although I cannot expect the

  1119
  Minister, in replying to the debate, to outline such a policy, the fact that the debate is conducted in this vacuum is striking. The proposals in the Bill do little to show even the way in which Ministers are thinking.
  The Minister will remember, because he alluded to it during debates on the privatisation Bill, the views of the County Emergency Planning Officers Society about the need for composite off-site emergency planning. I understand that, in November, the Department of Energy set up a liaison group as a national forum for considering public protection aspects of nuclear emergency planning. When the Electricity Bill was considered on Report, the Minister said that the lack of formal responsibility on local authorities to produce emergency plans for nuclear installations, such as exist for the chemical industry, had been noted. He said that legislative help was on the way for the integration of plans.
  The Bill has not been chosen as the vehicle for such help. What prospects are there for such legislation? The Bill ratifies the international convention on assistance in the case of accident or radiological emergency. It seems odd that these further safety measures, which are certainly cognate with the convention, have not been included in the Bill. When will the Minister's deliberations be completed?
  The Bill is broadly acceptable and its passage through the House should be supported. I hope that the fact that it has been linked tonight with some debate on the report of the Select Committee on Energy does not mean that this will be the sole opportunity for the House to debate the report of the hon. Member for Havant and his colleagues, because the subject that it covers goes beyond the ambit of the Bill, is important and should not be addressed in a short debate with the short notice that we have been given.
  7.39 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Having listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), I believe that he has adequately dealt with the escalation in costs. In defence of British Nuclear Fuels, I say only that it has had to maintain high standards, set by the nuclear installations inspectorate, and to deal with waste disposal to the satisfaction of the Select Committee on the Environment. A Rolls-Royce solution was much too expensive for the low level waste, but it seems to have adopted one. It has also done a remarkable job in cutting down effluent discharges. Those activities have, cumulatively, escalated its costs. In a press release it indicated that one of the principal increases was due to the additional expenditure at Drigg, which is understood.
  Paragraph 51 of the report says:
  "Under the new policy, the estimated current cost of decommissioning all BNFL plant and facilities is £.4·6 billion".
  A little further on it says:
  "Despite this 58 per cent. reduction due to discounting, customers' liability for BNFL decommissioning costs has risen more than fivefold. Furthermore, BNFL's percentage share appears to have decreased significantly from approximately 23 per cent. to approximately 10 per cent. of the total."
  That means that over the years money flows into the coffers which could be spent on new plant and equipment. It is paid now, but the liability for BNFL will come a long time later. BNFL has been able to spread some of the risk among its customers.
  1120
  That is one way of looking at the matter, but there is another way. In the Financial Times of 12 October 1988 it was reported that Dr. Harry Lawton, a former head of the laboratories at Sellafield, had said at an international conference that
  "Decommissioning and disposing of nuclear power stations might cost the equivalent of up to 20 per cent. of the electricity generated over their lifetime."
  The cost is enormous, and we must not overlook it.
  Nuclear waste is another source of high expenditure. By the year 2000 the cost of disposing of the quantity of high-level waste, at £495,000 per cubic metre, will work out at £1·6 billion. The disposal of intermediate-level waste, at £18,000 per cubic metre, will work out at £1·08 billion. Because of the Rolls-Royce method of burial at great depth, used for low-level waste of which there is a vast quantity but which tends to be much lower in radiation, disposal will work out at 1·5 billion. The total bill for disposal of British nuclear waste will be £4·2 billion.
  Those are big liabilities, and the policy has largely been to pass them on to customers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant that the road ahead is nuclear, provided that we do not have to experience technological changes that may require a movement of resources. The way ahead, in my view, involves the fast reactor and, ultimately, fusion. But let us take a hard look at the costs and make them clear to the public.
  On cost-plus trading, Mr. Harding said in evidence to the Select Committee:
  "I am absolutely certain that we will be needing to look at different terms of trading with the privatised National Power, Power Generation and the Scottish boards. We did in fact take some initiative something like two years ago before privatisation was announced to open up discussions."
  Why, if negotiations were started two years ago, has so little happened? I appreciate that the contracts cannot be completely renegotiated; that would be too expensive, as paragraph 25 of the report makes clear. On the other hand, if it is open to BNFL to pass on most of its costs, that will not be in the interests of efficiency. I think that BNFL will have regard to that. Unless a complete answer can be found, the flotation will be greatly impeded.
  What man will put his money forward for the flotation of, say, National Power if he feels that some of the commitments are so substantial and uncertain that profitability could later be reduced? We considered that question in the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill; indeed, I brought it up myself. It looks as though lavish expenditure will take place well in advance to ensure that the public are safeguarded against financial risk.
  I am satisfied that THORP is a great concept. It has ample orders for the next 10 years, and hopes in the years after that to obtain orders from a number of countries in Europe and probably beyond. It will be able to do that only because the plant will be largely paid off and liberal discounts will be possible. But what are the likely prospects for the United Kingdom industry? What organisation in the private sector will build a nuclear power station above 300 MW? We have been told—we were told in Committee—that at least four nuclear power stations are to be built: Sizewell B, which is in the course of construction; Sizewell C, involved in a planning inquiry; Hinkley Point C, which it is hoped will be available in 1998; and Wylfa, each with a capacity of 1,175 MW.
  What will happen if the first is built and the second goes ahead? That will mean that we are not replacing the

  1121
  electricity derived from nuclear power. We now have Magnox stations with 4,793 MW and AGRs totalling 5,870 MW. That makes a total of 10,663 MW. But there will have to be some retirements. The Magnox reactors which will be moving out in the 1990s have a capacity of 3,500 MW. Hinkley Point B has a capacity of 1,120 MW, making a total of 4,620 MW. Replacements will be needed, and those replacements will be the new power stations to which National Power is committed, totalling 4,700 MW. If those stations are not produced, there will be no decommissioning or reprocessing at a later date.
  I think that the Government have made a big mistake in not keeping the nuclear side in Government hands, where investment could be looked after carefully. I cannot see the private sector building nuclear power stations above 300 MW. I envisage the electricity from nuclear power stations falling from 20 per cent. of the total to between 10 and 15 per cent.
  Mr. Maclennan: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made the welcome assertion that he believed that eventually fast reactors and perhaps even fusion would be the basis of our nuclear programme. Does he base that belief on the expectation that at some stage there will be a change in Government policy? Is that what he is working towards?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am entirely persuaded that the Government will change their mind later because they will have to do so. If the amount of electricity derived from nuclear sources is to fall, that will mean less work later for THORP. As I said, the whole logic of THORP was the reprocessing of the fuel elements from the newer stations —the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the pressurised water reactors—for two purposes. One was to recycle a waste product, to take out uranium which could be recycled in a way with which we are familiar. The other was to take out the plutonium, not simply to put it into store, but to use it in fast reactors.
  What have the Government done? They say that there will be no fast reactors for the next 20 to 30 years and that we do not, therefore, need to spend such amounts on research. Thus one of the biggest planks for THORP has gone, unless it is brought back again.
  The Opposition need not be too jocular. Everyone in the United Kingdom is together in fighting the same problem. Some say that the money could be spent on other things, but dispensing with the fast breeder reactor is not in the long-term interests of United Kingdom energy policy or in the interests of the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has a local unemployment problem. It is much more important for the United Kingdom that we should carry on with the policy of developing the fast reactor.
  We have the possibility of being able to use the plutonium in store, or we can keep the 26 tonnes in there for ever. I dare say a part of it could be used for military purposes, but not from the peaceful purposes stockpile. It was said in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that it could be used in mixed oxide fuel, but, as has been said before, there is no market for that in the United Kingdom. It is quite unsuitable for AGRs. It may be used for PWRs, but how many will we have here? One is in the course of construction, but it will be some time before the
  1122
  programme materialises. I do not know how many more we shall have. There is no mixed oxide plant in the United Kingdom, although the process is thoroughly understood.
  It has also been said that there may be a small European market for such fuel. However, West Germany is nervous about such matters, Sweden intends to close down its industry entirely by the turn of the century, Italy has virtually no nuclear power and although Belgium is a big producer of nuclear power it does not look as though a market will develop there. The Japanese are keen on the method and may use some of their own plutonium in PWRs. I fully support reprocessing because it recycles waste materials. One can draw out uranium and use it again in further fuel charges. One can draw out plutonium and then divert it, as a sensible policy, into fast reactors. One can take out the actinides, turn them into solid compounds and take them out of danger to civilisation. At present, however, we are stockpiling the stuff in large quantities. The report and the Government recommend that some of it should be passed over to National Power. I believe that it should never be passed over to the private sector, but should be under the control and scrutiny of the state. It is right for the defence of the realm that it should be so held.
  I shall support the Bill. There are some interesting clauses, such as clauses 2, 3 and 5, which will excite much argument in Committee. The Government are doing a major job, but it behoves me to concentrate on clause 1, which deals with British Nuclear Fuels and is an important aspect of the Bill which may need to be refined. British Nuclear Fuels is a spendid and profitable company. It has great confidence in THORP for the future—far more than I have, even though plant will be written off and there will be heavy discounting to secure more contracts. Through its European connections, it has been securing many valuable contracts and earning foreign exchange. We are told today that it is the biggest earner of yen in this country, which is a signal achievement in itself.
  Being able to do well today, however, does not mean that a company will be profitable tomorrow. Technological changes can bring abrupt changes of course which may be disastrous to companies. Let us hope that British Nuclear Fuels has a remarkably good course. It is asking for a further £500 million. Let us hope that it never comes back to the House again for additional money and that it will keep to the ceiling of £2,000 million. The coal industry never fails to come back to the House for more because it is greedy for extra money and once it has received the cash it begins to waste it.
  7.56 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I have the advantage of not having to be as generous in my assessment of the management at British Nuclear Fuels and its performance as the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), whose contribution I admired greatly, as I did the contribution of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).
  Clause 1 asks the House to approve another £500 million of taxpayers' money being made available to bail out the management of a company which, over the past decade, has regrettably become a haven for smugness, complacency and arrogance, a management encouraged, moreover, by the willingness of successive Ministers

  1123
  throughout the period to sign virtually open cheques in lieu of that rarest of modern British commodities, hard cash for energy research and development.
  I shall give one small but immediate example of the incompetence of the management at British Nuclear Fuels. On page 10 of the minutes of evidence in the report of the Select Committee on Energy, the chairman of BNFL, Mr. Harding, is reported as saying:
  "The price of raw uranium moves in a fairly direct relationship with the world price of coal and oil. The fact that both those have come down has brought down with it the price of uranium."
  Yet on page 25 of the same report, a memorandum from British Nuclear Fuels in answer to the Committee says:
  "BNFL is not aware of any direct links between uranium prices on the one hand and coal or oil prices on the other hand."
  Considering the short time lapse between the delivery to the Committee of those two opinions, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the management at BNFL has either undergone one of its sudden and apocalyptic reassessments of operational costs or that its senior managers are not speaking to each other—or perhaps both. Whatever the real reason, it is clear that a lame duck rescue such as the one we are being asked to approve here has encouraged in BNFL an air of smugness instead of vigilance, complacency instead of readiness to respond to the realities of a changing world and arrogance, which derives from the sure knowledge that its cost—plus contracts, which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board delayed signing until 1982, would cushion it from the real world.
  The whole point of BNFL being set up was to recover uranium for thermal reactors and plutonium for fast reactors. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North stated most eloquently, recent developments pose serious questions about those aims. Fuel prices, both existing and projected, have therefore played a crucial part in any assessment of BNFL's business. They are a crucial assessment in terms of our judgment of the Bill. If it appears that we in this House judge that traded world uranium prices are unlikely to rise significantly in real terms over the next 20 years, or that our nuclear stations are unlikely to require the service capacity offered by BNFL, or that the much-lauded BNFL foreign contracts are unlikely to prove the kind of bonanza that BNFL tells us they will be, then there is little point in stuffing another £500 million into the mouth of that company.
  Perhaps, however, the Government do not care about the odd £500 million. Perhaps they have failed to notice that BNFL's own graph in the Enregy Committee's report shows clearly that, in constant money values—indexed to the starting date of the graph, 1973—uranium ore prices are lower now than they were over 15 years ago, averaging at the moment around $12 to $15 per pound on the spot market. Perhaps they have also failed to notice that for a number of reasons the world's available reserves of uranium yellowcake are ample to meet current and projected demand and highly unlikely to decrease markedly in the foreseeable future.
  Part of the reason for low prices and abundance of supply has been the failure of the nuclear industry worldwide to expand as people expected it to expand, in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. In this country we have witnesed that failure of expansion first hand and, with it, the raison d'etre for much of BNFL's operations.
  1124
  Let us examine for one moment the performance of the advanced gas-cooled reactors—our AGRs that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North and upon which rest so much of the THORP project's hopes and aspirations. The CEGB has four AGR sites —Hinkley, Dungeness, Hartlepool and Heysham. However, a closer examination of that list reveals that only Hinkley B and one of the Dungeness reactors have put any electricity into the national grid. Hinkley is credited with a load factor of just 49·6 per cent. and the Dungeness reactor with a minuscule 1 per cent.—a kind of electronic spasm and a little like the Minister's hand as I imagine him signing the cheques for BNFL, year after year. The other Dungeness reactor is still not working after construction overruns that seem to have lasted decades. The state of the Hartlepool and Heysham reactors is as ropey as ever it was—Hartlepool especially.
  So where is all BNFL's business to come from? Is it to come from the Scottish AGRs? Well, it had better, but it is by no means a certainty that it will. The conspicuously un-knighted chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board, Donald Miller, has made his views about BNFL's performance perfectly clear by signalling the premature closure of the Hunterston A station and at the same time by spreading the word that the SSEB's operational profits were nullified by the increased charges that he was forced to pay BNFL under the terms of its cost-plus contracts. Donald Miller's tactics may have given us an insight into the frosty state of relations between the generators and BNFL, but it will not have done his chances of a knighthood much good.
  So where is THORP's great future to come from? From its foreign contracts, we are told. But what degree of certainty do we have that even they will prove to be anything other than a means of turning this country into the world's nuclear dustbin? The West Germans, for example, have decided that they do not need a nuclear reprocessing plant, despite the size of their nuclear generating industry. The Wackersdorf reprocessing plant project is being abandoned and there are well-founded rumours that the West Germans will use France's Cap Hague facility and not BNFL's THORP plant at Sellafield for future requirements.
  The nuclear generating industries of the United States of America, Canada and Sweden have all decided that they will not go down the road of reprocessing. They have opted for direct storage technologies. The Swedes especially, with a much smaller economy than ours and an electricity supply industry that supplies, proportionately, a much larger amount of electricity to the grid than does ours, have taken some hard and revolutionary decisions that will no doubt make them world leaders in the planning and practice of handling depleted nuclear fuel and waste.
  What decisions are we being asked to make in considering the Bill? We are being asked to pour more good money after bad—and for what? So that we can continue to draw upon ourselves the opprobrium of the world for irradiating the Irish sea with Japan's nuclear waste? So that we can continue to find our requests kicked into touch every time we approach a foreign Government about allowing over their territories future flights by BNFL's plutonium-carrying aircraft? What a joy that little procedure has been. The Canadians have indicated their unwillingness. The Governor of Alaska has refused

  1125
  permission. I am sure that if polar bears could communicate with BNFL, they would refuse permission, too.
  It is hard to imagine any species on earth daft enough to argue that plutonium should be flown from Prestwick to Japan. After the flight has headed north and over the pole, avoiding Iceland, Greenland, Ellesmere island, Alaska and eastern Siberia, of course, it heads south—past the Soviet Kamchatka missile bases and those of Sakhalin and the ones littered along the coast near the huge Vladivostok naval installations—before swooping down towards the Japanese mainland, one of the most densely populated areas on the face of the earth. What an eventful voyage each of those little beauties would have. I can just imagine the Soviet missile commanders not noticing the odd half tonne of plutonium drifting towards them every time there is a high easterly wind blowing in from the Pacific.
  Why is BNFL not keen on transporting its plutonium by sea? Is it because it thinks that the Japanese may want it in a hurry when business starts up? That is highly unlikely, I should have thought. I cannot imagine that the Japanese want to manufacture miniature nuclear bombs. One cannot use plutonium for much else if one does not possess a commercial fast breeder reactor, or if one is not prepared to compromise the economics of thermal reactors by running them with some version of a mixed oxide fuel. Knowing the Japanese reputation for business acumen, that is highly unlikely.
  Why, therefore, the BNFL proposal to fly it out? I would hazard a guess that it has dreamt it up as a means of cutting costs and of preventing yet another escalation of projected prices. If plutonium is sent by sea, the USA and other nations will demand, as they have already demanded, that it is escorted by an armed vessel that is capable of warding off attacks by hostile nations or terrorists or of aiding a ship that has got into difficulties so that there is no repeat of the tragedy that we have just witnessed in Alaska—but the tragedy of a plutonium escape, not oil.
  There are Administrations throughout the world, such as the American Administration, who have become extremely concerned at reports of missing parcels of nuclear fuel and who will continue to insist that, no matter what the financial cost, no more should go missing. It is obvious that the cost of seaborne cargoes will be very high indeed if each one has to be guarded by the Royal Navy or by a privatised version of that service.
  BNFL's motives are clear. It favours airborne transportation of fuel because it imagines that it will be cheaper than seaborne transportation. I warn the Minister not to trust BNFL's judgment. Its judgment has not been very good in the past. The accumulated risks and the potential costs of the kind of airborne error that we have witnessed all too often and all too tragically lately will be beyond calculation. BNFL's transportation ventures until now have been far from distinguished. Its peripheral involvement—however innocent it may have been—with the notorious Nukem-Transnuklear affair in West Germany has done nothing to improve its international image, however blameless it may have been over the whole issue.
  It is a company that deals in the most dangerous substances known, and particularly in plutonium. Perhaps
  1126
  its plans to rush plutonium away from these shores by air are governed by an overwhelming desire to rid itself of the material as quickly as possible rather than because of Japan's desire to receive it. It already possesses 25 useless tonnes of plutonium at Sellafield. Nobody wants it. After all, what can anyone do with it, except spend millions on storing and guarding the stuff throughout the next millenium? The chairman of National Power does not want it. Mr. Baker's leaked letter makes that perfectly clear.
  I have no doubt that the £500 million that we are being asked to underwrite in clause I will serve only to encourage BNFL to continue to underuse and waste the enormous reservoir of talent that it has assembled at Sellafield and at its other stations. I urge the Minister to exercise financial prudence, which this Government have done so often over the past 19 years in their administration of our other major energy concerns. For the sake of both common sense and responsible government, he should consider withdrawing clause 1, which provides for this extra funding.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise for not having been present for the entire debate and, in particular, for having missed the contributions of the hon. Members for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), especially that of the hon. Member for Havant, who was Chairman of the Select Committee that produced the report which is relevant to this debate.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Havant, whose first few words I did hear, described the Bill as technical. As someone who cannot change a light bulb or a plug, or keep his own accounts, I think that the term "technical" is liable to make people like me dive for cover. Actually, there are two different interpretations of the word—it can be used to create two different impressions. The first is that the issue being described is minor and non-political. Clearly, this Bill is not that; it is concerned, in the first clause, with extending the borrowing requirements of the nuclear industry by one third, and with advancing that industry's capability and capacity. If provisions such as clause 1 were not agreed to, the industry would be halted in its development. If the industry could not borrow, it would not be able to live quite as well as is intended.
  Then there is the other interpretation of "technical": that matters so described are non-understandable, that the issues are too complex for people such as me, and are understood only by civil servants and accountants and that we should therefore let it go through. But this is clearly not the case, for it is understandable—if not in terms of some of the detail, clearly in terms of the principles involved. At least it provides those of us who do not have a technical bent an opportunity to make some anti-nuclear noises.
  The borrowing requirement is to be extended for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield—THORP. Permission for its construction was given in 1978, when it was estimated that the cost would be £300 million. The plant was to come into operation by April 1987. By 1983, the capital costs had risen to £1,280 million, and the start-up was put off until December 1990. BNFL now says that the capital costs will be almost £1,500 million and that the start-up date will be late 1992. Are we sure that the borrowing requirements will not need to be raised? The

  1127
  record is not inspiring, and as greater account is taken of safety measures, extra costs may be imposed on the industry.
  Added to this, although estimates have undoubtedly been partly involved in it, is something that is likely to be extended in the future—decommissioning processes for the whole industry. Paragraph 41 of the report says:
  "future potential customers, when placing new reprocessing contracts, can hardly find very attractive the rise of THORP's costs in real terms and the delay in its start up. NII requirements were the principal reason on both accounts. Customers must wonder whether safety requirements in the future will occasion even more delays and cost escalations."
  I hope that that will be the case, and that we are becoming more and more safety conscious, for reasons such as those spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
  The commercial insurance factor in clause 3 is quite fascinating. What actuarial considerations are involved? "Actuarial" is a technical term, but what we are concerned about are the factors that have to be considered and the chances of various things going wrong. In the context of the nuclear industry, there are the meltdown possibilities, problems of prevailing winds, and problems of airborne disasters, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd.
  If a disaster involving plutonium in transit were to occur in a place such as Malta, which is a small island, it could be disastrous for the whole nation. At present Malta is going for the development of new power station provisions. Thankfully, because it is such a small nation, nuclear power is not financially feasible. If an accident were to occur in such an area, it would devastate not only the island but the whole of the Mediterranean. That consideration must be extended to our own island. Although our area and our population are vastly greater than those of Malta, this is still an island. What liabilities have to be taken into account? What, for instance, about dead sheep? How is the accountancy aspect going to be related to that?
  Should we not be putting a brake on nuclear development, given that at present there is a great deal of scientific speculation about nuclear fusion—what methods of fusion can be used, and whether these can take place, for instance, at room temperature? I do not know whether, if we were to be told that it could take place at room temperature, we would give the impression that it was as safe as a front room. Or will we have the same problems as I imagine are associated with the current industry—except that some of the problems of meltdown then begin to disappear?
  The hon. Member for Havant criticised press interpretations of the Select Committee's report. It is not surprising that the press has responded to the report in what some people may see as a sensational fashion. Paragraph 46, which deals with the transporting of plutonium to Japan by air or sea, states:
  "We are concerned about the proposal to fly plutonium to Japan in future, and especially about the use of Prestwick airport…In the wake of the Lockerbie disaster, the consequence of a similar air accident—or terrorist outrage—involving plutonium are too horrific to contemplate."
  The movement of toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste across national frontiers and seas, in particular, seems to me to be especially worrying. A nuclear equivalent of the Karin B, oil spills or of the Lockerbie air disaster is well understood by ordinary people. The thinking may be sensational, but there are very good reasons for having
  1128
  sensational considerations of that type very much to the forefront of our minds. We must be worried by provisions in this Bill. They are technical, but they are technical forms of treachery so far as the wellbeing of people is concerned.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Barron: I do not intend to delay the House long, but I ought to comment on one or two of the speeches that we have heard.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is not in his place at the moment, shares with me the view that people are slightly alarmed by the newspaper report about the scuttling of a nuclear submarine. Although I know that the Minister has no departmental responsibility for defence, he may want to comment on that.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) never ceases to amaze me by his support for the nuclear industry. The industry must be terrified every time he gets to his feet. I am even more amazed by his thoughts on low-level nuclear waste. Only a few years ago the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North was a major voice in the "Bedfordshire Says No" campaign when it was proposed to dump nuclear waste in that county. I am told that he led that campaign well. He now says that the Rolls-Royce solution which has increased the cost is not the answer. When the Select Committee on the Environment published its report on that matter, I am not sure that it was totally convinced by the solution. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is better than what was happening at Drigg at that time. It is now in concrete trenches in steel boxes and is retrievable if anything goes wrong.
  That has increased the cost to BNFL or at least to its customers since most of the contracts are on a cost-plus basis. However, it makes people in that area and in the country in general more confident about the disposal of low-level nuclear waste.
  The rest of the speech by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North consisted of his customary promotion of the flotation of National Power. He pointed out what everybody knows and what will make John Baker and others happy, which is the tie-up of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle as it is at present.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised an important question about decommissioning. I should like to ask the Minister about the increased cost of decommissioning. As I understand the information in the report, decommissioning is now the total liability of BNFL and will cost £4·6 billion for the new decommissioning policy. Under the old policy, the total liability was £438 million. As I understand it, most of the costs in the cost-plus contracts are passed on to the customers of BNFL which at present are the CEGB and the foreign companies which are sending waste here.
  I am interested to note that that does not deal with the decommissioning of all generators in Britain. It is the cost of decommissioning BNFL's plants, and BNFL has only two generators. Therefore, the decommissioning costs of Magnox and other power stations when they come to the end of their life will be in addition to that £4·6 billion. Therefore, we are talking about a much greater threat to the public purse. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that immediately, but I give him notice that we will

  1129
  want to probe that issue further. We will want to discover the total cost of decommissioning Magnox and AGR power stations, and PWR stations if they are fuel-fed in years to come.
  The hon. Member for Havant and my hon. Friends mentioned the transportation of plutonium. I understand that it is a major issue in the Prestwick area. I believe that the hon. Member representing that area is the Secretary of State for Defence. In some instances he has no argument about plutonium flying around in airborne craft. I wonder what his position is in relation to the concept of moving tonnes of plutonium to the other side of the world by aircraft flying out of his constituency.
  I agree, as I am sure do many others, with the comments made by the hon. Member for Havant about his Committee's feelings on the issue. Perhaps it is an issue on which we should go no further than we have already. However, we still do not have an answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd about what we shall do with the tonnes of reprocessed fuel that we have on our hands now. We are told that a clause in the recent contract says that the waste should return to the country of origin. At present, we have no programme for the movement of that fuel so that we can complete that clause in the contract. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on that.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether the Government intend to make a full response to the Select Committee's report. I can confirm that that will be the case. In the meantime, the House might wish me briefly to give our initial answers to some of the points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked about long-term research. In my opening remarks I said that the Health and Safety Commission will need to sponsor research on its own account to ensure that the totality of research is adequate. Therefore, there will be research independent of the immediate requirements of, for example, the nuclear installations inspectorate doing its safety checks and the research associated with that. There will be ongoing research in parallel with that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about my comments during the Report stage of the Electricity Bill on emergency planning procedures. The Health and Safety Commission has asked the Health and Safety Executive to bring forward regulations which will require local authorities to have plans available for dealing with emergencies at nuclear installations. Those regulations will be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 after full consultation with interested bodies. Therefore, an intense consultation process is taking place. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to bring the regulations forward. There is a promise that those regulations—GMAH-type regulations—will be brought forward.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between the Atomic Energy Authority and the private sector, whether there could be an extension of that relationship and why it had not been done in the Bill. That is an extremely difficult issue which poses problems that we
  1130
  are currently considering. It raises the question of how far one can allow a public sector body to trade in the private sector. There are arguments both ways. No doubt we shall tell the House our thoughts when we have considered that matter further.
  Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for those answers. Can he give me any idea of the time scale he has in mind for considering that matter?
  Mr. Spicer: No, I cannot. Obviously, with the changes that have taken place in the AEA, the issue is likely to be in the front of our minds when we think about its future. It would be implicit in the changes that are taking place in the organisation as a result of the various decisions we have taken in the past few months.
  The theme of the debate was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and particularly by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). In the context of the additional finance limits for which the Bill makes provision, the hon. Member for Pontypridd said that the Bill represented a lame-duck rescue. I do not think that he could have been in the Chamber when I said that BNFL has been consistently profitable since its inception, had paid dividends over the last 12 years and aims to pay off all its borrowings by the mid-1990s. He made a comparison with the coal industry. I only wish that it was a true comparison, because, if that were the position facing the coal industry, a lot of our problems, certainly with respect to the coal industry, would not exist. It was a speech that was unusual for the hon. Gentleman. It was full of hyperbole and not, I think, fully worthy of him.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman did not like it.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just rushed into the Chamber and is coming to the defence of the coal industry. It is not a question of not liking it; I was not passing a value judgment on it. It was factually inaccurate to talk about a lame-duck rescue. The hon. Member for Bolsover backs his hon. Friend's judgment no doubt because he shares his prejudices. The hon. Member for Bolsover is full of prejudices; he is riddled with them. Therefore, it is wholly unproblematic that he would support his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd's prejudices. I am not surprised that he backs his hon. Friend against me. In fact, I would be rather unhappy if the hon. Member for Bolsover's prejudices were on my side.
  I turn now to the question of costs at BNFL because undoubtedly there have been cost overruns in the past. I concede that to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, who particularly raised this point, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) also raised it. Because of cost-plus contracts, the effect of these overruns has been the almost automatic increase in prices paid by the CEGB; and because of the monopolistic position of the CEGB in the market place it has in turn been able to pass these cost increases straight through to the electricity consumer.
  With the passage of the Electricity Bill—which is relevant in this context, Madam Deputy Speaker—all this will change. The privatised successor companies to the CEGB will no doubt wish to put far greater pressure on BNFL when contracts are struck between them for further

  1131
  reprocessing and related work. What is more, these contracts will be fixed price in nature. BNFL will therefore be under pressure to continue the process of tightening the control by its management of the vast capital projects in which it is currently engaged. And, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, the Government will ensure that the contracts finally signed are fair as between BNFL and the electricity supply industry. It will be a difficult operation, I concede.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am heartened by this. These will be fixed price contracts from now on. From what date will this be so? They will not antecede the current date covering the past? This is where the generating companies could fall into difficulties.
  Mr. Spicer: The practice of entering fixed price contracts has already been started, so they are nothing new. All I am telling my hon. Friend and the House is that, particularly as the ESI prepares for privatisation, the contracts it will need to strike for its reprocessing arrangements will in all probability be on the basis of fixed prices.
  Mr. Barron: I think that the Minister has nearly answered my question, but I want to ask it again. What the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) is asking and what I am asking is this: is the Minister saying that any fuel that is currently under the old cost-plus contract signed for reprocessing will be moved to a new contract with the flotation of the electricity supply industry?
  Mr. Spicer: If what I say now is wrong, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about it. The answer really depends on the precise terms of the contracts, I suspect. I do not think it will be possible simply to renegade on the existing contracts; they will be part of the assets and liabilities of the successor company.
  Mr. Skinner: Renegade? Does he not mean renege?
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover is on form this evening. I fully concede that he is absolutely right; I used the wrong word at that point. I hope that will be the only point on which I shall have to agree with him for the rest of the evening.
  I have to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant that the rise in unit prices in BNFL's main businesses over the past three years amounted to less than 7 per cent. annually for enrichment, were virtually nil for Magnox fuel manufacture and were 8·5 per cent. annually for reprocessing. In fact, AGR fuel prices decreased between 1984 and 1987.
  As to the cost increases in the THORP project, increased costs of £200 million to a total of £1·8 billion were due to a requirement to meet more rigorous safety standards and to escalations arising from a delay of over two years in the project. BNFL has now carried out a major review of the THORP project and is increasingly confident of its ability to complete the plant within the latest costs estimate. The first stage receipt and storage facility is now on stream and the main plant is on schedule for completion in 1992.
  As to the anxieties which have been expressed by, in particular, the hon. Member for Pontypridd but also by my hon. Friend's Committee about THORP's long-term business prospects, all I can say is that I would not mind
  1132
  having a business which had 10 years' profitable contracts in the bag amounting to some £4 billion. As the House knows, by far the largest component of these contracts is contracts with Japan, which amount to around £2 billion and will make THORP the largest earner of yen in the country. The Japanese contracts are even contributing to the present development of THORP, which will have been fully written off by the time the first 10-year contracts come to an end.
  I turn next to the second major point which has been recurring throughout this short but, I think the House will agree, interesting debate, the question of the significant misrepresentation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant has acknowledged, has been given to the Committee's report on the question of the dumping of foreign nuclear waste in this country.
  All contracts, for the reprocessing of spent fuel signed since 1976 have contained clauses for the return of waste. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that the pre-1976 contracts should be renegotiated. They were freely entered into and it would be impossible for any Government to step in now and attempt to get them amended retrospectively. Paragraph 30 of the report of the Committee has been particularly misrepresented in this context. The report talks specifically of waste from 1,500 tonnes of spent fuel as being the result of pre-1976 contracts. In the newspapers this morning this has become 1,500 tonnes of waste. In fact, 97 per cent. of this is recovered in the form of uranium and plutonium. About 100 cu m of high-level waste·that is, as said earlier, about two bus loads, which is rather different from the 1,500 tonnes mentioned in the press today—will arise from the reprocessing. This is less than one tenth of the expected high-level waste arising to the year 2000. The vast majority of the billions of pounds of business which lies ahead will be subject to the condition that the waste is returned to the country of origin.
  Turning to another set of questions, about decommissioning, which hon. Gentlemen have raised during the course of the debate, a question was raised in particular —I think by the hon. Member for Rother Valley—about the wisdom or otherwise of leaving nuclear plant for a long period after it has been shut down before it is removed. Our primary concern is always to ensure that nuclear plant, whether operating or closed down, is safe in terms of both men and the environment. I will come to the specific question about the triggering of schedule 12 to the Bill in a moment, but there is no doubt that it is technically possible to decommission plant on a much shorter time scale than the industry at present plans. Indeed, we are demonstrating this with the Windscale AGR. However, the difficulties of doing that are considerable. In any reasonable commercial terms, it makes much more sense to leave dismantling work until radioactive decay makes it easier to meet required standards of worker and environmental protection.
  The NII and the various authorities are quite clear that 100 years is the best period. Were somebody suddenly to impose a new regulation upon the industry to carry out the third stage of decommissioning sooner, it is quite possible that the provisions of schedule 12 might be triggered off and implemented.
  The Select Committee made the interesting suggestion that the companies legislation should be amended to make decommissioning costs the first charge in the event of

  1133
  liquidation. I certainly cannot be expected to make an immediate response to that suggestion today, but I have noted it.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: Have the Government received what my hon. Friend would describe as a convincing and complete explanation of the vast difference between the two figures which I gave, the original figure of £468 million and the current figure of £4,600 million?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend was the Chairman of the Select Committee which recommended that the definition of "decommissioning" should be changed from plant on site to a return to a green field site. That redefinition of what was implicit in decommissioning has been a major reason behind the escalation in the provisions for decommissioning which BNFL is now making for its plants. My hon. Friend may have to pursue that point.
  Several questions have been raised about the ownership, control and transportation of plutonium after privatisation. I assure the House that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will make no difference to existing strict controls which govern the ownership and use of all civil materials. Plutonium and other nuclear materials will continue to be subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement. Reports on plutonium production are supplied to the safeguards authorities by the reactor operators when the irradiated fuel is sent to reprocessing plants. Further reports are made at each stage as the plutonium works its way through the nuclear cycle.
  Those procedures are administered by Euratom, whose safeguards inspectors have access at all times to the facilities in question to check that the reports are correct. The present restrictions on the transfer of nuclear material abroad will also continue after privatisation. Civil plutonium can be transferred abroad only on assurances covering its peaceful use, physical protection and controls on retransfer, and it will remain subject to the safeguards arrangements that I have already mentioned.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Who is to pay for the storage of plutonium? The companies cannot use it. Mixed oxide fuels are not used in the United Kingdom. Plutonium will be stored somewhere.
  Mr. Spicer: When I refer to ownership, I may implicitly answer my hon. Friend's question. The hon. Member for Rother Valley also referred to ownership. I stress that it is normal international practice for generators of nuclear power to own the products of their reactors. Therefore, it becomes their responsibility and their cost. At present, plutonium derived from United Kingdom generating boards' fuel is stored at Sellafield, and that is likely to continue to be the practice after privatisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the hon. Member for Pontypridd were particularly forceful about transportation. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the comments that have been made.
  Nuclear materials in transit are subject to very rigorous
  1134
  international safety standards and regulations laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those international regulations require substantial safety margins to be built into containers so that they can withstand even the severest accident without causing a significant public hazard. A recent study by the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials concluded that the safety and security risks in transporting nuclear materials were negligible. BNFL and other nuclear operators have been transporting nuclear materials, including plutonium, safely and securely for over 30 years.
  I re-emphasise that the Government are committed to retaining nuclear power to provide essential diversity in fuel supplies. The Government's proposals for electricity privatisation should secure a healthy future for BNFL, at least until the end of the century. BNFL's prospects in the longer term will depend on how competitive it can make the services it offers, including reprocessing. The Select Committee's report is relevant in that context. Negotiations are currently under way between the company and the generating boards on new fixed price trading arrangements. That will undoubtedly mean increased risks for BNFL, but it will enable the company to reap the benefits of improvements in efficiency and revised work practices which it is introducing.
  From the Government's point of view, it has been an interesting debate. We shall further consider the technical and detailed points and certainly give full attention to the Select Committee's report, which reached us only yesterday.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills).

  ATOMIC ENERGY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State;
  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund; and
  (3) any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money provided by Parliament or out of the National Loans Fund or in the sums so payable into the Fund or the Consolidated Fund, being an increase attributable to any provision of the Act substituting a financial limit of £2,000 million for that imposed by section 2(1) of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Act 1977 in relation to British Nuclear Fuels plc.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]
    Question agreed to.

  Namibia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The House has an opportunity tonight to debate Namibia, at a critical time for that war-torn and long-suffering country, when the outcome of debates such as this is important, not only in the House but in the Houses of Parliament of permanent members of the Security Council who hold the fate of Namibia in their hands. The outcome of such debates will determine the concerns at the end of the road on which Namibia has been set under resolution 435. The debate is important when we have seen waged a battle which has not only included the usual combatants—soldiers, guerrillas, troop carriers and guns—but is also very much about public relations. South Africa has waged a relentless public relations war against SWAPO. It is important that we should think of the human casualties and consequences of what is happening in that country.
  I have in mind a young boy whom I and my German parliamentary colleague, Professor Dr. Klaus Osswalld, who recently travelled with me to Namibia, saw in the military base-airport—for it is both—of Oshikati. That little boy did odd jobs and ran errands and, by that means, supported himself, his parents and his grandparents—a whole extended family—in that region which, of late, has come to be entirely dependent for its economy on the presence of the military. The old traditional basis of Ovamboland's economy has all but disappeared and the area has become absorbed in the great military battle that is taking place in that area.
  The little boy supported his extended family by running errands for the soldiers who guarded the airport—perhaps getting them a cold coke from the only refrigerator for miles around—and they would give him the odd cent or two and, during the course of the day, doing such little jobs as he could, he would collect sufficient rand to meet his needs and those of that whole family, who no longer had their land, their traditional means of support, to sustain them.
  I wonder as we discuss Namibia what has happened to that little boy and his family in Ovamboland, in an area of the country which has become in certain parts a free fire area for the South African defence force. One suspects, if the little boy is still there, that he is making more rand than ever because of the extent of troop movements in the area and the many hundreds of troops now based around the airport there. He is probably still running errands for them, if he is there and if he has the heart—bearing in mind what might have happened to his family—to continue his efforts.
  As we debate this issue, we must have in the forefront of our minds the future of that young boy and his family. What sort of future will he have in an independent Namibia? While it is important for us to consider current events and what led up to them, our major task must be to ensure that we move forward steadily and with resolution to the satisfactory implementation of resolution 435. We must build up in Namibia an economic and political infrastructure brought about as a result of free and fair elections. Such an infrastructure must be capable of maintaining, supporting and developing a non-racial democracy in that country. That will prove that there is
  1136
  another way, a real alternative to apartheid South Africa, the nation on which Namibia will inevitably have to rely for some time for much of its needs if its economy is to survive.
  We have an opportunity in Namibia to create a showcase for the people of South Africa, to show them what life can be like after apartheid. That is why it is vital for us to get it right. But we must be under no illusions about the forces that are working against such a peaceful settlement and the existence of that type of showcase.
  I do not want to dwell tonight on what has happened in the past, but the version of events that has been put out by South Africa in recent days—the version of events that. I am afraid, has been reflected here in the utterances of the Prime Minister in replying to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—gives cause for concern. It is not enough to pillory SWAPO over the events of 1 April and what has happened subsequently—to put SWAPO in the dock and blind oneself to the reality of what the South Africans have been doing. Mistakes have undoubtedly been made on all sides, but South Africa cannot be proud of its role in this matter. Indeed, its role is worthy of condemnation by the international community.
  We saw in the recent events in Ovamboland what was almost the inevitable result of a process that has never sought to include SWAPO in the decision-making. To this day—the recent meeting on Mount Etjo was an example of this—the process has not treated SWAPO as an equal party that must be consulted and involved in decisions about the future of that country.
  We are seeing the consequences of not involving SWAPO, of a peace process that all too often has been based on protocols, conventions and understandings which are not formulated in one place, along with resolution 435. It is not possible to put one's hand on a bundle of documents and say, "This is the peace plan and this is what is to happen." The United Nations has not been able to do that, and it seems that nobody is able to look at the whole body of protocols and so on in a combined way, thereby creating the peace plan building on resolution 435. Hence, it is a flaky and nebulous agreement in too many ways, and we should not be surprised at what happened.
  The version of events given by South Africa cannot be accepted without critical analysis, and that analysis must be based on what we hear and on eye witness accounts of what took place on the ground on 1 April. Those accounts deserve more credence than they have been given. I give an example from a witness of the churches in Namibia. He is from the Evangelical Lutheran church based in Ovamboland. He reported on an incident which occurred about 35 km north of Ongwediva.
  Christian pastors who moved into the area shortly after the events I am describing came across five children. Children are the greatest victims of the struggle, not only in Namibia but throughout southern Africa. We must have special regard for them as victims because they are completely innocent, whatever their parents or relatives might be or might have done.
  Those five children told of how they had to flee from the bullets, as they described it, and spend the night hiding in a bush. They took the delegation to a site where evidence of fighting was found. The delegation found blood and traces of bodies that had been dragged along the ground. They found items of equipment and foodstuff. They

  1137
  interviewed civilian eye witnesses, one of whom told of how he had spoken to a man —one of a group of 50 men, he said—who told him that they were from SWAPO and that they were regrouping and had not come there to fight. The witness said that while they were speaking he heard the sound of approaching Casspirs, meaning armoured troop carriers. He said that the guerrilla told him to run away.
  This is what the witness said then followed:
  "All of a sudden people were fleeing, bullets were flying, and the guerrillas took cover. The people who shot first were the SADF"—
  that is, the South African defence force. That was the evidence of one eye witness who saw men being fired on, initially by the South African defence force. Those men sought to defend themselves and fired back. The men had not gone there for the purposes of engaging in or renewing a war, but to establish bases and to surrender to the UNTAG troops.
  The evidence of that witness was to be repeated in a variety of incidents throughout Ovamboland. One must give that sort of witness some credence. It is no use dismissing it as SWAPO propaganda, as unreliable and not to be believed. We must weigh such evidence in the balance and we must then say, as all fair-minded and honest people do say, that there is some doubt and more than a question about whether SWAPO was there for any belligerent purpose. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General made it clear that it was not possible to say that SWAPO were the belligerents in this matter.
  However, when the Prime Minister came hot-foot from Namibia to answer questions in the House, she gave the impression to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it ws all SWAPO's fault, that they were the ones to blame. In so doing, she lent credence to the South African regime and to its version of events. She provided it with a massive public relations coup, which it has been seeking to exploit ever since.
  The Prime Minister must understand when she goes about her travels that she cannot hope to be perceived in the world or in Africa as the midwife of Namibian independence while she continues to act as if she were the wetnurse of apartheid. The two are inconsistent. If the Prime Minister cares about the future of Namibia—one must hope and pray that she does care—it is absolutely vital that she seeks to be, and is, even-handed between the parties.
  One does not for one moment suggest that the Minister of State has been anything other than even-handed, but it is for the Prime Minister to give a lead in these matters and we are entitled to look to her for that lead. Only then will Britain be able to play a role in the resolution of this conflict and ensure that we fulfil our responsibilities not only in the Security Council, but our historic role and responsibilities in that part of Africa, which are real, great and heartfelt. We have a role to play and we must play it to the full.
  But be that as it may, current events have cast a massive doubt on the sincerity of South Africa's commitment to the peace process. We have read today in the newspapers about massive gatherings of troops outside those areas where SWAPO guerrillas have been told to surrender their arms. Once again, the authorities have turned to the churches for support and have asked them to provide
  1138
  places where people will feel safe to gather. However, the churches have reported today that gatherings of South African soldiers close to the churches have deterred SWAPO guerrillas from going there, as inevitably they would. When one hears the news today from OXFAM representatives in the area that a South African base was established 40 yards away from an assembly point, and that a South African soldier stood at the entrance to an UNTAG assembly point, can one be surprised that the number of SWAPO guerrillas who have surrendered is as small as it is? We have also been told today that four SWAPO soldiers, who presented themselves to a Finnish Lutheran mission at Oniipa, told the mission that they did so because they did not feel able to go to the United Nations assembly points without the missionaries' protection because approaching those points was too dangerous.
  That is the reality of what is happening now and it does not say much for the bona fides of the Administrator-General, Mr. Piennaar, who now maintains that he was misunderstood, that SWAPO guerrillas should be interrogated at the time of their surrender and before their removal to Angola. But interrogated by whom? The answer is, by SWAPOL, the South-West African police force. Recently I asked the Minister of State at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time to give us some assurances on this. Clearly, she could not do so then, but I hope that she will be able to tonight. It is believed that up to half the members of that force are former members of Koevoet, which is Afrikaans for crowbar, a notorious, cruel and inhumane paramilitary counter-insurgency unit, which was supposed to be disbanded under resolution 435 but which, it would seem, has been integrated into the ordinary police force of the territory.
  Yet SWAPO guerrillas are supposed to surrender themselves for interrogation by those people. It beggars belief that that can be the basis of any genuine peace or trust between the parties in this conflict. We need a practical assurance on the role of SWAPOL and Koevoet within it—and on that of battalion 101. At one stage in the debacle that followed the events of 1 April, when UNTAG was caught unequipped and unprepared in terms of its military numbers and any form of strategy—we are told that its members did not even know how to contact SWAPO because the lines of communication did not exist —the number of UNTAG forces in the region was such that things came to such a pass that it was necessary to use battalion 101 to police the conflict. Battalion 101 is another hated and loathed offshoot of the South African army.
  None of that inspires trust or confidence. It does not hold out any hope for a lasting peace or for a smooth and steady transition, through the electoral process, to ultimate independence. We want some signs of the bona fides of the Administrator-General and South Africa in this matter. South West Africa territory force members should be confined to their bases and UNTAG should be increased to such a level that it can be relied upon to police the settlement.
  The situation demands a re-evaluation of the Security Council's initial response to the requests from the Secretary-General for 7,500 soldiers to form part of UNTAG instead of the 4,650 that he was ultimately allocated. That allowed a saving of $284 million in a budget which was cleared only on 1 March. When, on 31

  1139
  March, my German parliamentary colleague and I asked when the force would be operational, the director of the special representative's office, Mr. Cedric Thornberry, said that it would take six weeks.
  There is a clear argument for increasing the forces at the disposal of the special representative and we look to the British Government to give the clearest possible indication that that is the line which we should be pursuing in the Security Council. Someone must make that demand and we look to this Government to make it. That demand is eminently reasonable and vital if we are to move in the right direction.
  We need those assurances from the Government and we look to the Minister of State to provide them to the House and to the country tonight. However, we must also reflect on what we expect UNTAG to do. We must reflect on what we expect those men, women and soldiers to do in Namibia and what we expect the dedicated international civil servants to deliver. We must consider what attitude and approach is required of them in the implementation of resolution 435.
  We can envisage no way forward in that territory which requires UNTAG to perform a reactive role or to act simply as a court of appeal, distanced from the hurly-burly and day-to-day resolution of conflict, without a hands-on approach which is proactive as well as reactive. If the special representative, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, does not adopt that approach, UNTAG will not have the confidence of the people and it will be obliged to rely on the Administrator-General, Lois Piennar, for support and assistance.
  How can we ask the United Nations in Namibia to perform the task which the international community has set it, namely to take Namibia out of the clutches of apartheid and from the control of South Africa, using the same office which for all these years has kept Namibia in the thrall of apartheid? That is not on. There must be a willingness to be proactive and get out and actively engage in the issues and resolution of conflict which will inevitably present themselves daily to the parties in Namibia given the difficulty and delicacy of the task.
  I hope that all hon. Members appreciate the delicacy and difficulty of the position in Namibia. We are not talking about Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, where Britain had sole responsibility and where there was a governor-general of the calibre and quality of Lord Soames. We must also recognise that unless we adopt the words "control" and "supervision" which relate to the electoral process contained in resolution 435 and become concerned not simply with supervision but with control, it will not be possible to move Namibia through the electoral process to independence. There must be resources and the political will to control the situation and come out from under the wings of the Administrator-General. That is vital for the confidence of the people in UNTAG and for the resolution of the conflict.
  Let us consider the task which Mr. Ahtisaari set himself when he arrived on 31 March. He detailed what he described as the essential preparations. First of all, he said:
  "All Namibian political prisoners and detainees, wherever they are held, must be set free."
  That is a requirement of resolution 435. However, there is an immediate problem there. I have met lawyers involved in human rights cases in Namibia and I have met representatives from the Churches responsible for ministering to the families of detainees.
  1140
  I have been told—and I believe this to be true—that there are no lists of detainees giving details of where those people are being held or who they are. The Administrator-General does not know how many people are detained and he is not aware of how many are detained by the South African security forces which are not directly answerable to the Administrator-General in their operations. There will be some detainees in South Africa and some in Namibia. The United Nations must meet the lawyers, Churches and other groups working with prisoners in order to compile a list.
  No such meeting had taken place by 31 March. If we are waiting for the Administrator-General to deliver up those people, that would show an optimism about the good faith of the Administrator-General which simply is not justified. There is a need for a sufficiently resourced team to set about that work in a way that does not cause it to have to rely on the Administrator-General.
  Mr. Ahtisaari said that those in exile
  "must have the chance to come here, to their native land."
  I visited the director of the RRR committee which is a partner organisation of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Namibia. That committee is responsible for the reception, resettlement and rehabilitation of those people—that is what the three RRRs stand for. It had not received a penny from the UNHCR. It relies entirely on money from the World Council of Churches and the Lutheran World Federation. The RRR committee is not a great organisation. It consists of a small group of Church people from the denominations in Namibia who are seeking to provide the infrastructure for those three aspects of the process—reception, resettlement and rehabilitation.
  I urge the Government arid the Minister of State to make urgent representations to our ambassador at the United Nations to make sure that we put pressure on UNHCR to deliver the money now. We are talking about movements of people, the numbers of which can vary. Estimates range from 40,000 to 80,000, but it is thought that a realistic figure is between 58,000 and 68,000. Many of those people are children under the age of 11 who leave the camps but have no schools to attend.
  Where are the returning people to live? There are already problems about accommodation, and huge infrastructure problems will hit that country in the next few months. The timetable is clear and says that by mid-May, which is just a month away, refugees and detainees should begin to return to Namibia. At this time the infrastructure needed to receive them is not in place. We need to give aid now for that process. We must not take the view that we should wait and see until independence. We need to get in there now.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because I committed the discourtesy of missing much of what he has said. He mentioned a matter which I raised in a recent parliamentary question. I support the basic principle that there should be additional infrastructure support for Namibia before the independence process reaches its conclusion.
  Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention is a sign of the way in which these issues unite all strands of opinion in the House. This is not a matter of party political controversy and I am sure that the Minister of State will take that on board.

  1141
  The need is there now and we cannot afford to wait, because if we do massive harm will be caused to the country and its people. The special representative went on to say:
  "Laws which could interfere with free and fair elections will be abolished."
  In Namibia a huge edifice of discriminatory law of one sort or another has been created. It is designed to break up the country into various ethnic homelands of one kind or another. There are 13 different ethnic education authorities, each with responsibility for an ethnic group. That is a totally unworkable and bizarre system, but the matter goes beyond that to a law designed to stifle the free dissemination of information and expression of opinion under the Police Act and various Defence Acts.
  I was concerned to discover that two of the leading lawyers that I met in Windhoek were not aware of any member of the legal profession or anybody concerned with human rights in Namibia who had been consulted by the United Nations about identifying those laws. Is the United Nations to rely once again on the Administrator-General, the very person who put those laws in place and who has been administering them all this time? Will he be asked to detect and identify the laws? That stretches the bounds of credibility, but that is not all.
  While I was in Namibia, two days before 1 April Gwen Lister, the editor of The Namibian, and Anton Labowsky, a distinguished trade unionist and lawyer, were summoned under the Police Act for disseminating information about security forces two years before. The summonses were issued under one of the laws that will have to be repealed after 1 April, and the same Administrator-General who is apparently to be relied upon to identify and repeal those laws issued the summonses. He did that to stifle, suppress and hold back Gwen Lister and Anton Labowsky during the course of the independence process.
  We cannot rely on the bone fides of such a man and the United Nations and UNTAG must be empowered and emboldened to take a stance that will enable them to draw on all available sources of information and action to bring about the repeal of those laws. Without such repeal it will be impossible to move to a successful settlement.
  We are all agreed that there must be an end to violence and intimidation from whatever source. We addressed that matter earlier in the debate. Such violence and intimidation are never acceptable but we know the difficulties about containing them because they were experienced in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But it must be done. Every political party, whatever its belief, must have a chance freely and fairly to put its case to the people.
  While I was in Namibia I met Church men, laity and people who are active in the political process and people who are not. They all expressed concern that there would be difficulties unless UNTAG had people on the ground and until the United Nations was able to disseminate free, fair and impartial information. As in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, we need United Nations information vans to tell the people the truth. We cannot rely on the South West Africa Broadcasting Corporation or on the overwhelming majority of the printed press in that country to do that. Most of the media has clearly taken sides, and that was clear simply by watching television even if one could not understand every word. There is a heavily biased media in favour of South Africa and its interests.
  1142
  I met one pastor who gave me personal testimony about the army going into the schools and seeking to explain to the children the meaning of resolution 435. When a headmaster called on the Church to come in and explain and to put its view, the Church did not even have a professional video unit. It is not rich in the resources needed to explain and to convey information. It is desperately crying out to the international community for such resources, and one hopes that that cry will be heard. When the pastor went to that school, someone from the local education authority came in and challenged the headmaster and said, "Why are you asking this Church man to explain resolution 435 to the children? Why have you not asked a member of the defence force?"
  I have no reason to doubt stories that I heard of South African army personnel going from village to village, ripping the shirts off villagers who supported SWAPO and requiring them to wear DTA shirts, or of army personnel going from village to village carrying pictures of Ethiopia and saying to the villagers, "If you vote for SWAPO, this is what will happen to your country." The telegrams from Oxfam representatives and the fax information from the churches in Namibia show that that is happening now. It is not a figment of SWAPO propaganda; it is the truth. There has to be an answer and a counter to that. I hope that the Minister will ensure that we put the case for an enhanced information presence amongst the UNTAG forces in the Security Council in the days and months ahead.
  I hope, too, that the Minister will recognise the extent to which already the election campaign is being fought in Namibia by those who have the closest possible connection with South Africa. It must be said that the DTA is South Africa's surrogate. No one believes for a moment—certainly South Africa does not believe—that anyone other than SWAPO will win the election. After all, SWAPO has been the flag carrier of independence and has been at the forefront of the armed struggle. The people know why they have the prospect of independence. In Namibia they will no more vote for the DTA and its allies than the people of Zimbabwe did for Bishop Muzorewa. People are not that gullible. They will vote for SWAPO.
  What South Africa seeks to ensure, by fair means or foul, is that SWAPO will not get two thirds majority necessary for it effectively to write the constitution. That is the concern of South Africa. That is why it is waging a massive propaganda war and why it sought to use the Prime Minister in the way that it did, both at Windhoek and subsequently in the House when she gave the answer that she did to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. The hon. Gentleman was told that all the information would be available to him and that he should read what the Secretary-General had said. Then it emerged that the Secretary-General's statement was confidential and was not available. I have news for the House—it is available, and as from tonight it will be in the Library. I have a copy here and I will put it in the Library. It shows that the Secretary-General made it crystal clear that it was not possible to say that SWAPO had an offensive intent. The whole House will be able to see the document in the Library later tonight because it is right that it should be in the public domain.
  That is all part and parcel of the campaign of misinformation and the attempt to manipulate the media and the political process that are being fuelled and funded by South Africa. I saw it with my own eyes when I

  1143
  attended the beginning and end of the DTA rally in Windhoek on 1 April. It was an interesting experience. The comparison with the SWAPO rally, which I also attended, is worth making. The DTA rally was to take place at a ground which had been chosen as an act of provocation—immediately adjacent to the ground that SWAPO had originally chosen—but SWAPO withdrew because there was a danger of violence if the two rallies took place side by side.
  The DTA rally took place on a ground that was well equipped with pavilions and tents. It had a massive stage and a huge amplification system. The SWAPO rally, on the other hand, took place without any tents or pavilions. The SWAPO leadership and speakers spoke from the back of a van. Even my local party would not have been happy with the communications system. Nevertheless, the SWAPO rally attracted about 25,000 people, while the DTA attracted only about 6,000. That is the difference between the two parties on the ground. It is interesting that the DTA should attract so few people, despite all that expenditure, which included a horse show. The DTA is noted for its horse shows, which are used to draw people in. I also witnessed the free distribution of shirts at the start of the DTA meeting. One wishes that one's own party were in a position to throw T-shirts off the back of a lorry, as the DTA did to reward people for attending that rally.
  Free transport was also provided. SWAPO members in Windhoek told me that they had come down from the hinterland in free transport provided by the DTA. They boarded the van and then changed their T-shirts once they arrived at Windhoek. However, it was not just a matter of handing out free T-shirts at the beginning of the rally. Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I should not have believed it, but the DTA also handed out corned beef at the end of the meeting. If one attended from the beginning, one had the chance of a free T-shirt, but if one stayed to the end —not always easy to do on any political occasion—there was a can of corned beef as well. Should there be any doubt about that, I have photographs of the corned beef being distributed and carried away. I took those photographs myself, when I attended the end of the DTA rally that afternoon. They show Herero ladies in beautiful costumes based on Victorian and German costumes of the period, smiling and waving, and carrying away their cans of corned beef. Although I took those photographs myself, I think that they should be deposited in the Library so that right hon. and hon. Members have evidence of the corned beef reward for those who withstood the DTA's rhetoric. They will therefore be placed in the Library with the Secretary-General's report for Members of Parliament and other interested persons to examine.
  The question that must and will be asked by those concerned with the peace process in Namibia is where the beef lies in the resolution and determination of UNTAG to see that process through, and in the resolution and determination of the Security Council to provide the means and the resources to achieve that. It is no use simply blaming UNTAG. The fact remains that all too often UNTAG finds its hands tied by a lack of resolution and of will on the part of the Security Council. The challenge to the House and to the international community is to put the beef into the peace process, and in so doing to give that little boy in Oshikati and the rest of his family in Ovamboland, together with all the other little boys and girls in Namibia and their families throughout that territory, the chance, hope and opportunity to enjoy a
  1144
  peaceful transition out of the bonds of apartheid and into the international community as a non-racial democracy within the Commonwealth. That is what they want. We have seen the trust of the people of Namibia betrayed in the past. We must not be a party to their betrayal in the future.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Knowles: I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for his courtesy in allowing me to speak in what is very much his debate. It is kind of him to let someone else speak, particularly when he knows that I shall not agree with everything that he said. It is partly a product of our system I agreed with and can accept that much of what he said, but inevitably I shall concentrate on the issues on which I disagree.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South was absolutely right about the personal tragedies—especially that of the small boy in Namibia. It is a tragedy for any small boy caught in such a war anywhere—be it Namibia, or anywhere else in Africa, in Afghanistan or in central America. Little more than a generation ago it was also true of many young children on this continent. That is always the effect of warfare. A bloody guerrilla war has been going on for a long time in Namibia, and the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that South African forces undoubtedly bear this in mind.
  Nevertheless, I find it hard to accept the hon. Gentleman's version of 1,800 SWAPO guerrilla troops straying across the border and practically carrying election literature and ballot boxes. That does not seem likely and I know from accounts from Namibia that, even according to the kindest of interpretations, it did not happen in that way.
  I can well believe that SWAPO thought that it should be an equal partner in the agreements, but it was not—and deliberately so. The agreements were between outside powers. SWAPO is now one party among many standing for election. It is not the sole representative of the Namibian people. If that were so, an election would not be necessary. The African National Congress stance on South Africa comes to mind that all that need to be discussed are the modalities of the transfer of power. However, SWAPO has to compete with other political parties in the election market.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Member for Brent, South said that chance, hope and opportunity were what the Namibian people should be given, as should all people of southern Africa. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) extend his argument to include or expand the proposition that SWAPO is not the vehicle to give chance, hope and opportunity when it so manifestly abuses the peace process that is being implemented?
  Mr. Knowles: My hon. Friend must bear with me. I can believe that many individuals among the SWAPO troops were under the misapprehension that they could return to Namibia, and some paid a high price—indeed, the ultimate price—for that misapprehension. Who issued the orders to them? Eighteen hundred troops do not cross a border in such a solid way by chance or misapprehension. It was a deliberate move and the higher command of SWAPO must have issued the orders.
  Mr. Hunter: Perhaps it was Nujoma.
  Mr. Knowles: It may well have been Nujoma.
  At the last count I saw 42 parties were to run in the elections, although I expect that it will boil down to six or seven. One advantage that Namibia has, and will have when it becomes independent, is that its black politicians have been in place for a long time, so when it gains independence it will not be a direct transition from colonialism. The fact that there are black administrators who run large enterprises will be an advantage. As the hon. Member for Brent, South knows, there is a considerable infrastructure in Namibia, including road networks and industries. The cost of the war has been appalling, but there is much left on which to build.
  The difficulty with the Council of Churches in Namibia is that it is often seen, whether fairly or unfairly, as a mouthpiece for SWAPO. The point has been made that we need much more aid for Namibia, especially to back up the democratic processes. It was pointed out, for instance, that there was not enough money for the UNHCR.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a large tranche of aid was voted by the European Parliament the other week to help the democratic process. We must ensure that the money is used for precisely that purpose —that it does not disappear into holes and is not misappropriated. That responsibility will lie primarily with the European institutions, but I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will have a say in the matter, as indeed she should.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South rightly said that this settlement is entirely different from the position reached in Zimbabwe. He made a point which must, I believe, always be made about any circumstances in southern Africa—that, however much it may be deplored, the truth is that the economy of southern Africa as a whole depends entirely on South Africa, its railway systems and its ports. Most ironically of all, even on Namibia's independence its main port, Walvis Bay, will still legally be an integral part of South Africa because of a settlement reached in 1896, when the British occupied it and it was passed on to the Cape colony. A final irony is that when Namibia rescinded some of the apartheid laws, people who broke the Immorality Act in Walvis Bay would be arrested and tried in South Africa but put in gaol in Namibia, where breaking the Act was no longer a crime—a truly bizarre situation. Matters will not necessarily become easier with independence, and in some respects they may even become more difficult.
  I support what the hon. Gentleman said about increasing the size of UNTAG. More troops are needed on the ground, as well as more administrative support. Of course, that will not ultimately overcome the problem of dependence on South Africa—both on its administrators and on its supply routes—as the hon. Gentleman hopes because to get equipment through to support the United Nation troops requires the use of South African facilities. That is another example of the complexity of the problem and the difference between Namibia and Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, I believe that the extra cost of bringing in administrators and troops will be worth while because the alternatives are worse—either the settlement will break down and we shall go back to where we were, or find ourselves in a worse position and if independence breaks down we shall end up with a second Congo, which would be horrific. There must be a right to return for the exiles
  1146
  and all those who went into exile must be accounted for. The hon. Member for Brent, South commented on the South African record, but one must also comment on the SWAPO record. There are some nasty rumours about what has happened to some of the exiles and detainees in SWAPO hands.
  The solution will not be easy. We know all too well that the concept of the nation state, which has been foisted on Africa as a whole, is a western European concept based on the boundaries drawn by the colonial powers and does not accord with the reality of the stage of development in many countries. The idea that political parties are anything other than expressions of national or tribal feeling is nonsense. When many make the prediction that SWAPO will win the election, it is based on the simple statistic that the Ovambo people, who are SWAPO's main support, now constitute about 52 per cent. of the population. In 1980, they were about 46 per cent. of the population. Many Ovambo were previously in Angola because of the colonial division drawn through the middle of their territory but have now come to Namibia, so there is an additional 6 per cent. of Ovambo who are refugees from Angola. There is no way to distinguish between those who are theoretically Namibian citizens and those who are theoretically Angolan citizens.
  As 52 per cent. of the population support SWAPO, it is likely that SWAPO will gain a majority, although I am not sure that it will gain the two thirds needed to set up the constitution. As the hon. Member for Brent, South said, that is currently the key argument about the settlement. We need more resources in Namibia now to ensure that a settlement takes place. The alternative of a breakdown after independence, which would be a replay of the Congo or Angola where there were nearly equally balanced power blocs, is too awful to contemplate. Every hon. Member would agree with that point of view.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on raising this debate. He has brought a measure of sense into the debate that did not, I am afraid, exist when the Prime Minister spoke in the House a week ago last Tuesday. I also want to congratulate him on going to Namibia and being there at a time when the situation was very dangerous for him and, of course, for the people of Namibia.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) mentioned to me some time ago that he had been invited to South Africa by the South African Government. He admitted to me that he had been shocked by apartheid in practice, but clearly he was not shocked enough to be able to change sides and join us in opposing the apartheid system perpetrated by the South African Government. I shall not be as friendly as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South. There are a number of culprits who need to be named and the first and chief culprit is the Prime Minister herself. She has been aware for some considerable time of the situation in Namibia.
  On 31 January 1989 I asked the Prime Minister this question:
  "Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations secretary-general has been compelled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Britain, to propose a reduction in the number of United Nations troops in Namibia from 7,500 to 4,650 during the transition to independence? Has she heard the views of President Mugabe

  1147
  of Zimbabwe, who has stated that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been fiddling with the moralities of resolution 435? In view of the fact that she will shortly be visiting Zimbabwe and that South Africa continues to support armed bandits and assassination gangs, will she review Britain's position in this matter and insist that the original numbers of troops be maintained?"
  That was a pretty straightforward question. In reply the Prime Minister said:
  "I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to uphold a decision of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We shall honour it. The agreement was an excellent one and was obtained by the co-operation of those five members plus the co-operation of South Africa and Angola. I believe that we should do everything in our power to see that it is fulfilled. As far as this country is concerned, we pay our full subscription to United Nations peace-maintaining forces everywhere."—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 163.]
  As usual, the Prime Minister avoided the issue, but there is no way in which she can say that she was not warned about the position.
  We talked in great detail about the reduction in United Nations troops. I asked the Prime Minister whether Britain, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, would intervene and insist that the original number of troops should be maintained. She refused to do so. The Prime Minister owes the House an explanation not only because she refused to take any notice of that point, but also because of her subsequent actions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South referred to the fact that the Prime Minister quoted from the so-called confidential document. I am pleased that she has taken the initiative and that that United Nation document is to be placed in the Library. However, we still need an explanation from the Prime Minister about the matter. After her evasion of the truth, in her usual arrogant way she sent along the Leader of the House to apologise for her. She did not and she could not bring herself to apologise in person.
  The Prime Minister also said that SWAPO was guilty of
  "a most serious challenge to the authority of the United Nations."
  There is no provision in the United Nations plan that prohibits the entry of SWAPO personnel into the country prior to the commencement of the plan. The real challenge to the United Nations was the breach of the ceasefire. There is no evidence that SWAPO opened fire first. All the evidence from independent sources blames the South African police and Koevoet for launching unprovoked attacks against SWAPO. We challenge the Prime Minister to produce evidence that SWAPO was the first to breach the ceasefire.
  Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to accept that the United Nations process for the implementation of resolution 435 includes armed—I stress the word "armed"—SWAPO guerrillas entering Namibia after 1 April? Does he understand that that was part of the agreement?
  Mr. Grant: As far as I am aware, United Nations resolution 435 does not prevent SWAPO guerrillas from entering the country. That is what is important. If there is nothing to prevent SWAPO guerrillas from entering the country, they are at liberty to do so. It is, after all, their country. It is not the United Nations' country or South Africa's country. They have a right to enter the country whenever they wish.
  1148
  The Prime Minister also said that SWAPO had committed itself to the Geneva accord. The words "Geneva protocol" would have been more correct. Under that accord, SWAPO is required to stay north of the 16th parallel in Angola. SWAPO was not a party to the accord, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South mentioned, nor has it ever endorsed it. The only undertaking that SWAPO gave was to agree to a unilateral ceasefire in accordance with the protocol. Nor does this protocol form any part of the United Nations plan. Again, we challenge the Prime Minister or her right hon. Friend the Minister of State to produce evidence that SWAPO has ever committed itself to the Geneva protocol.
  The question with which I and, I am sure, other Members on both sides of the House are left is this: why was the Prime Minister so gullible? Why was she so easily taken in by the propaganda of the South African forces? I hope that the Minister of State will answer some other questions. Why, for instance, did she not make a statement to the House when she returned——
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  Mr. Grant: Why, for instance, did she not make a statement to the House after her visit to southern Africa, as she did last year after she had been to Nigeria and north African countries? What was she afraid of? Was she afraid that her statements would be put to the test? Could she not have answered the questions that we wanted to put to her? Why was she afraid?
  There is another question: why did she seem to get everything wrong? Why was she so eager to accept the South African position? Did she not read—as I did—the report of the United Nations' representative in Namibia, which said that SWAPO did not have any hostile intent? Did she not think, "Maybe I can give them the benefit of the doubt"? Certainly not. I suggest to the House that the Prime Minister is, indeed, a true friend of the racists and that she cannot stand the idea of Namibian independence. That is the fact of the matter.
  I should like to go on at length, but we want to hear art answer from the Minister. However, I have to say that: there has been another party to this misinformation—the press, the media. I was shocked when I read reports emanating from Windhoek, from the chief reporter of The Independent, who not only accepted the South African position, hook, line and sinker, but went on to attack Sam Nujoma, the Secretary-General of SWAPO, in terms that made it clear to me that The Independent, through its reporters in Windhoek, was basically acting as the agent of the South African defence forces.
  We demand that the Prime Minister come before the House and make a proper statement about her visit to Namibia, about the fact that she interfered in the peace process there, about the fact that she refused to do anything about the cut in the UNTAG forces put forward by the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is a member. We demand that she come here to give an explanation about the confidentiality of the report of the United Nations Secretary-General. We demand that she give evidence as to why she thinks that SWAPO has broken any agreements—and we want her to produce those agreements.

  1149
  Many hon. Members and many people outside who are paying attention to our deliberations want answers to at least some of those questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them this evening, but the Prime Minister should certainly be here.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall disregard much of what we have heard because I believe it to be wrong and irrelevant to the process of independence in Namibia. The essential point is that the process must work because there is so much at stake. So much can go wrong in Namibia and the implications of things going wrong are fearful to predict with regard to other parts of southern Africa.
  SWAPO is no angelic force and its leader, Sam Nujoma, is no angel. It has committed monstrous crimes in the name of its pursuit of freedom and independence in Namibia. We must not forget that in past years there have been many people—black skins, white skins and people from many origins and races—trying to create a basis for a genuine democratic state in Namibia. They must succeed.
  I shall say no more other than to stress the fact that one must dicount the proposition that SWAPO is a redeeming force any more than one can say that the African National Congress is the redeeming force for South Africa. There are other forces of moderation and compromise which are seeking a way to create a genuine democratic society. That must be the way.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: No, I have finished.
  10.6 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I welcome the opportunity that has been provided by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to speak about the latest developments in Namibia and the first two difficult weeks of the implementation of the United Nations plan for the transition to independence. These are events of major regional and international importance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, independence must be made to work in Namibia. The process must succeed. It is vital to Her Majesty's Government and everyone who wants to see peace in Namibia that we do everything we can to make the process succeed. As the hon. Member for Brent, South said, success is vital to the Oshikati boy and all the other young people, let alone those who have suffered a great deal in recent years.
  That success can take place only if all parties adhere to the United Nations plan. It is also crucial that the authority of the United Nations is upheld. Therefore, I hope that, despite one or two remarks we have heard tonight, the House will unite in emphasising that Britain will give unstinting support, as it has already, to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, his special representative in Namibia, and all those who are working for peace in that much benighted country.
  1150
  I shall respond to the remarks made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the hon. Members for Brent, South and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). My right hon. Friend condemned SWAPO on the basis of information which had been given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is clear that her judgment, on Tuesday before last, of the events that had occurred was correct. It was not only her judgment but it was shared by the United States, Cuba, Angola and the Soviet Union. I happen to know that it is shared by some African nations which are as concerned as anybody in the House to see peace in Namibia.
  When the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council was delivered on 3 April it was delivered in confidence, although much of its content was known. I am surprised that the Secretary-General should use the hon. Member for Brent, South as his channel of communication. Nevertheless, the information has been known to all of us, if not the exact wording. When hon. Members have the chance to see the exact wording they will know exactly why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have spoken about the incursions in the way we have.
  Enough of that——
  Mr. Boateng rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: I would like to get on, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. He did speak for some 52 minutes. That is his right, I know, but he gave me a lot of things to answer, so perhaps he will let me continue.
  The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting defence of SWAPO in his contribution tonight, but he failed to disguise two vital points. First, none of the bloodshed, the deaths that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) referred to and many others have so wept over, would have occurred if SWAPO had not violated the agreement it indeed had come to with the United Nations.
  The Prime Minister's intervention in Windhoek on 1 April saved the peace process from complete collapse. I do not think there is any doubt in this country or in any of the other permanent member countries of the Security Council that without that intervention there could have been a far worse situation in Namibia.
  I want to move on to what happened on the first——
  Mr. Grant rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: No, I will not give way at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  I want to move on from the first day of the agreement because throughout recent months this country has been thoroughly active in support of the United Nations plan. In recent days our Signals unit of about 170 people arrived in Namibia and was immediately deployed to the north. It is playing a leading role there, not only carrying out its signals task but manning the nine assembly points to which the SWAPO insurgents are due to report. In the light of the need to speed up deployment of the United Nations transitional assistance group, Britain made available to the United Nations at under two days' notice 55 Land Rovers and 12 4-ton trucks, which were airlifted earlier this week to Namibia. We have already contributed half a million pounds to UNHCR for the repatriation of Namibian refugees.
  I should like to say to the hon. Member for Brent, South that I will look into why that money is not already

  1151
  passing through to RRR and the Churches. Certainly it has been paid over because, as in all other cases, the United Kingdom pays its dues promptly to the United Nations and intends to go on doing so.
  In addition to that, let me just remind the House that the financial contribution from Britain to UNTAG is about £14 million. In other words, we are determined to do all we can to establish peace in Namibia. That is true of those people who collect through their Churches to send goods out to Namibia right through the whole of our population, including the Prime Minister. I refute absolutely what the hon. Member for Tottenham said. He made a number of very foolish statements tonight. I hope that I shall not have to haunt him with them in the years ahead.
  Let me say one other thing about the tragic blunder that SWAPO made in sending over 1,800 troops south across the border into Namibia in contravention of the United Nations plan. I do not want to dwell on it, but there is one point that I think is very important.
  Mr. Grant rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish my sentence.
  Some commentators have claimed that the five permanent members of the Security Council were somehow at fault because the total numbers deployed by UNTAG are fewer than originally envisaged in the 1978 United Nations plan. This is nonsense. It was the United Nations Secretary-General who decided, on the basis of expert military advice which was gathered in Namibia, the size of the force required for UNTAG. He formed his report on the basis of information gathered at the end of 1988 and it was presented to the Security Council on 23 January this year.
  The five permanent members of the Security Council, including ourselves, supported him immediately, but the Security Council as a whole accepted the Secretary-General's recommendations finally only on 16 February. The General Assembly then delayed its approval until 1 March.
  By telling the House those dates, I seek to explain why 4,650 persons were not deployed on 1 April. It was because we had gone through a regrettable delay, caused by the filibustering of those who disagreed with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The six weeks that were lost at that point were crucial.
  Even if all the UNTAG troops had been in Namibia on 1 April, they could not have prevented the bloodshed in the north. The House should remember that UNTAG was never designed to engage in a pitched battle with armed insurgents. It was to keep the peace and to take Namibia through the transitional process to its elections on 1 November.
  Mr. Grant: The Minister emphatically said that SWAPO broke the United Nations agreement. Will she give us chapter and verse about any agreement that SWAPO made with the United Nations on this matter? Will she give us the facts, if not tonight then at some other time?
  Mrs. Chalker: There was no excuse for misunderstanding by SWAPO. We accept that the United Nations plan is not a single document. It consists of a settlement proposal, followed by a large number of subsequent
  1152
  agreements and understandings which date back as far as 1978. The facts are as follows. The document to which Opposition Members have sought to refer today and on previous occasions was the then Secretary-General's report back in February 1979. That is the only document that has ever proposed that any SWAPO forces would be in Namibia at the time of the ceasefire. That proposal was made without consultation with the contact group, and it was overtaken in 1982 when SWAPO agreed that the clause should be disregarded. An agreement was reached on monitoring by UNTAG of SWAPO bases which would be in Angola and Zambia.
  It is clear from the Secretary-General's report of 23 January this year that UNTAG's military tasks, which are listed in paragraph 43, were without reference to SWAPO bases inside Namibia. Further to that, it was made clear that, in August last year, SWAPO forces would be deployed to the north of the 16th parallel in Angola. That matter was known and acceped by SWAPO. SWAPO told the Secretary-General in August last year that it unilaterally accepted the Geneva accord. Early this year, in New York, it was again reminded of the exact arrangements. There was no excuse for it not to know.
  The actual deployment of which I have spoken and which was so delayed is most important. We have always pressed for the speedy deployment of the 4,650 men. The Finnish battalion went with the airlift of equipment from Britain and will take up position on Saturday 15 April. That will mean that all three battalions will be fully deployed by 20 April.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and other hon. Members have referred to reinforcements. We have said from the beginning that we and other Security Council members will promptly consider any request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for further reinforcements of the 4,650, but there is no sign that that request will necessarily be forthcoming. If it is forthcoming, it will be carried out quickly. There is also no need for further United Nations troop numbers if we can keep the United Nations plan on track. Observers, of whom there are increased numbers in the 4,650, represent a more important way of proceeding in this matter.
  Since 1 April, when we have been more active than perhaps could have been anticipated in getting the United Nations plan on track, our representations have concentrated on encouraging each party to honour the agreed United Nations plan. As the House knows, the Joint Commission of Angola, Cuba and South Africa met urgently last weekend at Mount Etjo. It produced a declaration which we strongly support.
  That set up a process for restoring the ceasefire and putting the United Nations plan back in being by setting up a mechanism for monitoring SWAPO assembly and withdrawal to Angola. Our embassies in Capetown and Luanda and the British liaison office in Windhoek are active in supporting the implementation of that Mount Etjo declaration.
  It would be wrong to pretend that there are no problems; some of them we have heard about tonight. But let us not forget that the arrangements to assist with this withdrawal exercise could not have been prepared in advance because such arrangements would never have been necessary if we had not had the movement by SWAPO over the border from Angola into northern Namibia on 1 April in contravention of the United Nations plan.

  1153
  That incursion was the root cause of many of the problems that we have since seen. It is now vital that SWAPO should withdraw north of the 16th parallel in Angola, that its bases there should be monitored by the Angolans, as previously agreed, and by UNTAG, and that all sides should show restraint.
  That brings me to an important matter raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South and to a question he asked me yesterday. We believe that not only must SWAPO return north of the 16th parallel and its forces be under effective supervision, but that South African forces, too, must return to the position of 31 March—that is, to be confined to base and to be monitored by UNTAG: even-handed completely.
  The declaration at Mount Etjo envisaged SWAPO reporting to UNTAG, but there was also provision in the declaration for a South African presence at the assembly points, and indeed for the Angolans to be present at the seven of nine assembly points which are on the border. We would naturally expect that the South African defence force and the south-west African police presence could not be on such a scale or deployed in such a way as to inhibit SWAPO reporting there.
  We were also concerned about reports that the security forces wished to interrogate or even to photograph or fingerprint SWAPO forces. We made our concerns known to the South African Government at a high level. The House will have noted that since then the South African Foreign Minister has said that any questions about the identity of those reporting to assembly points will be asked by UNTAG, and he has confirmed that UNTAG will supervise the agreed procedure.
  Mr. Pik Botha has also stated that there is no question of SWAPO members being interrogated and that the South African Government would not object to an extension of the period for SWAPO members to present themselves to the assembly points. It is also important that members of SWAPO should not seek to hide their arms in caches and merge themselves into the civilian population in Namibia. Our concern is that all concerned—I repeat, all concerned—must abide by what was agreed at Mount Etjo.
  Another important point raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South was about Koevoet. South Africa has been disbanding the Koevoet counter-insurgency units. Certainly, some of them have been absorbed into the south-west African police. He knows that we hold no brief for Koevoet, and in the past we have raised their excesses with the South African Government.
  No fewer than 500 United Nations police monitors will now be there alongside the Signals regiment from Britain, and others. Those police monitors deployed in Namibia —an increase of 140 on the 1978 level—will be there to monitor and see exactly what is going on. All the South African police and defence forces will be subject to monitoring under that plan by the observers who are being sent there.
  I remind the House that the sooner SWAPO forces withdraw to Angola, the sooner effective police monitoring by the United Nations of the South African forces and police force can begin. It is obvious that the task
  1154
  of the monitors will be easier in conditions of peace, which is what their presence was designed for, than it would be if a bush war were raging.
  Only when the withdrawal process has operated properly in Namibia can the United Nations special representative and the Administrator-General carry out their original tasks as set out in the United Nations plan. They will then be able to decide on the repeal of discriminatory legislation, which is vital, and on an agreed electoral system. It is crucial that there should be no more breaches of the United Nations plan by anyone. We will be monitoring implementation very closely and giving our full support to the United Nations. We also hope to work closely with other missions on the ground. The front-line states have a particular role to play and we welcome their decision to establish an office in Windhoek and will be working with them.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South raised three other general points of genuine concern. On the first, refugee reception is a priority and we are anxious that it should go smoothly. I have already mentioned the £500,000 for UNHCR and we shall look into what the hon. Gentleman said about the RRR committee. We urge all the parties involved to agree to a system to assist the return of refugees efficiently and humanely.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South also referred to the importance of political prisoners being freed. I agree. Political prisoners on both sides must be freed. Let us not forget that SWAPO has admitted holding over 100 political prisoners in Angola. We are concerned not only about those who have been prisoners of the South Africans; we look to SWAPO too to implement this important part of the agreement.
  On human rights, we understand that the United Nations is already planning to talk to human rights groups. We are concerned that the United Nations special representative should have access to information from a wide range of sources, including SWAPO, and we have already raised this point in the Security Council. I am confident that the United Nations will have thorough discussions to meet all the concerns that the hon. Member for Brent, South mentioned and that others, including myself, will mention.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South was in Namibia during the first days of the process. In the next seven months, there is a three-month period for the repeal of discriminatory legislation and for agreement on the electoral system. A four-month election campaign will start at the end of June. Under the agreed plan, the South Africans were under no obligation to negotiate on the legislation or on the electoral system before 1 April. However, that must happen now and those are the things that we want the Administrator-General and the special representative to get on with.
  We have been giving aid to Namibia since 1976 and we shall be giving further aid. We hope that as peace is established, we shall be able to give further economic assistance both bilaterally and through the European Community.
  We shall be watching most carefully to see that there is maximum freedom of information during the electoral process and minimum intimidation. We must be realistic. It is impossible to rule out all intimidation and I think that the hon. Member for Brent, South accepts that. We know that there will be problems and that there will have to be maximum restraint. However, the first priority must be for

  1155
  us and all other nations that want peace in Namibia to support the authority of the United Nations and help it to get on with its job.
  Yes, we want to put an end to violence and intimidation and we want to make sure that the political parties can put their case over. I spoke only this morning about the media, and especially the radio, becoming involved in the process.
  It is true that the process started badly—indeed, it started very badly with the insurgency from the north—but provided that the Mount Etjo decision and agreement is speedily and completely implemented, I believe that the process of peace will not only be put on the track but kept on the track. It goes without saying that a successful move
  1156
  to independence is vital for Namibians of all parties and all ages, from the Oshikati boy to the oldest Namibian who wants to see his country free.
  However, I believe that the implications go even wider than that. A successful transition to independence for Namibia will have a major impact on the prospects of peace in Angola and on the stability of the region as a whole——
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service Commission
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has for further changes in the role of the Civil Service Commission.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1982, the Civil Service Order in Council was changed so as to divide responsibility for recruitment between the Civil Service Commissioners on the one hand and Ministers on the other. The commissioners retained responsibility for the selection of middle and senior level staff—about 15 per cent. of the Civil Service. Departments assumed full responsibility for the majority of recruitment —85 per cent.—subject to certain rules laid down by the Minister for the Civil Service.

  In the light of current developments in Civil Service management, including the recent Next Steps initiative, it is now proposed to extend the area of recruitment which is the responsibility of Departments. It is proposed that from 1 April 1991, Departments and agencies should be free to carry out their own recruitment to grades and posts below grade 7, except for fast stream entrants. The Civil Service Commissioners would remain responsible for the recruitment and certification of staff at grade 7 and above —the more senior grades—and of their fast stream feeder entries. Departments and agencies, which will then be responsible for over 95 per cent. of recruitment, will act under rules laid down by the Minister for the Civil Service, which will reflect the principle of selection on merit by fair and open competition. The Civil Service Commissioners will advise the Minister on these rules, and will also be required to monitor, independently, their application by Departments, and to report accordingly. The commissioners will be free to publish their advice and reports.

  The commission will continue to make arrangements for recruitment to posts which remain the responsibility of the commissioners, and will support their new advisory and monitoring responsibilities. In addition, the Commission will be prepared to undertake, on repayment, recruitment of other grades on behalf of Departments, agencies and other bodies. A new executive agency will be created within the commission to carry out recruitment functions. Departments and agencies, however, will be free to make alternative arrangements for recruiting staff to the grades for which they are responsible, provided they observe the rules that will be promulgated.

  A considerable amount of detailed work remains to prepare for the transfer of responsibilities, to establish the executive agency on a repayment basis, and to make the necessary financial and legislative adjustments. In carrying this forward in the period up to 1991 and beyond, the objective will be to secure a smooth transition. There will be full discussion and consultation as appropriate with all concerned, including the staff of the Commission and their trades union representatives.
  620
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is considering the application of the proposed changes to the diplomatic service.

  In due course it will be necessary to replace or amend the Civil Service Order in Council and the associated general regulations, to give effect to these proposals.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report up-to-date figures on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) in the Official Report, 10 January, columns 633–56.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have arranged for tables giving the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pay and File
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is planned to implement the new system of pay and file for companies, introduced in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987, and the new interest rules for employers' PAYE deductions, introduced in the Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The implementation of pay and file for companies, and the general interest charge on employers' PAYE deductions delayed beyond the end of the tax year, have to be fitted in with the other major changes in direct taxation which are in hand. When the enabling legislation for these measures was before the House in 1987 and 1988 respectively, Ministers said that on present plans they would not be implemented until 1992 at the earliest. The detailed timetable has been revised since then to take account of new initiatives such as independent taxation.

  Under this revised timetable, the starting dates for these two measures will not be until 1993 at the earliest. I cannot be more precise at this stage. Firm starting dates will be announced in due course, and the likely starting date for pay and file will be announced in sufficient time to allow companies and their advisers to complete their preparations for the change. Companies which would, at present, have difficulty in meeting the time limits under pay and file for estimating their tax liability and filing their return, will be able to bring themselves up to date gradually over the period from now up to 1993.

  European Economic Interest Groupings
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax rules for European economic interest groupings.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under the terms of European Council regulation EEC No. 2137/85, European economic interest groupings may be set up. The regulation is directly applicable under Community law throughout the European Community and has effect from 1 July 1989. However, certain articles are not completely self-executing, and in order to make the regulation fully effective in the United Kingdom, domestic legislation will be required. For taxation purposes, EEIGs will be fiscally transparent; profits will be taxable and losses allowable only at the level
  621
  of their members. After consultations with interested parties, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to bring forward proposals covering the tax position of EEIGs in the 1990 Finance Bill. However, these will be effective from 1 July 1989.

  Other rules, for example on the method of registering EEIGs, which will be needed to make the regulation fully effective in Great Britain will be contained in regulations which my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to lay before the Houses of Parliament on 19 April 1989.

  Income Tax
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether unmarried couples who are living together and are treated for Department of Social Security purposes like married couples will be able to claim married couple's income tax allowance after April 1990.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: No. The married couple's allowance will be given only if the couple are both married and living together. As at present, however, an unmarried couple looking after one or more children will be able to claim an additional personal allowance between them. The additional personal allowance will be equal in amount to the married couple's allowance.

  Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1989–90 the figures given in reply to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham,Official Report, 1 December 1988, column 361, showing net incomes in 1979–80 and 1988–89 at (a) two-thirds average earnings, (b) average earnings, (c) twice average earnings and (d) three times average earnings, of single-wage married couples with two children, as percentages of the net incomes at the same earnings level of (i) single people and (ii) two-wage married couples, where the combined wage comes to the specified total and the husband earns two thirds and the wife one third.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The information is in the table.

  Net income of one earner married couple with 2 children as a percentage of net income of (a) single person and (b) 2 earner married couple with no children on same level of earnings

  (a) As percentage of net income of single person

  Multiples of average earnings1

  Two thirds

  One

  Two

  Three

  1979–80

  121·9

  115·3

  108·0

  106·7

  1988–89

  117·4

  112·0

  107·4

  105·4

  21989–90

  116·2

  111·3

  107·0

  104·9

  (b) As percentage of net income of married couple with 2 earners and no children

  Multiples of average earnings1

  Two thirds

  One

  Two

  Three

  1979–80

  101·9

  100·7

  103·4

  399·3

  1988·89

  99·8

  100·1

  102·6

  399·7

  21989–90

  98·8

  99·1

  101·6

  99·0

  The amounts of income (£ per week) are as follows:
  622

  Net income after income tax, national insurance contributions and child benefit (£ per week)

  Multiples of average earnings

  1

  Two-thirds

  One

  Two

  Three

  Married couple with one earner and 2 children

  1979–80

  65·46

  88·60

  163·44

  226·55

  1988–89

  145·99

  201·89

  379·14

  531·60

  21989·90

  158·71

  218·79

  409·35

  573·21

  Single

  1979–80

  53·71

  76·85

  151·30

  212·29

  1988–89

  124·33

  180·23

  353·18

  505·64

  21989–90

  136·56

  196·64

  382·61

  546·47

  Married couple with 2 earners and no children

  1979–80

  64·24

  88·02

  158·14

  3228·15

  1988–89

  146·27

  201·62

  369·43

  533·41

  21989·90

  160·62

  220·69

  402·89

  579·26

  1 Average earnings are those for full time males working a full week at adult rates in all occupations. They are £109·30 per week in 1979–80 and assumed to be £254·10 in 1988–89, an increase of 8¾ per cent. on average earnings in 1987–88 and £273·10 in 1989–90, and increase of 7½ per cent on 1988–89 (the increases used by the Government Actuary in assessing the level of the National Insurance Fund as described in paragraph 3·02 of the Autumn Statement 1988).

  2 Income tax rates and allowances used for 1989–90 are those proposed in the 1989 Budget. The calculations also assume post-October NIC rates; before October people earning more than £115 per week will pay an additional £3·01 per week.

  3 Corrected from the reply of 1 December 1988.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the net incomes in 1989–90, after taking into account income tax, national insurance contributions, child benefit and basic state retirement pensions, of a pensioner couple aged 65 to 74 years, a pensioner couple aged over 75 years and a single-earner couple with two children, assuming weekly gross incomes, excluding basic state retirement pension where appropriate, of £100, £150, £200, £250 and £300.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: Information is given in the tables. The income tax rates and allowances used for 1989–90 are those proposed in the Budget.

  Net income after income tax, national insurance contributions and child benefit, 1989–90

  Gross income1 £ per week

  Pensioner couples aged 65–74

  Pensioner couples aged 75 or over

  169·80

  153·24

  154·10

  219·80

  190·67

  191·53

  269·80

  223·38

  223·38

  319·80

  260·88

  260·88

  369·80

  298·38

  298·38

  1 Including basic state retirement pension of £69·80 per week paid to the husband.

  Gross income £ per week

  One earner married couple with two children1

  100

  104·54

  150

  137·54

  200

  170·54

  250

  203·54

  300

  236·54

  1 Assuming post-October rates of NIC, and child benefit of £7·25 per week (per child).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the United Kingdom aid provided to the Sudan in 1988–89, under the following headings(a) food, (b) medical supplies, (c) transport and (d) water supplies-equipment; and if he will give the amounts provided by the United Kingdom for the provinces of Equatoria, Bahr Ghazal and Upper Nile.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Final expenditure figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. Provisional figures for Britain's emergency and relief aid to Sudan include the following:

  (a) Food: £6·908 million (including the United Kingdom share of European Community food aid).

  (b) Medical supplies: £0·173 million.

  (c) Transport: £0·169 million.

  (d) Water supplies-equipment: £0·040 million.

  Of these, about £4·5 million was for the southern provinces of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and upper Nile. Figures for the individual provinces are not available.

  United Kingdom

  Share of multilateral aid to SADCC countries 1980–1986

  £ thousands

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Angola

  330

  610

  520

  720

  1,900

  1,700

  1,780

  Botswana

  840

  860

  420

  460

  1,660

  910

  1,410

  Lesotho

  960

  1,410

  1,860

  1,850

  2,170

  1,990

  1,370

  Malawi

  3,410

  3,010

  3,680

  4,010

  8,320

  3,770

  5,460

  Mozambique

  1,160

  1,510

  1,310

  2,880

  4,650

  5,390

  6,020

  Swaziland

  1,050

  450

  560

  940

  1,290

  510

  670

  Tanzania

  5,080

  9,690

  11,640

  10,590

  10,770

  7,620

  9,090

  Zambia

  2,560

  3,350

  5,390

  2,390

  5,730

  8,600

  5,740

  Zimbabwe

  2,770

  2,220

  1,810

  2,120

  5,420

  1,260

  1,540

  TOTAL

  18,160

  23,110

  27,190

  25,960

  41,910

  31,750

  33,080

  United Kingdom

  Share of multilateral aid to SADCC countries at 1988 prices

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Angola

  536

  889

  704

  928

  2,337

  1,981

  2,002

  Botswana

  1,365

  1,254

  569

  593

  2,042

  1,060

  1,586

  Lesotho

  1,560

  2,056

  2,520

  2,384

  2,670

  2,318

  1,514

  Malawi

  5,541

  4,389

  4,985

  5,168

  10,235

  4,392

  6,140

  Mozambique

  1,885

  2,202

  1,775

  3,720

  5,720

  6,279

  6,770

  Swaziland

  1,706

  656

  759

  1,211

  1,587

  594

  753

  Tanzania

  8,254

  14,129

  15,768

  13,648

  13,249

  8,877

  10,222

  Zambia

  4,160

  4,885

  7,302

  3,080

  7,049

  10,019

  6,455

  Zimbabwe

  4,501

  3,237

  2,452

  2,732

  6,668

  1,468

  1,732

  TOTAL

  29,507

  33,696

  36,833

  33,455

  51,558

  36,989

  37,199

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list British contributions to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference for each year since its foundation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference was founded, the United Kingdom has committed the following amounts:

  £10 million in 1980–81

  £2 million in 1982–83

  £13 million in 1985–86

  £10 million in 1986·87

  £10 million in 1987·88

  £15 million in 1988·89

  Expenditure is recorded within the figures for the country where individual projects are based.
  624
  In addition to emergency and relief aid, our programme of long-term development assistance and programme aid included:

  (a) Food production: £1·2 million.

  (b) Medical supplies: £2·3 million.

  (c) Transport: £2·7 million.

  (d) Water supplies-equipment: £2·0 million.

  Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to each of the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference through multilateral agencies, in each year from 1979 onwards(a) in cash and (b) in 1988 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows. Figures for 1987 are not yet available from all multilateral agencies.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the level of British bilateral aid to each of the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference for each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) if he will list the level of British bilateral aid to each of the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference for each year from 1979 to 1987 inclusive, at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave her on 13 May 1988 at column 250.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 21 March,Official Report, column 495, he will publish a similar table of information about re-entrant teachers for the year ended 31 March 1984;

  (2) if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 21 March, Official Report, column 496, he will publish a similar table of qualified teachers returning to employment in maintained secondary schools in the years ended 31 March 1984 and 1985; to what extent in each of 1984, 1985 and 1986 the numbers of teachers identified reflect a return to (a) full-time and (b) part-time and (c) supply teaching; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 21 March, Official Report, column 495, if he will now publish an analysis by age and sex of the numbers of re-entrant teachers to maintained secondary schools, in each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986; what further information is available to his Department in relation to the length of time such re-entrant teachers had spent out of service; what further information is available to his Department in relation to re-entry to (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) supply teaching, where this can be differentiated by age, sex or length of time out of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Figures for the years ending March 1984, 1985 and 1986 of re-entrants to teaching in maintained schools in England are as follows:

  Year ending

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Re-entrants to maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by sector

  Re-entrants to nursery and primary schools

  number

  6,470

  6,890

  7,670

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  65

  65

  63

  Re-entrants to secondary schools number

  6,380

  6,210

  6,480

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  41

  45

  47

  Re-entrants to nursery, primary and secondary schools number

  12,860

  13,100

  14,150

  as a percentage of all entrants to these schools

  50

  53

  55

  Re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by graduate status and degree subject

  Graduate re-entrants

  3,250

  3,130

  3,420

  Of which, number whose degree subject is:

  Mathematics

  230

  200

  240

  Physics

  90

  110

  110

  Other sciences

  500

  450

  530

  Geography

  210

  190

  210

  Economics and other social sciences

  250

  250

  270

  English

  530

  480

  510

  History

  240

  230

  280

  Modern languages

  360

  400

  420

  Other subjects

  840

  810

  850

  Non-graduate re-entrants

  3,140

  3,080

  3,070

  Re-entrants to maintained secondary schools by sex and age

  Men re-entrants

  1,440

  1,280

  1,280

  Of which, number aged:

  626

  Year ending

  1984

  1985

  1986

  less than 30

  350

  270

  230

  30–34

  390

  330

  310

  35–39

  310

  290

  290

  40–44

  160

  160

  180

  45–49

  100

  110

  130

  50 and over

  130

  110

  140

  Women re-entrants

  4,950

  4,930

  5,210

  Of which, number aged:

  less than 30

  780

  610

  600

  30–34

  1,210

  1,150

  1,150

  35–39

  1,470

  1,590

  1,780

  40–4

  860

  890

  980

  45–49

  410

  450

  410

  50 and over

  220

  240

  290

  These figures relate to qualified teachers re-entering full-time service. Comprehensive information on re-entry to supply teaching is not held centrally. Information on re-entry to part-time teaching, and on the length of time out of service of those re-entering full-time service, could only be extracted at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 21 March,Official Report, column 496, in relation to qualified teachers returning to employment in maintained secondary schools, how many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) supply teachers (i) return to and (ii) leave such employment, in circumstances where they leave for reasons other than retirement; what trends are discernible in the net position between such leavers and all returners in each year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 21 March, Official Report, column 496, in relation to qualified teachers returning to employment in maintained secondary schools, what comparable information is available to his Department from the database of teacher records, or any other source, in relation to the numbers and degree subjects of teachers leaving employment in maintained secondary schools, in circumstances where they leave for reasons other than retirement; if he will make it his policy to publish comparable analyses of such leavers and all returners in each recent year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Figures from the Department's database of teacher records, of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England leaving full-time service in the maintained sector before normal retirement age (60) are given in the table. Also shown are the numbers of re-entrants to full-time service in these schools.

  Year ending in March:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All leavers below normal retirement age

  13,350

  14,620

  15,150

  Graduate leavers

  7,900

  8,880

  9,130

  Of which, number whose degree subject is:

  Mathematics

  620

  650

  750

  Physics

  250

  280

  320

  Other sciences

  1,240

  1,420

  1,520

  Geography

  470

  570

  540

  Economics and other social sciences

  660

  750

  770

  English

  1,130

  1,230

  1,210

  History

  590

  670

  690

  Modern languages

  1,030

  1,140

  1,160

  Other subjects

  1,910

  2,180

  2,340

  627

  Year ending in March:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Non graduate leavers

  5,450

  5,740

  5,840

  Re-entrants

  6,380

  6,210

  6,480

  The figures for leavers below normal retirement age includes teachers retiring early, as well as those leaving for
  628
  reasons other than retirement. The precise numbers and characteristics of those retiring early can not be readily identified, but their overall number is of the order of 4,000 per year.

  All figures relate to qualified teachers leaving or re-entering full-time service. Comprehensive information on departures from and re-entry to supply teaching is not held centrally, while information relating to part-time teaching could only be extracted at disproportionate cost.
  629
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science over each of the 10 years from 1978 to 1988 how many(a) male and (b) female head-teachers of schools in England have left for the following reasons: (a) normal retirement, (b) early retirement, specifying the various reasons for this, (c) death in service, and (d)

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of English primary schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Early retirements:

  Normal retirements

  Infirmity

  Premature

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  1978–79

  Male

  406

  46

  28

  41

  100

  Female

  112

  38

  25

  1

  5

  1979–80

  Male

  348

  46

  134

  43

  84

  Female

  143

  41

  99

  0

  9

  1980–81

  Male

  343

  37

  256

  35

  95

  Female

  194

  25

  209

  0

  5

  1981–82

  Male

  346

  37

  426

  37

  84

  Female

  259

  48

  301

  11

  37

  1982–83

  Male

  284

  50

  436

  31

  64

  Female

  223

  44

  296

  10

  29

  1983–84

  Male

  264

  50

  458

  31

  50

  Female

  194

  56

  364

  11

  17

  1984–85

  Male

  239

  46

  416

  16

  32

  Female

  140

  59

  338

  6

  12

  1985–86

  Male

  188

  69

  344

  26

  14

  Female

  150

  73

  323

  10

  15

  1986–87

  Male

  155

  69

  284

  21

  10

  Female

  115

  84

  269

  15

  9

  1987–88

  Male

  144

  59

  193

  19

  8

  Female

  108

  82

  253

  7

  2

  TOTALS

  Male

  2,717

  509

  2,975

  300

  541

  Female

  1,638

  550

  2,477

  71

  140

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of English secondary schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Early retirements:

  Normal retirements

  Infirity

  Premature

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  1978–79

  Male

  143

  12

  18

  16

  38

  Female

  18

  4

  4

  0

  1

  1979–80

  Male

  127

  15

  51

  10

  30

  Female

  21

  3

  12

  0

  2

  1980–81

  Male

  99

  11

  104

  10

  24

  Female

  13

  4

  18

  0

  0

  1981–82

  Male

  91

  18

  132

  9

  25

  630
  death within five years of retirement; and how many in each category were from (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools, (iii) special schools and (iv) other schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is provided in the following tables.
  631

  Early retirements:

  Normal retirements

  Infirity

  Premature

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Female

  24

  4

  43

  2

  4

  1982–83

  Male

  78

  14

  164

  9

  18

  Female

  19

  8

  38

  1

  1

  1983–84

  Male

  62

  18

  167

  14

  12

  Female

  14

  8

  44

  2

  3

  1984–85

  Male

  62

  20

  171

  8

  13

  Female

  18

  4

  30

  0

  2

  1985–86

  Male

  64

  28

  191

  6

  4

  Female

  17

  6

  45

  0

  1

  1986–87

  Male

  40

  18

  142

  5

  2

  Female

  10

  5

  37

  0

  1

  1987–88

  Male

  47

  26

  126

  9

  2

  Female

  17

  4

  23

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  813

  180

  1,264

  96

  168

  Female

  171

  52

  291

  5

  15

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of English Special schools, between 1978 and 1988.

  Early retirements:

  Normal Retirements

  Infirmity

  Premature

  Deaths in Service

  Deaths within five years of Retirement

  1978–79

  Male

  23

  5

  0

  2

  6

  Female

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1979–80

  Male

  28

  4

  16

  5

  8

  Female

  10

  7

  14

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Male

  19

  4

  18

  6

  6

  Female

  8

  3

  13

  0

  0

  1981–82

  Male

  29

  7

  45

  2

  19

  Female

  18

  4

  30

  0

  2

  1982–83

  Male

  19

  2

  37

  4

  2

  Female

  10

  2

  21

  1

  0

  1983–84

  Male

  18

  9

  32

  1

  4

  Female

  14

  5

  22

  2

  1

  1984–85

  Male

  17

  0

  39

  3

  4

  Female

  9

  3

  29

  1

  2

  1985–86

  Male

  17

  10

  34

  2

  3

  Female

  10

  3

  28

  0

  0

  1986–87

  Male

  10

  12

  28

  5

  2

  Female

  10

  5

  22

  1

  0

  632 633

  Early retirements:

  Normal Retirements

  Infirmity

  Premature

  Deaths in Service

  Deaths within five years of Retirement

  1987–88

  Male

  12

  6

  23

  2

  1

  Female

  8

  3

  16

  1

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  192

  59

  272

  32

  55

  Female

  100

  35

  197

  6

  5

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of English other schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Early retirements:

  Normal retirements

  Infirmity

  Premature

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  1978–79

  Male

  41

  6

  15

  2

  13

  Female

  20

  8

  10

  1

  2

  1979–80

  Male

  45

  5

  20

  5

  11

  Female

  23

  5

  12

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Male

  34

  11

  40

  9

  5

  Female

  24

  0

  34

  0

  1

  1981–82

  Male

  40

  7

  57

  6

  13

  Female

  24

  7

  49

  2

  7

  1982–83

  Male

  35

  3

  47

  5

  5

  Female

  26

  6

  30

  0

  4

  1983–84

  Male

  26

  8

  49

  5

  8

  Female

  16

  9

  42

  0

  3

  1984–85

  Male

  31

  4

  41

  2

  4

  Female

  11

  6

  39

  1

  3

  1985–86

  Male

  35

  7

  65

  6

  3

  Female

  19

  7

  28

  2

  2

  1986–87

  Male

  33

  9

  50

  3

  1

  Female

  17

  8

  29

  1

  1

  1987–88

  Male

  19

  3

  48

  4

  3

  Female

  19

  8

  32

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  339

  63

  432

  47

  66

  Female

  199

  64

  305

  7

  23

  Tulse Hill School
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how quickly he will come to a conclusion on the application under section 12 of the Education Act for the closure of Tulse Hill school and the amalgamation with William Penn boys school in Red Post hill, London SE24.

  Mr. Butcher
  The proposals concerning Tulse Hill and William Penn schools are under consideration by my right hon. Friend. On 6 February, the Department wrote to the Inner London education authority and the boroughs of 634
  Lambeth and Southwark to consult them on a possible modification to the proposals. The responses to that letter are being considered and a decision is expected shortly.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he proposes that 1990's student grant will reflect the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government will take into account all factors affecting students' financial circumstances in setting
  635
  the level of the student grant for 1990–91. The community charge will not necessarily lead to an increase in outgoings: students will no longer have to pay domestic rates.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much research money has been granted by the Government to non-United Kingdom universities in each of the last 10 years; and what was the nature of the research for which money was granted in each instance.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vice-Chancellors
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the annual increase in the average salary of university vice-chancellors in each of the last 10 years, expressed(a) in cash terms (b) real terms and (c) as a percentage of the average rise in non-manual earnings.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average cost of tuition fees per student for (i) medical courses, (ii) science courses and (iii) arts courses for each of the last 10 years in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, with 1979 = 100, for (1) undergraduates and (2) postgraduates.

  Mr. Jackson
  Tuition fees for full-time home and EC students are not differentiated by subject area. The standard maximum tuition fees eligible for reimbursement under the student awards arrangements have been:

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  £

  1Index

  £

  1Index

  1979–80

  595

  100

  890

  100

  1980–81

  740

  105

  1,105

  105

  1981–82

  900

  116

  1,320

  113

  1982–83

  480

  58

  1,413

  114

  1983–84

  480

  55

  1,494

  115

  1984–85

  500

  55

  1,569

  115

  1985–86

  520

  54

  1,632

  114

  1986–87

  536

  54

  1,680

  113

  1987–88

  556

  53

  1,730

  111

  1988–89

  578

  52

  1,800

  108

  1 Measured in real terms using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total local authority spending on university tuition fee in each of the last 10 years in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, with 1979 = 100, for (i) undergraduates and (ii) postgraduates.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available data are listed below. The figures represent the total amount local education authorities pay in fees for students in receipt of a mandatory or discretionary award. The indexed figure is based on real terms 1978–79 prices.
  636

  LEA expenditure on postgraduate and undergraduate fees1 1978–79 to 1986–87—England and Wales

  £ million

  Year

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Cash terms

  3Real terms

  Cash terms

  3Real terms

  1978–79

  121·1

  100

  3·0

  100

  1979–80

  136·1

  96

  3·3

  95

  1980–81

  175·4

  105

  4·4

  106

  1981–82

  201·0

  109

  5·3

  116

  21982–83

  121·6

  62

  2·7

  56

  1983–84

  122·2

  59

  2·7

  53

  1984–85

  124·3

  58

  2·8

  52

  1985–86

  130·0

  57

  2·8

  50

  1986–87

  133·5

  57

  3·0

  51

  1 Excludes sandwich students in placement year.

  2 In 1982–83 the rate of fees set for first degree and diploma courses were reduced from £900 to £480 with compensating increases in direct funds to institutions.

  3 Indexed 1978–79 = 100.

  Grant-Maintained Schools Trust
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply of 4 April,Official Report, column 121, what steps his Department took on learning that the literature of the grant-maintained schools trust had incorrectly described it as a registered charity.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None. The grant-maintained schools trust is an independent body and it was for it to decide what steps to take. The trust was not described as a charity in any document issued by my Department.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, 4 April,Official Report, column 121, when the discussions with the chairman and director of the grant-maintained schools trust were held; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman and director of the trust in October last year and in February this year. Matters discussed included the number of schools making inquiries to the trust about grant-maintained status and a possible future role for the trust in helping any schools approved for grant-maintained status prepare for their new role.

  HM Inspectors
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what was the total establishment of Her Majesty's inspectors of education; and how many were in post, in the years 1979, 1983 and 1988;

  (2) how many (a) full individual school inspections, (b) other individual inspections and (c) whole authority inspections were carried out by Her Majesty's inspectors in each of the years 1983 to 1988; and what proportion of the total number of (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools were so inspected by category in each year;

  (3) if he will publish a table for each local education authority in England showing the number of inspectors and advisers employed by each authority, and the ratio of that number to the number of the pupils in that authority's area, with national totals and the ratio for England as a whole.
  637
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The total complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate, and the numbers of staff in post (including inspectors of further and higher education), were as follows, on 1 January in the year in question:

  1979

  1983

  1988

  Complement

  430

  440

  485

  Staff in post

  404

  386

  477

  Inspections which resulted in published reports on individual institutions and whole authorities in the calendar years 1983 to 1987 are listed in the following table. The proportion of schools inspected relative to the total number of schools in England in those years is shown in brackets. Figures for 1988 cannot be provided as a number of reports arising from inspections begun in that year have yet to issue.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Whole authority

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  1983

  95

  (0·5)

  88

  (2·0)

  3

  1984

  74

  (0·4)

  76

  (1·7)

  5

  1985

  99

  (0·5)

  83

  (1·9)

  1

  1986

  102

  (0·5)

  68

  (1·6)

  1

  1987

  90

  (0·5)

  59

  (1·4)

  1

  These figures exclude inspections of schools relating to some 300 district and national survey reports which issued over the period in question, and all inspections of youth and community work and further and higher education institutions.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate does not undertake "other individual inspections", but makes thousands of visits to schools in the course of its day-to-day business. Estimated figures for the academic years requested are provided in the following table. The proportion of schools visited relative to the total number of schools in England in those years is shown in brackets.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  1983–84

  3,600

  (18)

  3,400

  (77)

  1984–85

  3,000

  (15)

  2,200

  (50)

  1985–86

  3,000

  (15)

  2,100

  (49)

  1986–87

  3,200

  (16)

  2,300

  (54)

  1987–88

  3,300

  (17)

  2,400

  (58)

  Thus, on average, each secondary school is visited about every two years and each primary school about every five years.

  I regret that information in the form requested relating to local authority advisers and inspectors is not collected centrally.

  School Governors
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many school governors in the last two years have(a) been dismissed, (b) resigned and (c) had their nomination withdrawn by an appropriate nominating body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what rights of appeal he provides 638
  for school governors (a) against dismissal and (b) against their nomination being withdrawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for local authorities to decide whom to appoint to the places on school governing bodies reserved for them. It also falls to them to decide whether a governor appointed by them should be removed from office. But they must exercise their powers reasonably, and we would consider very carefully any complaint that an authority had not done so in a particular instance.

  Appointing bodies other than local authorities have similar powers. A complaint that such a body has exercised its powers unreasonably may be pursued through the courts. There is no provision for the dismissal of elected or co-opted governors.

  Collective Worship
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will issue guidance to local education authorities setting out a definition of a collective act of worship under the terms of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's circular 3/89, issued in January this year, contains guidance on the new requirements for religious education and collective worship in schools. It also explains that one of the functions of local standing advisory councils on RE may be to advise LEAs on matters connected with religious worship in schools. Copies of the circular were sent to all local education authorities and schools in England and to other bodies, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The Department does not intend to issue further guidance in this area.

  Ethnically Based Statistics
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the result of consultation on the draft circular on the collection of ethnically based statistics on school teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department and the Welsh Office issued a draft circular on the collection of ethnically based statistics on school teachers as a basis for consultation in October 1987. Comments were received from 58 bodies and individuals. The great majority were sympathetic to the principle of such collection. Issues of concern included the classification scheme to be adopted; monitoring of applicants for teaching posts; and timing. In the light of these responses my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today issued a revised circular. Copies will be placed in the Library. Complete data from all authorities will be required in January 1990. The collection of this data is essential to measure the success of our efforts to secure an increase in the number of school teachers from ethnic minority backgrounds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research and Development (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures on distribution for his Department's budget for research and development in Yorkshire.
  639
  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988–89 my Department's spending on eligible research and development projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region amounted to £3·75 million. This figure does not include some elements of expenditure which it was not possible to break down on the basis required.

  Furniture and Furnishings (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions in applying Furniture and Furnishing (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 to baby products he or his officials have had with the Baby Products Association; and what steps he has taken to ensure these regulations will be compatible with the need for baby fabrics to allow air to pass through them to ensure a child's breathing is not restricted when the fabric comes into contact with a baby's face, particularly if it gets wet.

  Mr. Forth
  Officials in my Department discussed the application of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations with the Baby Products Association and the British Association of Nursery and Pram Retailers on 22 February.

  The only padded nursery products where air permeability appears to be a significant factor are pillows and baby nests. The regulations apply to the fillings of pillows but not to their covers. Baby nests are outside the scope of the regulations. There would thus appear to be no conflict between these regulations and the need for permeability in nursery products.

  However, I am considering whether babies may be harmed by exposure to fire retardant chemicals likely to be used on the cover fabrics of some nursery products in order to make them match resistant and thereby meet the requirements in the regulations. If the medical advice I am seeking suggests that there may be such a danger, I shall consider amending the regulations in order to provide a limited exemption.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about productivity levels in British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the three months to January 1989, manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was at a record level, 6 per cent. higher than a year earlier and 49 per cent. higher than the 1979 average level. During the 1980s, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in all other major industrialised countries.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the east midlands area to benefit from the operation of the European internal market from 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The completion of the single market means greater freedom for trade, and many studies have demonstrated the benefits of that. The single market will bring opportunities for business in all parts of the country. DTI is seeking to ensure that business in the east midlands, as in other regions, takes the necessary action to respond 640
  effecitively to the opportunities and challenges ahead, and the "Europe open for business" campaign has stimulated great interest throughout the country.

  Spirits
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a copy of the representations of the European Community Commission by the European Community Spirits Producers Association to seek the early elimination of the remaining customs duties and frontier taxes levied on European Community spirits in certain EFTA markets; what action his Department has taken to support the United Kingdom spirits industry in achieving the removal of these duties and taxes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has received a copy of the representations to the European Commission by the European Community Spirits Producers Association. The Government strongly support the opening up of the EFTA markets to Community producers, and we shall press the Commission to react positively to the proposals in the association's paper.

  Import Quotas
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how quotas imposed on goods imported into the United Kingdom are achieved in circumstances where more than one company wishes to import and their desired total imports would exceed the quota.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Except when arrangements are made for the country of origin to administer a quota by dividing it amongst its exporters, quota shares are normally allocated to applicants on the basis of their past trade in the product concerned.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received proposals for the regulation of estate agencies from the National Association of Estate Agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received proposals from the National Association of Estate Agents and others on the regulation of estate agents.

  I am currently considering whether it might be appropriate to supplement the existing consumer protection provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979, perhaps with an effective self-regulatory system incorporating a code of practice. I hope to be in a position to announce the conclusion of my review fairly soon.

  Timeshare
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about timeshare mail shots; if he has any plans to seek to make them illegal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I receive a number of complaints about the use of prize-draw mail shots by certain timeshare companies and the Department's leaflet—"Your Place in the Sun"—warns consumers to be particularly wary of such offers.

  I have no plans to legislate. The Timeshare Developers Association lays down standards for the kind of

  641
  promotions undertaken by its members in its code of ethics. The Advertising Standards Authority considers complaints about promotional material which does not comply with the British Code of Sales Promotion Practice and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, apply to misleading advertising.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any representations concerning the introduction of a cooling-off period for timeshare buyers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I do receive complaints about some timeshare companies not providing a cooling-off period. It is an important safeguard for consumers, and an increasing number of timeshare companies recognise this. The Timeshare Developers Association's code of ethics requires its members to provide a minimum cooling-off period of five days. The Department's leaflet—"Your Place in the Sun"—advises those interested in timeshare not to sign anything unless a cooling-off period is allowed.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what dates since 1979 he or any of his Ministers have met Mr. Harry Landy to discuss the case for an inquiry into the affairs of the El Fayeds or House of Fraser holdings.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: None.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Defender Schemes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what inquiry has been made by the Government into the effectiveness of public defender schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have not initiated any inquiry into the effectiveness of public defender schemes and have no immediate plans to do so.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sapphire Investigations Bureau
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts his Department has placed over the past 10 years with the Sapphire Investigations Bureau.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no record of any such contract.

  Freedom of Information (Conference)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the British delegation to attend the Helsinki process conference on freedom of information; who drew up the delegation list; and how the list was compiled.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Lord Rees-Mogg has accepted my invitation to lead the British delegation to the London Information Forum. Following are the names of the personalities who have accepted his invitation to join the delegation.
  642
  They will be supported by Sir Anthony Williams, formerly Her Majesty's ambassador to the Madrid CSCE review conference, and by a small number of officials.

  Bruce Anderson—Sunday Telegraph

  Neal Ascherson—The Observer

  Jonathan Eyal—Royal United Services Institute

  John Grant—EFTPU

  John Harper—Consultant in telecommunications/IT

  Geoffrey Hosking—Professor of Russian History, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London

  Paul Johnson—Author

  Austen Kark—formerly Managing Director, BBC External Broadcasting

  Mrs. Helen Liddell—Maxwell Publications, Scotland

  Edwina Moreton—The Economist

  Dr. Janet Morgan—Director, Cable and Wireless

  David Nicholas—Chairman, ITN

  David Puttnam—Enigma Productions

  Malcolm Rutherford—Assistant Editor, Financial Times

  Adam Scott—Director, International Affairs, British Telecom

  John Vincent—Professor of Modern History, University of Bristol

  George Wedell—Professor of Communication Policy, University of Manchester, and Director, European Institute for the Media

  Andreas Whittam-Smith, The Independent

  Diplomatic Service (Women)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women currently hold the position of ambassador, high commissioner or chargé d'affaires within Her Majesty's diplomatic service.

  Mr. Eggar
  Six: five ambassadors and one chargée d'affaires.

  Fishing Conference (South American States)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances he sent out invitations to south American states to participate on 16 March in a conference on fishing; how many acceptances he received; and what were the reasons given by those who declined.

  Mr. Eggar
  Diplomatic missions from countries with vessels licensed in the Falklands fishery, together with others with a regional or general interest in conservation and fishery matters in the south-west Atlantic, were invited to a technical presentation in the FCO on conservation and management aspects of the Falklands fishery on 16 March. The presentation explained and expanded on the Falkland Islands Government's report, published on 9 March, a copy of which is being placed in the Library. Twenty two missions attended; 11 regretted that they were unable to send representatives.

  SAAD-16 Contract
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will approach the BBC to obtain a copy of the SAAD-16 contract relating to the export of rocket laboratories to Egypt, Iraq and Argentina.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Condor Project
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) asserted that the Condor 2 missile could start a new arms race.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The introduction of missile systems such as Condor 2 into areas of tension and instability risks encouraging other states to obtain similar weapons.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to discuss with the Israeli Government, the involvement of MBB in the Condor project.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the Argentina/Egypt Condor contract.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since the early 1980s, Argentina has been developing a rocket known as Condor 2. Egypt has been linked to the project by Argentine military spokesman and by the press. Officially, however, Egypt denies any involvement.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of Germany, Italy and France on the involvement of their citizens and scientists in the development of Condor 2 missile in Argentina.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The possible involvememt of both companies and individuals in various ballistic missile programmes which fall within the parameters of the missile technology control regime is regularly discussed among members of the regime.

  Chile
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Chile as to civil rights in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have discussed these matters in previous meetings with the Chilean Foreign Minister, and Her Majesty's ambassador in Santiago frequently does so with the Chilean Government. During his visit to Chile in January 1989, and FCO Assistant Under-Secretary of State held talks with Chilean Ministers and senior Government officials, which included the issues of human and civil rights.

TRANSPORT

  A6 Bypass
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider the provision of a footbridge over the A6 bypass at Barton-le-Clay, Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Provision cannot be justified on the basis of known pedestrian/cyclist movements and expected traffic flows.
  644
  The situation will be reviewed following completion of the bypass.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail on the appropriateness of private Bill procedures for British Rail's proposals for a Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  The private Bill procedure is the only procedure available for the promotion of new railway works. Objectors have the opportunity to petition against the Bill to Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, who have the power to amend the Bill in response to the petitions received. This provides an appropriate mechanism for objections to British Rail's proposals to be considered if they have not been resolved in consultations prior to the Bill's introduction.

  M4 Improvements (Berkshire)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his officials have had with the highways department of Berkshire county council about improving and modernising the road system in the county and about improvements to the London end of the M4; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Officials of the Department and Berkshire county council have discussed the 1989–90 transport supplementary grant and transport capital allocations.

  The county council is aware that the national trunk road programme includes schemes for widening the M4 to dual four-lane standard between the M25 interchange and junction 8/9 (Maidenhead) and for improving junction 8/9. We expect to appoint design agents very shortly. The county council will be consulted during the preparation of these schemes.

  Rail Link (Channel Tunnel)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial criteria he instructed the British Railways Board to employ when evaluating a high speed rail link from the Channel tunnel to London; and how these criteria differ from those applied to tunnel-linked road schemes in Kent.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's criteria for approving investment by British Rail were discussed in the Government's observations on the third report of the House of Commons Transport Committee, Session. 1986–87, which were published in the first special report of the Committee for the 1987–88 Session (HC420). These observations also addressed the question of comparability with the investment criteria used for new road schemes, and whether the difference in the methods used results in any significant distortion between the modes. Rail and road investments in connection with the Channel tunnel will be appraised using the normal criteria employed for rail and road investments.

  Public Transport (Safety)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve safety of the citizens on public transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In general, safety standards on public transport are already high; but they must be kept under regular review and steps taken to rectify problems revealed by the investigations into recent accidents. I am taking steps to strengthen the role of the railway inspectorate.

  British Transport Police (Report)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive and publish the report on the British Transport police from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Mr. Portillo
  The report on the inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will be made to the British Transport police committee which is responsible for the administration of the force. I understand that HMIC expects to report to the committee later this spring.

  Pedestrian Crossings (Auditory Signals)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what co-operation exists between European countries concerning compatibility of auditory signals at pedestrian crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1984, a survey of the audible signals being used in Europe was undertaken for the European conference of Ministers of Transport. A wide variation in the types of audible signals in use was noted. No standard system was proposed.

  The United Kingdom leads a working group of the ECMT on transport and disability. We keep in close touch on a wide range of policy and technical issues in this field.

  Three-car Trains (Replacement)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why, in British Rail's provincial sector, many life-expired three-car trains are being replaced by two-car units.

  Mr. Portillo
  Investment in modern two-car units offering an improved level of service has been approved as the most cost-effective way of replacing old diesel multiple units. Earlier this year I approved a further 194 express vehicles for provincial services.

  Traffic Noise
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent tests have been carried out to test the noise level and frequency of traffic passing on(a) brushed concrete and (b) blacktop; and what has been the result.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory, in its report 896 in 1979 and supplementary report 696 in 1981, published work on the noise and frictional properties of various types of road surface. Peak noise levels from vehicles varied with the texture, depth and type of surface material. Surfaces of equivalent skidding resistance produced similar noise 646
  levels. These results were further confirmed in 1987, following further comparisons between brushed concrete and black top surfaces.

  M20 (Hollingbourne-Ashford)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what will be the peak hour capacity of the Hollingbourne-Ashford stretch of the M20 when it is completed;

  (2) when he estimates peak hour capacity on the Hollingbourne-Ashford stretch of the M20 will be reached.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Motorways are designed for the average daily traffic predicted 15 years after opening. Peak hour flows are just one of the factors taken into account when designing the appropriate carriageway standard.

  Average flows of 80,000 to 100,000 vehicles a day are not uncommon on dual three-lane motorways and can be accommodated comfortably. The current forecasts for the Hollingbourne-Ashford section of the M20 in the design year 2005 are 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles a day.

  Elderly People (Drivers' Licences)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to require the volunteer drivers of vehicles used by charities to convey elderly and frail people to hospitals and day centres to obtain public service vehicle licences; what is the current position with regard to proposals from the European Community; and what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of training such drivers to meet public service vehicle licence standards and (b) the numbers likely to withdraw from such voluntary activities rather than undertake the necessary training courses.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have no such plans. We consider there is no reason on road safety grounds for doing so. We are pressing the European Commission at every level to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on volunteer drivers.

  We believe that its proposals would have significant social and cost consequences for non-commercial voluntary transport operations, not least because of their deterrent effect on volunteer drivers.

  We aim to protect our present arrangements in the negotiations in the Council of Ministers.

  Practical driver training for minibus drivers by local authorities and voluntary groups is already widespread. We fully support that.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has held with local authorities regarding any proposals to permit privately operated services over the Settle-Carlisle section of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. Such consultations are British Rail's responsibility.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations, other than British Rail, with whom he has had discussions about providing railway services on the Settle-Carlisle section of British Rail, during the last eight weeks; and if he will make a statement.
  647
  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I have had no such discussions.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposal to support a company 51 per cent. owned by British Rail, 49 per cent. owned by Cumbrian Railways Ltd., to operate the Settle-Carlisle section of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  Negotiations with any private organisations interested in the Settle-Carlisle railway are British Rail's responsibility. However, such negotiations must now be reviewed in the light of my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 11 April at columns 411–12.

  Motorways (Diversions)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times traffic has been diverted off motorways for each of the last three years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available. The police take decisions on day to day traffic control including when to divert traffic in the event of accidents or other incidents obstructing traffic flow.

ENERGY

  Sapphire Investigations Bureau
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contracts his Department has placed over the past 10 years with the Sapphire investigations bureau.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We have no record of any such contract.

  Electricity (Privatised)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the price of shares in the flotation of the various companies which are to be involved in electricity generation and supply; and at what date he expects publicity campaigns in support of these flotations to commence.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No decisions on the pricing of the offers for sale will be announced until just before the time of the sales. Similarly, there will be no expenditure on publicity incurred by the Government in support of the flotations until much nearer the time of the sales.

DEFENCE

  Challenger FV Tanks
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of Challenger FV tanks purchased for service with British forces; and what is the total cost of these tanks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 March 1989 at column 616; the number of Challenger tanks purchased for service with the British forces remains classified.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of Westland-Augusta EH101 helicopters currently in service with British forces; and what is the number on order and the expected total cost of the order.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopters currently in service with the British armed forces. The EH101 project is still in its development phase, and production orders are yet to be placed.

  Exercise Mallet Blow
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any aircraft taking part in Exercise Mallet Blow was authorised to cause a sonic boom over inhabited areas of Northumberland on Tuesday, 4 April; whether any aircraft did so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Pilots (Discipline)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military pilots have been subject to disciplinary proceedings for breaches of the regulations concerning the height and speed of flights over the United Kingdom during the past two years.

  Mr. Neubert
  One military pilot has been subject to formal disciplinary proceedings for breach of the regulations concerning the height of flights during the past two years. This was a Royal Air Force pilot who was charged with unlawful low flying. Less severe infringements of low flying regulations, which have provisions covering both the height and speed of low level flights, are dealt with by informal procedures.

  Nuclear Material (Imports)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the 1958 Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters was last amended; when nuclear material was last imported from the United States under this agreement; in what quality; and in what quantity.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom/United States bilateral agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes was last amended in 1984. Details of times of delivery, quantity and quality of materials are classified and, in the national interest, must remain so.

  Sapphire Investigation Bureau
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has placed over the past 10 years with the Sapphire investigation bureau.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no record of any headquarters contract having been placed with a company of this name during the past 10 years.

  Sea Mammals
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent his Department has used or is using or training sea mammals for any purposes.
  649
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Sea mammals are not used or trained for any purpose, and there is no record of their use in the recent past.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents(a) at sea or (b) in dock, involving Royal Navy nuclear powered submarines, involved (i) the death of submariners, (ii) the deaths of Royal Naval port workers, or (iii) the release of radioactivity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1980, one accident involving a Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine has resulted in the death (by drowning at sea) of a naval rating. There were no such accidents involving deaths of workers in Royal dockyards. Details of any accidents before 1980 could not be provided without disproportionate effort and cost. No Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine has ever been involved in an accident involving a radiological hazard to service men, base personnel or members of the public.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance from the Royal Navy or other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces has been offered to the Soviet Union in the rescue or recovery of the nuclear powered submarine lost off the north Norwegian coast on 7 April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No request for assistance from Her Majesty's forces has been made. In response to any such request, we would lend whatever support we could. Any discussions between the Soviet Union and other NATO countries are a matter for those countries. I understand, however, that an offer of assistance from Norway was declined.

  Greenham Common
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has discussed the future of Royal Air Force, Greenham Common with representatives of the United States Air Force; and whether there have been any talks with any official organisation with responsibilities for civil aviation about possible uses for the base, after the cruise missiles are withdrawn.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Greenham Common has been designated as a stand-by operating base for many years and we envisage that this role will continue after the cruise missiles have been withdrawn. No decisions have yet been taken on possible additional roles thereafter, but we envisage that the base will remain available to the United States authorities for military use. There have been no discussions with any official organisation with responsibilities for civil aviation about possible future uses of the base.

  Condor Missile
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat posed to the Falkland Islands by development of the Condor missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are concerned about the potential destabilising effect which Condor could have in any area of the world where it might eventually be deployed. As far as the threat to the Falkland Islands is 650
  concerned, we keep this constantly under review. At its present stage of development, Condor appears to lack the accuracy to pose a realistic military threat, and it would be politically counter-productive for Argentina to threaten to use it against the Falklands. If she were ill-advised enough to do so, we are confident that it would not prevent reinforcement of the islands.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) chemical and (b) high explosive warheads for the Condor 2 missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In principle, both high explosive and chemical warheads could be developed for a missile of this type. Any step in the direction of developing a chemical warhead would of course be a serious further enhancement of Condor's destabilising potential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mountain Ash
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Mountain Ash.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Crime
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the fight against crime.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the fight against crime.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the fight against crime.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive a range of representations about crime and the Government's action to combat it.

  Environment
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding improvements to the environment.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding improvements to the environment.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding improvements to the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations, many of which echo this Government's concern to maintain and improve environmental standards.

  Free Trade
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the importance of free trade.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the importance of free trade.
  651
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the importance of free trade.

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to note an increasing body of opinion supporting liberal trade policies, to which the Government are committed, both in relation to the European single market and to the GATT Uruguay round. It is encouraging that a firm basis has now been laid for the completion of the GATT Uruguay round negotiations.

  Tropical Hardwoods
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she is taking to control the importing of tropical hardwoods.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has had useful and constructive discussion with Dr. Freezailah, executive director of the International Tropical Timber Organisation, in which he has strongly emphasised the importance we attach to ensuring that trade in these products is conducted in a manner consistent with the needs of conservation.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take the initiative in organising an international conference on the dangers to the world of climatological flip resulting in another ice age, as a consequence of destruction of rain forest, along the lines of the conference on the ozone layer; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The whole question of climate change, including the impact of rain forest destruction, is being reviewed by the inter-governmental panel on climate change set up under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme and is fully supported by the Government. They will assess the scientific information available, and likely impacts of climate change, and possible policy responses and will report to the second world climate conference in 1990. I do not propose to organise an international ministerial conference at this stage.

  Bilton, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Bilton near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Consultants and Special Advisers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the amount spent by her office on outside consultants and special advisers attached to, or working for, No. 10 Downing street in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on fees on outside consultants in 1988–89. The latest estimate of the amount spent by my office on advisers in 1988–89 is £261,600.

  10 Downing Street and Chequers (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figure for 1988–89 for(a) the cost of
  652
  maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional cost at Chequers, (b) the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1988–89 are not available. The latest estimates of the figures requested are:

  £

  (a) cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Cheques 1 2 3

  6,262,672

  (b) grant-in-aid to Cheques Trust

  238,000

  (c) figures at (a) and (b) in 1984–85 price terms

  (a) 5,099,888

  (b) 193,810

  1The figures include costs at both 10 Downing street and Chequers; the information is not available by location.

  2 Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The salary of the Prime Minister is excluded.

  3 This total is calculated on a consistent basis with the total for 1986–87 in sub-paragraph (a) of the reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 1987 at column 846. If office services costs are excluded (to produce a figure consistent with those at sub-paragraph (c) of that reply) the total for 1988–89 is £5,756,942. (£4,688,056 at 1984–85 prices).

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the staff complement of No. 10 Downing street in 1988–89; and how many staff were registered disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  The total staff complement of 10 Downing street in 1988–89 was 67. None was registered disabled.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of official entertainment associated with the office of Prime Minister in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. The latest estimate of the total cost is £21,979.

  Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of all her offices, duties, accommodation and expenses in the year 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. The latest estimate of the total cost of all my offices in 1988–89 is £6,297,151.(Note. Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, and the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is also included. My pay and allowances as a Member of this House are excluded.)

  Overseas Visits (Media Representatives)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much is currently outstanding from media organisations for charges arising from their representatives who accompanied her on official transport on overseas visits; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 10 January 1989 at column 495.
  653
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many journalists accompanied her on her recent visit to various African countries using official transport; and what was the charge per capita.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty-three representatives of the media travelled with me. The per capita charge was £1,700.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the names and the organisations of those media representatives who accompanied her on official transport during her recent visit to various African countries.

  The Prime Minister
  A wide range of media representatives accompanied me on my visit.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many women she has appointed to public bodies since 1979: and what percentage this represents of total appointments for which she is responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed or reappointed 65 women to public bodies since 1979. This represents 14 per cent. of such appointments since that date for which I have been responsible.

  African Visit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide a breakdown by category of the cost to public funds of her recent visit to various countries in Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimate of the cost of this visit, which I gave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 7 April 1989, can be broken down as follows: travel costs £41,000; other costs £25,000.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what functions were carried out by each of the 11 accompanying officials on her recent visit to Africa; what was her method of travel; and who was the carrier.

  The Prime Minister
  I travelled to Africa in an RAF VC10. As regards the functions carried out by those accompanying me, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 7 April at column 303.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was expended from public funds for the provision of official gifts by her office in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. The latest estimate of expenditure by my office on official gifts in 1988–89 is £13,653.

  Travel (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of travel by her and accompanying officials in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1988–89 are not yet available and cannot be provided in the precise form requested. The latest estimate of the total cost of my travel and that of my staff in 1988–89 is £902,952.

  Civil Service Relocation (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will meet Alyn and Deeside district council at its Hawarden headquarters to discuss the relocation of civil service departments in the county of Clwyd and specifically at(a) St. David's business park, Ewloe, on the A55 and A483 and (b) Warren Hall business park, Broughton, near Chester, on the A55;

  (2) if she will visit the Warren Hall and St. David's business parks to see construction work in progress and to assess the suitability of these landscaped sites for the relocation of Whitehall Civil Service departments; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. Under the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 31 March 1988 at columns 610–11, it is for individual Departments to review the location of their work in accordance with clear guidelines with a view to finding locations which offer advantages in terms of recruitment and retention of staff, value for money and increased operational efficiency; and to make their own inquiries about the most suitable sites. When Departments decide to relocate some of their work they will include among the locations they consider areas, such as the hon. Member's constituency, which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies. Departmental Ministers will announce their own decisions on significant relocations, including their chosen venues.

  Torness power station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Torness power station.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to visit Torness power station in the course of the year.

  Secretary of State for Wales (Speech)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the speech made on 10 April by the Secretary of State for Wales on the economy was totally in accordance with the Government's policy; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The policies being pursued in Wales by the present Secretary of State, as with his distinguished predecessor, are those of the Government as a whole.

  Non-oil Balance of Payments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what policy proposals she has to tackle the adverse non-oil balance of payments.

  The Prime Minister
  The rise in the non-oil current account deficit has primarily reflected the strength of domestic demand. The Government have responded appropriately by tightening monetary policy and the effects of this are already apparent—for example in recent figures for MO, retail sales and the housing market.

  Wales TUC
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will meet the Wales Trades Union Congress in Cardiff to discuss the needs of Wales's industrial infrastructure;
  655
  (2) if she will meet the Wales Trade Union Congress in Cardiff to discuss Her Majesty's Government's industrial and regional policy; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Under this Government, the economy of Wales has been revitalised: economic performance continues to improve; output is growing; and unemployment if falling.

  Since 1987, Wales has attracted inward investment of nearly £1,450 million; grants for regional industrial assistance total some £255 million, with an associated forecast of 68,000 new jobs. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen for 34 consecutive months and by some 52,000 in the last two years. The Welsh Development Agency continues to maintain a high level of factory lettings with 2·3 million sq ft in 1988, the best year yet. Since 1979–80, over £1 billion has been spent on roads in Wales. Future plans are described in "Roads in Wales 1989" published on April 10 1989.

  I see no need to meet the Wales TUC.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had from(a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the Small Businesses Association to his criticisms of their submissions on the poll tax and business rate to hon. Members.

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Air Pollution
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce air pollution from airliners flying into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; and what powers are available to him to improve limits on the amount of aviation fuel airliners are enabled to jettison over land.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.
  656
  The Government introduced regulations in May 1986 to limit smoke emissions from aircraft. Regulations to limit the emission of unburned hydrocarbons came into effect in January 1989. These cover all airlines using United Kingdom airports. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in international discussions as to what further steps may be required.

  The Air Navigation Order 1985, made under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, prohibits the jettisoning of fuel by aircraft over the United Kingdom, except in an emergency. In such an event air traffic controllers will recommend that the fuel be dumped over the sea if at all possible, or in excess of 10,000 ft above ground level, when the fuel would vaporise in the slipstream.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the next edition of the booklet, "You and the Community Charge", to inform community charge payers that(a) the Secretary of State for Social Security can breach a duty of confidentiality in disclosing information to community charge officers and (b) the electoral registrar can take a copy of the community charge register and subsequently sell their names and addresses without their knowledge or consent.

  Mr. Gummer
  No, since neither is true. Regulations will specifically empower my right hon. Friend to pass information to registration officers without breaching any duty of confidentiality. Electoral registration officers may inspect community charges registers, but they have no power to copy and sell them.

  Water Authorities (Advertising)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the 10 national water authorities, how much has been spent to date on advertising purposes in respect of the water industry and its image; what is the expected planned total expenditure for each water authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter for the water authorities.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by year for the last 10 years the allocation of resources for programmes of radiological protection(a) from nuclear reprocessing plants and (b) from indoor exposure to radon; what additional research and resources are being planned to reduce exposure from indoor radon gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available. Expenditure figures for the Department over the past two years and planned expenditure for this financial year are as follows:

  £ thousand

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Radiation monitoring

  programmes and associated research in respect of the Sellafield plant

  480

  532

  340

  Radon research and surveys

  210

  250

  300

  657
  In addition, the Department will contribute to local authority costs in providing home improvement grants for radon remedial work.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations to date he has received from residents living in or near Doncaster metropolitan borough concerning the proposed toxic waste site application by Leigh Environmental at Kirk Sandell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received 16 such representations. It would not be proper for me to comment on this proposal as the application could come before the Secretary of State for decision.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to provide rate relief for sports clubs similar to that provided in Scotland.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. We propose to ensure that authorities are accountable for their decisions to grant discretionary relief to non-profit-making sports clubs by requiring their community charge payers to bear a proportion of the cost.

  Housing Act 1988
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations have applied to the Housing Corporation to become approved landlords under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 in the categories of(a) private landlords, (b) housing associations, (c) registered housing co-operatives, (d) trusts and (e) other categories; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have asked the corporation to reply to the hon. Member.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in reviving the private rented sector of housing since the Housing Act 1988 came into force.

  Mr. Trippier
  The measures contained in part I of the Housing Act 1988 have been in force for less than three months, and it is therefore too soon to draw any firm conclusions as to their impact. Nevertheless, the initial response is encouraging. Recent research suggests that many owners of empty property regard the freedom to charge a market rent as a powerful incentive to let, and that a number of existing landlords are already expanding their rented property portfolios. It is further estimated tht over £300 million has so far been raised under the business expansion scheme which provides generous tax relief for those investing in property to be let on assured tenancies. We shall carry out detailed evaluations of their impact in due course.

  Loughborough and Angell Town Estates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the combined total cost of moneys paid to consultants and the cost to his Department in relation to proposed housing action trusts for the Loughborough and Angell Town estates.
  658
  Mr. Trippier
  We expect that the costs in relation to the proposed Lambeth housing action trust will amount to less than £185,000. including VAT, when all bills have been paid. This figure covers consultants' fees and the costs of producing reports and leaflets about the proposals.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has received of the cost of the rehabilitation of Angell Town and Loughborough estates from his consultants on housing action trusts.

  Mr. Trippier
  The consultants produced an illustrative scheme for costing purposes which estimated the costs of improving the housing action trust area at between £54 million and £93 million approximately for Loughborough estate, and £39 million for Angell Town. Local residents will now be consulted about the proposals for their estates.

  Right-to-Buy Legislation
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects council tenants to be able to benefit from the proposed increase in the maximum discount under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The maximum discount allowable in right-to-buy sales was increased to £50,000 by the Housing (Right to Buy) (Maximum Discount) Order 1989 which came into effect on 11 April. The increased limit applies to all right-to-buy sales in England and Wales completed from that date.

  Housing (EC)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals have been made by the EEC Commission about housing rents and housing costs.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

  Insulation
  Sir Michael McNair Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 April to the hon. Member for Newbury, what are his reasons for not making inspection of loft roof, cavity wall and under floor insulation statutory requirements.

  Mr. Trippier
  The building regulations already require reasonable precautions to be taken to prevent toxic fumes from cavity insulation materials from permeating into the building. It is the statutory function of the relevant local authority to enforce this requirement. There are no similar requirements about how loft roof and under floor insulation work is carried out, because these operations are not thought to pose potential risks to the health and safety of subsequent users of the building. There are however requirements in the regulations relating to the thermal insulation of the exposed fabric of the building, and the enforcement of these requirements may involve the building control officer in the inspection of loft roof and underfloor insulation work.

  Housing and Business Development (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to the London boroughs on the fringes of central London as to the priority they should give to housing and business development; and if he will make a statement.
  659
  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend's guidance proposes that the boroughs surrounding the City of London should make every effort to accommodate business development within the broader planning objectives for their areas. Boroughs may adopt policies to retain sites and buildings in residential use, but in so doing they should demonstrate that they have made reasonable provision to accommodate demand for business development within their area.

  New Dwellings (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to ensure the provision of an extra 260,000 dwellings in London between 1987 and 2001.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend accepted the figure of 260,000 extra dwellings on the advice of the London Planning Advisory Committee, with the agreement of the boroughs. It is for the boroughs to make provision in their unitary development plans.

  Shop Floorspace
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has carried out to estimate the need for additional shopping floorspace in London up to 2001; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has not made such estimates. It is not the Government's policy to attempt to regulate volume changes in supply and demand for retail services. Guidance on how boroughs should take account of the implications of retail forecasts in their UDPs is given in PPG 6.

  Retail Services (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the future of retailing services in central London.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure compliance of the London Docklands Development Corporation with his draft planning guidance.

  Mr. Chope
  The London boroughs will produce unitary development plans in line with the Secretary of State's guidance. LDDC will be required to have regard to these plans in exercising its planning powers.

  Public Expenditure Estimates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures have been used in the relevant public expenditure estimates for the utilisation of non-prescribed capital receipts by local authorities in their housing capital expenditure in the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 tabulated separately for district councils and metropolitan authorities, excluding London boroughs, inner London boroughs, and outer London boroughs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimates of local authority non-prescribed capital expenditure used in 660
  public expenditure plans are made on a national basis and are not broken down by source of finance, by service, or by class of authority. The estimates of non-prescribed expenditure used in determining the total of capital allocations for England consistent with public expenditure plans for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 are given:

  £ million

  1987–88

  430

  1988–89

  725

  1989–90

  850

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what average percentage of the total housing stock of(a) councils, (b) housing associations and (c) private landlords was vacant at the last recorded date.

  Mr. Chope
  The information as reported by English local authorities in their housing investment programme returns for 1988 is as follows:

  Vacant dwellings as a percentage of stock

  Local authorities1

  2·4

  Housing associations

  2·5

  Private2

  4·1

  1 Includes dwellings which are closed or have been acquired for demolition and dwellings on overspill estates.

  2 Includes owner-occupied as well as private rented dwellings.

  Rents
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average percentage of the net rent roll uncollected by(a) councils and (b) housing associations for the last recorded period.

  Mr. Trippier
  English local authorities reported cumulative rent arrears (including arrears of former tenants) of £226 million at 1 April 1988: equivalent to 5·7 per cent. of rents collectable for 1987–88.

  Information on rent arrears in respect of housing associations is available in chapter 5 of a report by the centre for housing research, university of Glasgow titled "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the comparative costs of the repairs service for tenants of(a) housing associations and (b) councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on the repairs services provided by housing associations and local authorities, including data on comparative costs, is contained in section 6 of "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England", by the centre for housing research, university of Glasgow. Copies of the report, which was published earlier this year, are available in the Library.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Housing Corporation assesses the management performance of housing associations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985, the securing of proper management in the affairs of registered housing associations is the responsibility of the Housing Corporation. I am therefore arranging for the corporation to write to the hon. Member.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of new business floorspace and new industrial floorspace he is advising each borough should plan for in their unitary development plans for the year 2001.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for each borough to draw up its unitary development plan having regard to strategic guidance. The extent of new business and industrial floorspace is primarily an issue for individual boroughs.

  Planning Guidance (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of public and private resources required to fulfill the policies and proposals within his planning guidance for London.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has taken account of the resource implications of the policies proposed in the draft guidance. The guidance will set the framework for the preparation of unitary development plans. In preparing these, the boroughs are required to have regard to the resources likely to be available to ensure that their policies are realistic.

  Population
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what population level for Greater London in 2001 will result from the policies and proposals in his strategic guidance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible at this stage to predict what the population of London will be in 2001.

  King's Head Meadow Pipeline
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to inform Chelmsford borough council of his decision on the King's Head Meadow pipeline scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department wrote to Chelmsford borough council on 21 February 1989 inviting a fresh application under the in-and-out scheme because the information contained in the original application had been made invalid by my right hon. Friend's decision on the associated compulsory purchase order. A revised application with up-to-date details was received by the Department on 10 April. A decision on this application will be made as soon as possible.

  Defective Homes
  Mr. Jack Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the formula that was used to allocate to individual authorities the £15 million package for repairs to defective homes.

  Mr. Trippier
  As in previous years, the £15 million set aside for 1989–90 to help authorities meet their housing defects obligations was first divided between regions in proportion to the number of owners still eligible for assistance as at 1 April 1988. We then looked at the circumstances of individual authorities, and the proposals that they put forward.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods are being considered by water authorities to monitor drinking water supply for the presence of waterborne parasitic protozoa such as cryptosporidium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department's standing committee of analysts initiated work during 1988 on the development of methods for isolating, identifying and quantifying cryptosporidium in water supplies. These methods which have now been tested and other methods for similar waterborne parasitic protozoa are well advanced. When finalised they will be published by HMSO. The need for and form of monitoring by water undertakers for cryptosporidium in water supplies will be considered by the expert group being chaired by Sir John Badenoch which was announced in my reply of 2 March at column 286.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals exist for joint research projects with water authorities to examine risks posed by cryptosporidium in public water supplies.

  Mr. Howard
  The need for research projects is being examined by the group of experts established by the Government under the chairmanship of Sir John Badenoch to advise on cryptosporidia in water supplies. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 2 March 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) at column 286.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on the application for a research grant by Thames Water and the Robens Institute in relation to work on the parasitic protozoa cryptosporidium in the water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Neither Thames Water Authority nor the Robens Institute has applied to the Department for a research grant in relation to work on cryptosporidia in water supplies.

  Sports Council (Chairmanship)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an announcement about the chairmanship of the Sports Council.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have today written to Peter Yarranton appointing him to the chairmanship of the Sports Council
  663
  for a three-year period commencing from 20 May 1989. I am delighted that Mr. Yarranton has accepted my invitation to become chairman and am sure that his many years of experience in the sporting world eminently qualify him for the task. I should like to thank John Smith, the outgoing chairman, for the valuable contribution that he has made to the work of the council over the past nine years. I know that this has been greatly appreciated by both members and staff of the council and by everyone involved in sport.

  Sebastian Coe, who has been a member of the council since November 1983 and a vice-chairman since July 1986, has decided to resign from the council at the end of April to concentrate on a career in broadcasting. His international standing in the world of sport has been particularly valuable to the council and I am very grateful to him for the commitment he has shown throughout his appointment.

  I have also written today to Trevor Brooking to appoint him as a member of the Sports Council with effect from 20 May 1989. Mr. Brooking will bring to the council experience not only from his footballing career but also from his chairmanship of the Eastern Regional Council for Sport and Recreation and his more recent business career.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the statement made on 13 March,Official Report, column 168, to which general circulation models on climate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) was referring, pertaining to Amazonia, which do not allow us to predict regional change with certainty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is true of all the general circulation models currently in use in the major climate change research centres of the world, including the Meteorological Office and various institutions in the United States. Developing the ability to make regional climate change prediction within reasonable limits of confidence is a principal research objective of general circulation modelling. The current status of research on this, and the possibilities for progress, are among the topics being reviewed by working group I of the UNEP/WMO intergovernmental panel on climate change, chaired by Dr. John Houghton of the Meteorological Office.

  Forestry Commission (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the Forestry Commission's planting operations in 1987–88 for the three counties of Yorkshire, in terms of(a) direct costs of the planting in the year and (b) supervisory costs and overheads related to that planting.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Others(Nursery)

  Total

  1987

  Age retirements

  Male

  1

  3

  —

  —

  4

  Female

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Early retirements Redundancy

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  664
  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows:

  £ thousands

  New planting

  Restocking

  Direct (forest) costs

  40

  217

  Supervisory costs and Overheads

  16

  89

  Total costs

  56

  306

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what areas of land the Forestry Commission proposed to newly plant in the year 1988–89 in the three counties of Yorkshire; and if he will list, by Forestry Commission conservancies, the total area to be planted and the names and locations of the blocks over 100 hectares.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission's North England Conservancy carried out a total of 31 hectares of new planting in Yorkshire in the year ended 31 March 1989.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "Harmony"
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry. East of 21 March,Official Report, column 517, he will publish in the Official Report a breakdown of all the costs borne by the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) of the recording of the song "Harmony" at the Giant's Causeway on Friday 10 March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A breakdown should be available shortly and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over each of the 10 years from 1978 to 1988 how many(a) male and (b) female head teachers of schools in Northern Ireland have left for the following reasons (a) normal retirement, (b) early retirement, specifying the various reasons for this, (c) death in service, and (d) death within five years of retirement; and how many in each category were from (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools, (iii) special schools and (iv) other schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on deaths within five years of retirement for the 10-year period, and on retirements for the years before 1987, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Available information for 1987 and 1988 is set out in the table.
  665

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Other (Nursery)

  Total

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Efficient discharge

  Male

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Female

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Ill health

  Male

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Death in service

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  Age retirements

  Male

  17

  7

  —

  —

  24

  Female

  11

  2

  —

  1

  14

  Early retirements Redundancy

  Male

  4

  5

  —

  —

  9

  Female

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Efficient discharge

  Male

  9

  5

  —

  —

  14

  Female

  3

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Ill health

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Female

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Death in service

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the present obstetrics and gynaecological facilities available in the Eastern health board area carried out in accordance with other than Roman Catholic teachings; and what are his future proposals for these services in the Eastern health and social services board area.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The information requested is as follows.

  Available beds for obstetrics and gynaecology in the Eastern health and social services board are:

  Gynaecology

  Obstetrics

  Ulster hospital

  37

  45

  Mater hospital

  15

  24

  Royal Victoria hospital

  32

  —

  Royal Maternity hospital

  —

  95

  Belfast City hospital

  38

  68

  Downe/Down Maternity

  14

  24

  Lagan Valley hospital

  29

  45

  Bangor hospital

  16

  —

  Ards hospital

  26

  26

  Under the terms of the lease by which the Mater hospital is leased by the trustees to the Department of Health and Social Services the teaching and practice of medicine, the provision of specialist services and nursing are to be carried out in accordance with Roman Catholic moral and ethical principles.

  The Eastern board is currently considering recommendations relating to the provision of obstetric and gynaecological services in the Belfast area, which arose from the recent complementarity study. When the board reaches conclusions, I shall wish to discuss their implications with the chairman of the board before any final decisions are taken.

WALES

  Deeside Waterfront Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Deeside waterfront scheme; if he will visit and meet Alyn and Deeside district council to discuss the waterfront project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall reply to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.

  Civil Service Relocation (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the St. David's business park, Ewloe, and Warren Hall business park, Broughton, to observe construction work and landscaping; if he will meet Alyn and Deeside district council at its Hawarden headquarters to discuss the suitability of the two business parks for the relocation of Whitehall Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have regular discussions with the hon. Gentleman and met representatives of Alyn and Deeside district council as recently as 20 March. In addition, I have made numerous visits to north-east Wales. I therefore know the constituency well—and its attractions— and he can be assured that the council would be contacted immediately if any Government Department expressed a particular interest in relocating to Alyn and Deeside. Under the relocation guidelines, it is for individual departmental Ministers to decide whether to proceed with relocation and, if so, to where.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to provide additional services in Wales for the benefit of the elderly.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision of services for the elderly is for local and health authorities to decide in the light of their own local circumstances.
  667
  Nonetheless in recognition of the rise in the elderly population and changes in the pattern of services for the elderly the local authority capital allocation for social services in 1989–90 has been increased by 15 per cent. over that for the previous year.

  In addition central funding continues under the elderly initiative, urban programme and health/local authority joint finance.

  Roads
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to invest further sums in the roads systems of Wales additional to that outlined in his White Paper, "Roads in Wales"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales 1989" sets out the intentions for road improvements for the future.

  Provision for implementing the programme has been set out in the Welsh commentary on the public expenditure White Paper.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to direct investment to public transport systems in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Investment in public transport systems is a matter for public transport operators, in association where appropriate with local authorities.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve investment in the industrial infrastructure of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Over the last two years I have secured a substantial increase of over 50 per cent. in new resources for my industry programme, and planned net spending in this sector over the next two financial years will contribute a further £410 million to the industrial regeneration of Wales. This figures rises to over £530 million when account is taken of the gross spend planned for the development agencies in Cm 617. My industry resources are complemented directly by the £152 million to be invested this year alone on the key motorway and trunk road network as described in "Roads in Wales 1989". Future years' provision for all my programmes will be reviewed periodically in the normal way.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss any proposals for the electrification of the Crewe-Holyhead, Swansea-Paddington railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Regular meetings are held with the Chairman to discuss a range of issues; the electrification of these lines is a matter for British Rail.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to allocate additional cash to improve the Health Service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I announced on the 21 December 1988 that, subject to parliamentary approval I proposed to allocate £1,315 million in 1989–90 to central Government health and personal social services in Wales. On the 27 January 1989 I announced the current and capital allocations to health authorities in Wales, and gave details of allocations for centrally funded developments. Further details of proposed expenditure were given in the 1989–90 supply estimates, presented to Parliament by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14 March 1989 (HC 231-XVII).

  In addition to these record allocations, I propose to make a special allocation of £10 million in 1989–90 to the health service in Wales, towards the costs of the review body awards which were announced on 16 February 1989.

  We are now spending £36 per week per household on the Health Service compared with £11 per week per household in 1978–79, when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Welsh Office.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to provide extra money for the schools service in Wales so as to improve the educational service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Public expenditure White Papers show that provision for the education service in Wales has increased since this Government came to office. The increase in provision for current expenditure is particularly significant because in this period pupil numbers have fallen by over 13 per cent. The increase in capital provision in recent years has provided local education authorities with the opportunity to rationalise their schools provision to obtain the financial and educational benefits offered by falling schools rolls.

  Credit Boom
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences for the Welsh economy of the credit boom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh economy is sound and confidence in its capacity to develop further remains high.

  Wales has experienced double the increase in the growth in output for the United Kingdom overall. United Kingdom production and construction grew by 4·2 per cent. between the third quarters of 1987 and 1988; the comparable figure for Wales was 8·4 per cent.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make the implementation of regional policy in Wales more effective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have at my disposal a wide range of policy mechanisms to stimulate and sustain economic
  669
  activity in Wales, principally regional industrial assistance, the activities of the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development and support for urban aid. The fact that seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen for 34 consecutive months, factory lettings are at record levels and that Wales continues to attract significant inward investment testifies to the success of the commitment which the Government have to economic regeneration in the Principality.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales over each of the 10 years from 1978 to 1988 how many(a)

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of Welsh primary schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1978–79

  Male

  46

  5

  4

  5

  13

  Female

  11

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1979–80

  Male

  38

  3

  23

  2

  13

  Female

  12

  3

  14

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Male

  39

  6

  34

  5

  16

  Female

  17

  1

  20

  0

  1

  1981–82

  Male

  33

  2

  66

  3

  12

  Female

  20

  3

  36

  0

  3

  1982–83

  Male

  21

  8

  69

  4

  6

  Female

  10

  5

  45

  0

  2

  1983–84

  Male

  25

  5

  58

  1

  8

  Female

  11

  9

  38

  2

  1

  1984–85

  Male

  21

  5

  73

  2

  2

  Female

  9

  4

  40

  1

  2

  1985–86

  Male

  15

  6

  51

  1

  0

  Female

  7

  6

  33

  2

  2

  1986–87

  Male

  10

  11

  34

  3

  1

  Female

  6

  5

  23

  0

  1

  1987–88

  Male

  17

  7

  21

  1

  0

  Female

  5

  4

  31

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  265

  58

  433

  27

  71

  Female

  108

  41

  282

  5

  13

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of Welsh secondary schools, between 1978 and 1988.

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in ser-vice

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1978–79

  Male

  14

  0

  1

  3

  4

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1979–80

  Male

  8

  1

  5

  1

  4

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1980–81

  670
  male and (b) female head teachers of schools in Wales have left for the following reasons (a) normal retirement, (b) early retirement, specifying the various reasons for this, (c) death in service, and (d) death within five years of retirement; and how many in each category were from (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools, (iii) special schools and (iv) other schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is provided in the following tables.
  671

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  Male

  3

  0

  9

  2

  2

  Female

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1981–82

  Male

  10

  0

  5

  0

  3

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1982–83

  Male

  2

  0

  11

  0

  2

  Female

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1983–84

  Male

  1

  0

  14

  1

  2

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1984–85

  Male

  5

  0

  6

  3

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1985–86

  Male

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1986–87

  Male

  1

  2

  4

  1

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1987–88

  Male

  0

  1

  8

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  44

  4

  80

  11

  17

  Female

  1

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of Welsh special schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1978–79

  Male

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1979–80

  Male

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Male

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1981–82

  Male

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1982–83

  Male

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1983–84

  Male

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1984–85

  Male

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1985–86

  Male

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1986–87

  Male

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  672 673

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1987–88

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  10

  2

  13

  0

  0

  Female

  5

  1

  8

  0

  0

  Table providing numbers of head teacher retirements/deaths in respect of Welsh other schools, between 1978 and 1988

  Normal retirements

  Early retirements:

  Deaths in service

  Deaths within 5 years of retirement

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1978–79

  Male

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1979–80

  Male

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Female

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Male

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1981–82

  Male

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  5

  0

  0

  1982–83

  Male

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1983–84

  Male

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Female

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  1984–85

  Male

  4

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1985–86

  Male

  5

  2

  7

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1986–87

  Male

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  0

  7

  0

  0

  1987–88

  Male

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Female

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  TOTALS

  Male

  22

  2

  23

  3

  1

  Female

  2

  5

  26

  1

  0

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional allocations he made to the Housing Corporation in Wales to implement the objectives of the valleys initiative; and whether he instructed them to allocate this sum specifically to valley housing association initiatives.

  Mr. Grist
  An additional £4·5 million was allocated to the Housing Corporation in Wales in 1988–89 and £8·6 million to Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru) for 1989–90 for the provision of housing under the programme for the valleys. The sums are being targeted specifically on the programme area.
  674
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has received to address a conference of the 15 valleys initiative local authorities in south Wales on the subject of regional policy and investment in the infrastructure; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received no request to address this specific conference. Welsh Office officials are of course in regular touch with valleys local authorities on many aspects of the valleys programme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport,
  675
  West on 21 March, Official Report, column 502, he will define the areas included in his calculations and the percentage of the population covered by the valleys programme that is included in the total.

  District

  Wards

  District

  Wards

  Blaenau Gwent

  Nos. 1–18

  Ogwr

  Nos. 3–11, 17

  Torfaen

  Nos. 1,7–11

  Lliw Valley

  Nos. 1, 4–8

  Islwyn

  Nos. 1–10, 12

  Neath

  Nos. 4, 5, 7–16

  Rhymney Valley

  Nos. 3–20

  Port Talbot

  Nos. 5, 9–11

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Nos. 1–9

  Brecknock

  Nos. 29–33

  Cynon Valley

  Nos. 1–12, 14

  Llanelli

  Nos. 7, 8, 11

  Rhondda

  All wards

  Dinefwr

  Nos. 2–6, 9, 14, 15

  Taff Ely

  Nos. 1–7, 10–13

  The latest available total resident population covered by the valleys programme area on the above basis is 696,720 according to the 1981 census of population. Official estimates of population for more recent years are not available at a Ward level.

  The figure of 35,675 unemployed in May 1988 quoted in the previous answer if 5·1 per cent. of that number, but the two figures are obviously not on a comparable basis either in terms of the period or population covered.

SCOTLAND

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place as to the feasibily of introducing an employee share ownership scheme in any future privatisation that his Department may sponsor.

  Mr. Lang
  In relation to the flotation of the successor companies to the Scottish electricity boards, we shall be discussing with the boards measures to encourage the participation of employees in the share offer. Proposals already submitted by the trade unions will be taken into account in these discussions.

  The Scottish Bus Group is to be sold in a number of units and it will be for prospective purchasers to determine the share ownership structure of their bids. My right hon. and learned Friend has, however, indicated that bids involving a high level of employee participation will be given preference.

  Agricultural Income
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest available estimate of the income per agriculture holding in Scotland(a) including non-agricultural income and (b) excluding such income.

  Information about non-agricultural income is available only from a 1 per cent. sample of the tax records of individuals registered as having a self-employment income from agriculture and horticulture. For the 1985–86 assessment year, the latest available, the average total income per farmer was £11,845, and the average agricultural and horticultural income was £6,368.
  676
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The area used to calculate the unemployment figures for the hon. Gentleman's question of 21 March 1989 is shown in the following tables:

  Holiday Cottages
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the secretary of state for Scotland if he will make a statement about the effect on any local authority finances of choosing to levy the poll tax on holiday cottages at a multiplier of one instead of two.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The effect would be to halve that authority's potential income from dwellings which are subject to the standard charge. A lower multiplier might still, for some authorities, yield as much income from such properties as did domestic rates. Each local authority is free to take such a decision in the light of its assessment of all the circumstances.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of those imprisoned in Scotland in 1988 have been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is riot readily available in the form requested. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, 62 inmates in Scottish penal establishments were treated for psychoses.

  Licensing Law
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to complete his current review of licensing law in Scotland;

  (2) what consultations he proposes to undertake after the review of licensing law in Scotland is completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The review of the licensing law in Scotland has revealed a large measure of support for a number of the reforms canvassed in the consultation paper issued in 1986. I hope soon to announce the Government's intentions, once we have reached conclusions on these matters.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he expects to publish the evidence as well as conclusions submitted to the current review of licensing law in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  No. The comments received in response to the consultation document on the review of the licensing law have, except where respondents have requested confidentiality, been placed on public file which is open to inspection by appointment at St. Andrew's house.

  "Nuclear Accidents and the Fanner"
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will distribute copies of the Ministry of Agriculture leaflet "Nuclear Accidents and the Farmer", together with its technical supplement to all farmers within a 25-mile radius of all nuclear installations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the availability of these documents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  These documents are at present being recast slightly to reflect Scottish circumstances. They will be distributed as soon as possible to all farms in Scotland in the vicinity of major nuclear installations, as was done in England.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that any private landlord who collects the poll tax from his tenants keeps an accurate record of payments made by each tenant; and how the money will be recovered if any such landlord fails to pay in these sums in full by the date of enforcement action for recovery taking place.

  Mr. Lang
  Payment of the personal community charge is, as its name implies, a personal responsibility and individuals are not required to make payments to private landlords but directly to the levying authority. Contributions to the collective community charge may, however, be collected by private landlords from people who at any time have their sole of main residence in premises, which have been designated by a community charge registration officer as subject to the collective community charge. Under sections 11(13) and (14) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended, landlords are required to issue receipts in respect of any such contributions made to them, showing the amounts paid and the days to which the contributions relate. They are also required to keep a record of all persons who have been solely or mainly resident in the premises, the period during which they were so resident and the amounts paid in contributions. The landlords themselves are liable to pay to the local authority the collective community charge determined in respect of their premises. Any shortfall in the amount due may be recovered by the levying authority by diligence as provided for in the 1987 Act.

  Animal Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last three years the number of confirmed cases of animal disease the incidence of which is notifiable.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Disease

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anthrax

  2

  2

  Nil

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

  Nil

  Nil

  49

  Paramyxovirus in Pigeons

  8

  67

  10

  Sheep Scab

  Nil

  1

  1

  National Health Service (Consumer Attitudes)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the full report of the survey of consumer attitudes to the National Health Service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. The report of survey findings is published today, and copies are available in the House of Commons Library. This report, by Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd., contains more comprehensive and detailed results than were published in the summary report on 7 March 1989.

  The report shows that the Health Service is generally highly regarded by its patients and by the public at large and that patients have a particularly high regard for the medical and nursing care which they receive.

  The report identifies a number of areas where improvements were wanted and of these the most frequently mentioned were reduced waiting time—for admission and treatment, hospital food, transport arrangements, reluctance of doctors to make home visits and information from health personnel about the patient's condition.

  Two interesting consumer views were (a) that many of the services which required attendance at hospital out-patients departments could be more conveniently provided at local health clinics and (b) that three in 10 hospital in-patients would be willing to travel to a hospital further away (one in six over 50 miles) if this would reduce the waiting time for admission.

  By obtaining the views of recent patients and other members of the public the Government is seeking to take full account of consumer views when considering future Health Service priorities. The report of the survey will be sent to all health board general managers and the main messages contained in it will be discussed with them in order to secure action in response to the expressed views of consumers.

  Bathing Waters
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the results for 1988 of monitoring Scottish bathing waters in accordance with the European Council bathing waters directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department's assessment of the results of the monitoring undertaken by the river purification boards in 1988 is set out in the table following, based on the standards for coliforms.

  The results are disappointing compared with those in 1987, the first year in which waters were identified in terms of the EC directive. However, the monitoring in 1988 was more intensive, the minimum number of samples analysed for each water having been increased from 12 in 1987 to 20 in 1988. This is in consequence of the European Commission's strict interpretation of the directive: that unless at least 20 samples are taken in the season, a member state cannot establish the 95 per cent. necessary to discount a single failure.

  The Government is aware of public concern about the quality of bathing waters and is determined that they should comply with the directive's standards as quickly as possible. To this end, my right hon. and learned Friend announced last November an additional allocation of £5·5
  679
  million for water and sewerage in the last financial year and has increased the allocation for this year by some 14 per cent. over planned expenditure. This should allow the sewerage authorities to make faster progress towards compliance with the directive. I have also had discussions with Fife, Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils and some district councils about the quality of waters in their areas.

  I have placed in the Library a paper which summarises the 1988 results and sets out the plans to improve the quality of those waters which do not comply with the directive. We shall also be sending the results to the European Commission.

  Result

  Nairn (East Beach)

  Fail

  Cullen

  Pass

  Fraserburgh

  Fail

  Aberdeen

  Pass

  Montrose

  Pass

  Arbroath

  Fail

  Carnoustie

  Pass

  St. Andrew's (West Sands)

  Pass

  Kinghorn (Pettycur)

  Pass

  Aberdour (Silversands)

  Pass

  Gullane

  Pass

  North Berwick (Milsey Bay)

  Fail

  Yellowcraigs

  Pass

  Dunbar (Belhaven)

  Pass

  Pease Bay

  Pass

  Sandyhills

  Pass

  Girvan

  Fail

  Turnberry

  Fail

  Ayr (South Beach)

  Fail

  Prestwick

  Fail

  Troon (South Beach)

  Fail

  Irvine-Gailes (New Town)

  Fail

  Salcoats/Ardrossan (South Beach)

  Fail

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of work places inspected by the health and safety inspectorate in the Greater London area during the year 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Training Managers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the private sector firms who are acting as employment training training managers, naming the number of places they have each been allocated, how many filled placed each has and what percentage the latter is of the former.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Due to the unusual length of the reply, I am sending the hon. Member the available information, which has also been placed in the Library. Employment training is a locally planned and delivered programme. Information on contracted and filled places for particular training managers is not therefore held centrally, and may only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people have been placed in employment through the sheltered placement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  As at 28 February 1989, 4,821 people with severe disabilities were being supported in employment through the sheltered placement scheme. I am pleased to say that the number of jobs supported in this way is set to rise to 6,900 by the end of March 1990. Since the scheme was introduced in April 1985, it is estimated that around 5,870 people with severe disabilities have been placed in sheltered placements. The scheme succeeded the sheltered industrial groups scheme which was already supporting 1,049 jobs.

  YTS
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the obligations of companies within the YTS scheme to provide holiday pay for YTS trainees.

  Mr. Cope
  YTS managing agents must ensure that non-employed YTS trainees are granted paid holidays at a minimum rate of one and a half days per completed month of training. Such trainees are also entitled to bank and public holidays or days off in lieu with due payment of training allowance. Employed trainees receive holiday pa. y in accordance with their contract of employment.

  Television and Film Making (Report)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on labour practices in television and film making is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  The MMC report, made under section 79 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, is published today and has been laid before the House. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government welcome the evidence of changes for the better in employment and working practices that have occurred in the industry during the course of the commission's investigations. These are attributed to increased competition, advances in technology and changes in employment law. The commission expects further change to continue as a result of current or intended negotiations, or management decisions, though they record their concern about whether change will be sufficiently radical or rapid. The Government will be examining ways of monitoring the necessary further progress in consultation with the major parties concerned in the industry. We note and agree with the commission's concern about the problem of repeat fees and performers' rights regarding consent to repeats of original performances. We are considering the possibility of further study of these issues. We also note the commission's findings and conclusions regarding the union membership agreements with Equity and the Musicians Union. These do not conflict with the Government's case, set out in the Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", for giving individuals the right to complain that they have been refused a job because they are not union members.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care (Grants and Loans)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the number of cases in the year ended 31 March for the Walthamstow, Leytonstone and Woodgrange park offices of his Department in which loans were not allowed because(a) the claimant's inability to repay was considered a factor and (b) other reasons, and in which a grant was also not provided to the claimant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not collected in a format which identifies applications where both a loan and a community care grant are refused for the same item or service.

  A reason for decision is used once on each application, but more than one reason for decision can be given in a particular application. Because a record is kept of the total number of times each reason is used, the count of the total number of reasons does not equate to the total of applications to which they were applied.

  The table contains the available information:

  Office

  Inability to repay considered a factor in loan refusal

  Other reasons considered

  Walthamstow

  45

  773

  Leytonstone

  27

  450

  Woodgrange Park

  23

  599

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to publicise the extension until 30 June of the deadline for claiming housing benefit transitional payments; and what steps his Department is taking to encourage take-up of housing benefit transitional payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The extension of the closing date for housing benefit transitional payments to 30 June was announced in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 3 March at column 365 and publicised in a press release issued on the same day. A guidance circular was issued to each local authority and local social security office on 6 March, and this has also been sent to the major advice agencies. Leaflets (RR4 Housing Benefit—New Rules), which contain an application form, for anyone still wishing to apply for transitional protection are available from a wide variety of outlets, for example local council offices, local social security offices, from the freephone and freepost service at the transitional payments unit and advice agencies.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average waiting time between a claim for housing benefit transitional payment and its subsequent payment to the claimant;

  (2) how many outstanding claims for housing benefit transitional payments are still awaiting process at the Glasgow transitional payments office;

  (3) what steps are being taken to expedite the processing of claims for housing benefit transitional payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 10 April, 467,419 applications for housing benefit transitional payments had been received, of which 422,029 have been assessed. Of the 682
  45,390 applications outstanding, 41,153 are cases where an inquiry form is still awaited from the local authority. The clearance time for applications varies considerably from case to case and depends on how long local authorities take to return inquiry forms and whether further inquiries have to be made from the transitional payments unit (TPU). For straightforward cases, it takes two days from receiving an application in the TPU to sending the inquiry form to the local authority, 30 days for the local authority to return the inquiry form to the TPU, a further five days from receiving that inquiry form at the TPU to deciding whether a payment can be made, and depending upon the point in the payment cycle the first payment will be made within two to four weeks and at four weekly intervals thereafter. The TPU has contacted all those local authorities who have had inquiry forms outstanding for more than eight weeks requesting an urgent response.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number of single parent families on family credit who suffered a net loss in income as a result of the housing benefit changes in 1988;

  (2) if he will estimate the average weekly amount lost by a single-parent family as a result of family credit being included in the calculations in order to determine elegibility to housing benefit; and what savings have accrued to his Department's annual budget as a result.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated effects on claimants of the April 1988 changes were set out in the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" published in October 1987. Further information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase financial assistance to single-parent families who have suffered increased housing costs as a result of changes in the housing benefit rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so. An enhanced premium was included within the housing benefit applicable amounts for all lone parents last April in recognition of their special needs and transitional protection was offered to all those who had lost more than £2·50 per week as a result of the changes in the rules. Since then there have been no changes in the housing benefit rules for single parent families which would have resulted in increased housing costs.

  Unemployed Couples (Earnings Disregard)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the £15 earnings disregard for unemployed couples annually in line with the rise in earnings of those in full-time work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Earnings disregards have never been increased in line with the rise in earnings. However, we are monitoring the earnings rules and we will consider whether any change is necessary.

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the financial impact suffered by claimants whose annual uprating has been nullified by loss of transitional protection.
  683
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Various representations have been received on this subject.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of claimants in each benefit category expected to receive no cash increase after the payment of their annual benefit uprating in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We estimated that some 3,840,000 income support claimants will receive an increase at this year's uprating. The estimated number of claimants receiving no increase, by client group, is as follows:

  Number

  Pensioners 80 +

  40,000

  Pensioners 60–79

  180,000

  All pensioners

  220,000

  Sick or disabled

  20,000

  Lone parents

  40,000

  Couples with children

  10,000

  Others

  300,000

  Total

  1590,000

  1 Figures do not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings will accrue to public funds by clawing back benefit uprating by withdrawal of transitional protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise information is not available. Had income support transitional additions not been reduced by increases at uprating, the estimated additional cost in the year 1989–90 would have been around £100 million.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has undertaken to investigate the effect of the loss of transitional protection on claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are monitoring all aspects of the reformed social security system. Information about transitional protection will be available from our usual stastistical returns.

  Disabled Children (Attendance Allowance)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases his Department has issued demands for repayment of attendance allowance to the parents of disabled children who have had to spend periods in hospital; what is the average amount involved and highest amount in any particular case; if he intends to insist on the repayments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The requested information is not available. The question of whether an overpayment of benefit is recoverable is a matter for the independent statutory authorities to decide. Our policy is to seek repayment of recoverable overpayments where possible, but repayment may be waived depending on the circumstances of the individual case.

  Benefits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire to date what percentage of the 684
  total number of applications made to date for (a) budgeting loans were (i) full or part awards and (ii) nil awards and (b) community care grants were (1) full or part awards and (2) nil awards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The monthly figures to date of the numbers of applications for budgeting loans and community care grants processed are available in the Library. There is no information available on part awards.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now reply to the invitation of the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North to visit young people under 25 years old from Stoke on Trent, North, highlighted in Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme, who have been adversely affected by changes in benefit payments which came into force on 10 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member today.

  Child Fostering Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the income available to a family by means of a permanent child fostering allowance is taken into account in assessing the family's entitlement to community charge rebate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Paragraph 24 of schedule 3 of the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 requires such income to be disregarded in full.

  Disabled People and Deaf People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of money given under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to(a) all organisations working with and for disabled people and (b) all organisations working with and for deaf people, for each year from 1980 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall let the hon. Member have such information a s can be obtained as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Grain (Price)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage and average price of grain exported from the United Kingdom(a) generally and (b) separately for each country to which grain was exported in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total quantity and average price of grain exported from the United Kingdom in the calendar years 1986 to 1988 were as follows:

  Quantity (tonnes)1

  Average price (£/tonne)2

  1986

  8,148,941

  108·18

  1987

  7,238,589

  72·41

  1988

  4,750,249

  74·51

  Wheat and barley represented over 95 per cent. of total United Kingdom grain exports in each of the calendar years 1986 to 1988. The quantity and price of these two grains exported to individual countries were as follows:

  685

  Quantity (tonnes)1

  Average Price (£/tonne)2

  Commodity and Country

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Wheat3

  France

  57,826

  78,999

  —

  114·08

  121·37

  —

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  184,010

  110,620

  250,059

  115·00

  118·04

  110·86

  Netherlands

  366,078

  128,109

  87,250

  114·13

  117·31

  110·11

  Federal Republic of Germany

  737,604

  343,122

  210,285

  114·70

  114·77

  112·27

  Italy

  802,896

  503,159

  323,742

  114·95

  115·04

  115·80

  Irish Republic

  132,666

  135,983

  128,884

  139·79

  135·20

  120·33

  Denmark

  107,508

  48,970

  —

  122·78

  115·60

  —

  Spain

  643,319

  161,600

  78,779

  111·07

  111·14

  110·36

  Greece

  —

  83,502

  —

  —

  120·57

  —

  Soviet Union

  508,389

  1,091,333

  94,713

  113·50

  48·45

  52·77

  Poland

  50,012

  424,036

  —

  105·57

  59·15

  —

  Morocco

  62,999

  —

  —

  103·33

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  30,921

  —

  —

  122·31

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  79,779

  —

  —

  115·04

  —

  —

  South Korea

  158,758

  241,934

  283,906

  99·57

  64·59

  41·11

  Bangladesh

  —

  245,027

  176,536

  —

  40·10

  47·58

  German Democratic Republic

  —

  141,225

  —

  —

  44·23

  —

  Other

  64,416

  383,787

  290,416

  72·09

  40·73

  53·17

  Quantity (tonnes)1

  Average price (£ tonne)2

  Commodity and country

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Barley4

  France

  36,428

  —

  —

  134·84

  —

  —

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  697,807

  280,363

  223,277

  117·57

  123·48

  129·96

  Netherlands

  120,873

  93,614

  —

  118·84

  113·02

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  138,994

  146,439

  117,729

  118·01

  111·62

  109·29

  Italy

  414,356

  410,200

  275,007

  111·96

  113·33

  119·30

  Portugal

  59,741

  —

  —

  99·60

  —

  —

  Spain

  720,373

  —

  79,327

  107·52

  —

  111·03

  Soviet Union

  583,983

  1,062,843

  919,265

  90·26

  41·42

  47·82

  Romania

  85,597

  —

  —

  100·33

  —

  —

  Bulgaria

  150,431

  —

  —

  77·60

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  43,999

  —

  —

  121·16

  —

  —

  Libya

  162,493

  158,199

  —

  100·43

  41·68

  —

  Cyprus

  86,478

  —

  —

  88·80

  —

  —

  Israel

  110,158

  —

  —

  64·76

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  645,156

  626,343

  391,914

  93·95

  41·97

  41·95

  German Democratic Republic

  —

  —

  506,404

  —

  —

  53·00

  Other

  89,800

  309,827

  297,510

  100·91

  71·55

  59·37

  1 Quantities rounded to nearest whole tonne.

  2 Average prices have been calculated from export values on a free on board basis.

  3 Customs heading 041.2: Unmilled wheat (including spelt) and meslin, excluding durum wheat.

  4 Customs heading 043: Unmilled barley.

  Source:

  United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.(A"—" signifies that exports to a country were not separately identified in the published Overseas Trade Statistics for the year in question and are included under "Other" for that year).

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total tonnage and average price of imported grain from each country which exported grain to the United Kingdom in each of the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Quantity (tonnes)1

  Average price (£/tonne)2

  Commodity and country

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  wheat3

  France

  680,700

  622,676

  596,551

  136·22

  134·44

  142·07

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  27,084

  44,201

  75,475

  199·31

  120·65

  140·92

  Federal Republic of Germany

  97,900

  69,348

  191,215

  157·22

  149·62

  153·05

  Irish Republic

  99,408

  88,640

  53,635

  135·23

  137·33

  119·53

  Denmark

  —

  40,212

  97,421

  —

  133·49

  138·82

  Spain

  —

  323,674

  52,936

  —

  157·32

  155·57

  Australia

  219,129

  —

  —

  138·02

  —

  —

  Canada

  468,890

  461,980

  491,572

  130·75

  98·89

  11·307

  Others

  83,199

  25,883

  28,004

  139·91

  119·54

  113·56

  Barley4

  France

  29,748

  14,709

  16,549

  150·97

  116·87

  130·40

  Irish Republic

  129,821

  180,951

  173,757

  132·32

  129·55

  119·39

  686
  Mr. Ryder
  Wheat, barley and maize together represented over 95 per cent. of total United Kingdom grain imports in each of the calendar years 1986 to 1988. The quantity and price of these three grains imported from individual countries were as follows:
  687

  Quantity (tonnes)1

  Average price (£/tonne)2

  Commodity and country

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1957

  1988

  Denmark

  92,121

  33,949

  100,654

  143·95

  158·71

  145·61

  Others

  27,437

  6,957

  26,410

  100·74

  168·75

  124·84

  Maize5

  France

  943,486

  970,581

  834,731

  146·97

  150·62

  138·67

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  107,372

  62,425

  —

  143·22

  164·26

  —

  Italy

  47,158

  —

  —

  159·89

  —

  —

  Greece

  136,746

  76,723

  139,226

  162·83

  164·21

  147·76

  Spain

  27,303

  68,190

  135,305

  173·35

  160·83

  155·20

  United States of America

  76,092

  84,489

  —

  134·60

  77·34

  —

  Argentina

  70,804

  134,046

  163,814

  132·72

  60·46

  69·05

  Others

  63,804

  114,038

  73,087

  133·49

  91·52

  117·44

  1 Quantities rounded to the nearest whole tonne.

  2 Average prices have been calculated from import values on a cost, insurance freight basis.

  3 Customs heading 041.2: unmilled wheat (including spelt) and meslin, excluding durum wheat.

  4 Customs heading 043: unmilled barley.

  5 Customs heading 044 for 1986 and 1987, and 044.9 for 1988: unmilled maize (1988 heading excludes sweetcorn).

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics(a"—" signifies that imports from a country were not separately indentified in the Published Overseas Trade Statisics for the year in question and are included under "Other" for that year).

  Sheep and Single Ewe Premiums
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to announce the end of the variable sheep premium and the choice of base year for calculation of the replacement single ewe premium.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Proposals to phase out the sheep variable premium scheme and replace it with a single ewe premium form part of a package of proposals by the EC Commission for a review of the sheepmeat regime. Discussion on these proposals have made little headway.

  Cow Subsidy
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider raising the cow subsidy from £34 to £46 per head as the permitted maximum within the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government are currently considering what rate of Buckler cow premium should apply in the United Kingdom and an announcement will be made before the start of the 1989 scheme year on 15 June.

  EC (Abattoirs)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects European Community Ministers to achieve common standards for abattoirs throughout the Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I expect the Council of Ministers to apply a single set of rules to slaughterhouses throughout the European Communiity by 31 December 1992.

  Beef Regime
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will monitor the new beef regime, starting in April and in particular the effect of the £28 headage payment on male cattle to establish the effect on the quality of beef thus being produced.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We shall be monitoring closely the number of animals on which beef special premium is 688
  paid and comparing this data with data on slaughterings of male animals to monitor the effects of the headage limit. There are no quality standards attaching to this premium, but the Meat and Livestock Commission will continue to report deadweight prices on a sample basis. These reports classify the carcases reported on according to the EC carcase classification grid and will thus give us some indication of whether overall standards are rising or falling. I am confident, however, that in the absence of a national quality specification set by the beef variable premium scheme, the market will in fact pay a premium for the quality of beef which it wants and that producers will respond to the signals given by the market place.

  Game
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with his European Economic Community counterparts on the draft game meat regulations directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None. I understand that the European Commission are working on a text but no proposal has yet been made to the Council of Ministers.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the European Economic Community Commission's proposals for new regulations on the welfare of animals in transit.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I understand that the Commission expects to present its proposals to the Council shortly.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which institutions are currently researching the development of a tuberculosis test for live badgers; what such work his Department is funding; and when he expects field trials for such a test to commence.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Ministry funded work on the development of a live test for tuberculosis in badgers,
  689
  which is suitable for field use, is being carried out at the central veterinary laboratory. It is too early to predict when field trials might commence.

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions field trials have been authorised for porcine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On one occasion; the ATC issued has since expired.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a product licence application in respect to bovine somatotropin was submitted to the European Economic Community committee on veterinary medicinal products; and whether it has made any recommendations.

  Tonnes

  Belgium

  Germany

  Greece

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  Spain

  Cauliflowers

  258

  4,824

  —

  58,910

  —

  45,274

  —

  19,669

  —

  Tomatoes

  20

  —

  80,305

  23,520

  194

  513,127

  —

  —

  —

  Aubergines

  —

  —

  —

  452

  —

  92

  —

  —

  —

  Peaches

  —

  —

  165,194

  18,751

  —

  99,078

  —

  —

  —

  Apricots

  —

  —

  12

  420

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Lemons

  —

  —

  23,769

  —

  —

  422,724

  —

  —

  19,841

  Pears

  527

  —

  956

  861

  —

  34

  —

  32

  —

  Apples

  3,681

  —

  80,949

  15,247

  86

  331

  —

  4,535

  —

  Mandarins

  —

  —

  9,596

  —

  —

  189,625

  —

  —

  —

  Oranges

  —

  —

  243,099

  998

  —

  395,330

  —

  —

  —

  Figures for the various ends to which fish withdrawn from the market is put in each member state are not available, but the majority is used for animal feed.

  Ammonia Gas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is investigating methods of reducing and controlling emissions of ammonia gas from agricultural systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. Ammonia is released from animal urine and faeces. Research is being done to understand the mechanisms of ammonia release and to devise systems of farm waste treatment and application to land that will minimise volatilisation and losses.

  Vaccination
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with Hoechst about the use of vaccines to control clostridia and pasteurella and the potential link with the deaths of sheep and lambs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the results of his investigations into the use of vaccines to control clostridia and pasteurella and the potential link with the deaths of sheep and lambs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials have met Hoechst representatives and discussed the nature of the data required for a thorough investigation of suspected adverse reactions in sheep to vaccines against clostridia and
  690
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Two applications for product licences for BST products have been referred to the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, in September and November 1987. The committee has not yet adopted an opinion on either.

  Food Destruction
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton, 16 March,Official Report, column 352, if he will list each food item, and the quantity of it, destroyed during 1988 under the European Community arrangements in all the Community countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest figures relating to fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market are for the 1986–87 season and are set out in EC Commission working documents. From these it is possible to derive the following figures for produce which became unfit for consumption before reaching its destination:

  pasteurella My Department is still receiving reports, all of which will need to be investigated in detail before reliable conclusions can be reached on this matter. These vaccines have been very widely used in the national flock for many years and the reports so far received concern a small percentage of ewes vaccinated. We shall be looking particularly carefully at the nutritional levels in ewes, following the mild winter, and at the incidence of other diseases in the flocks affected.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department possesses about the effectiveness of vaccination schemes against foot and mouth disease and clinical swine fever.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The role of vaccines has been carefully assessed at frequent intervals. Vaccination can be an effective means of controlling foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever where there are significant disease problems. When the number of cases has been reduced eradication by a slaughter policy is a better and ultimately cheaper option than routine vaccination.

  Cattle (Slaughter)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total number of(a), dairy cattle and (b) all cattle slaughtered for human consumption in Britain during 1988; and how many of these were slaughtered at European Economic Community export-approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is provisionally estimated that 3·4 million cattle and calves were slaughtered in the
  691
  United Kingdom in 1988, 1·8 million of which were in EC export-approved slaughterhouses. Dairy cattle slaughtered are not separately distinguished.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce a scheme of compulsory veterinary ante-mortem inspection of all bovines submitted for slaughter to European Economic Community export approved and non-export approved slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The carcases of all animals slaughtered for human consumption are inspected post mortem. In EC export-approved slaughterhouses, an inspection of animals prior to slaughter is also required. I plan to introduce ante mortem inspection of animals in non-EC export-approved slaughterhouses by 1 January 1991.

  Veterinary Product Licencer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is currently reviewing existing veterinary product licences approved for the United Kingdom; what action he is taking to ensure products imported from the European Economic Community will continue to meet British standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  All veterinary product licences are being reviewed to ensure that they conform to up-to-date standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Imports from both EC and other countries, except under emergency provisions, are permitted only in accordance with a product licence issued on the criteria mentioned and following a satisfactory inspection of the manufacturing premises overseas.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those animal diseases which are currently notifiable and indicate the number of confirmed cases of each disease in England and Wales for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of confirmed cases of notifiable diseases over the last three years in England and Wales is as follows:

  Number of cases

  Disease

  1986

  1987

  1988

  African horse sickness

  —

  —

  —

  African swine fever

  —

  —

  —

  Anthrax

  9

  4

  3

  Aujeszky's disease

  6

  6

  5

  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy1

  —

  —

  2,136

  Brucella melitensis in cattle

  —

  —

  —

  Cattle plague in ruminants and swine

  —

  —

  —

  Classical swine fever

  10

  1

  —

  Contagious equine metritis2

  —

  —

  —

  Dourine in horses, asses, mules and zebras

  —

  —

  —

  Enzootic bovine leukosis

  1

  1

  1

  Epizootic lymphangitis in horses, asses and mules

  —

  —

  —

  Equine encephalomyelitis

  —

  —

  —

  Equine infectious anaemia

  —

  —

  —

  Foot and mouth disease in ruminants and swine

  —

  —

  —

  Fowl pest (fowl plague, Newcastle disease and paramyxovirus) poultry of all kinds

  —

  —

  —

  692

  Number of cases

  Disease

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Glanders and farcy in horses, asses and mules

  —

  —

  —

  Paramyxovirus in pigeons

  276

  251

  205

  Pleuro-pneumonia in cattle

  —

  —

  —

  Rabies

  —

  —

  —

  Sheep pox

  —

  —

  —

  Sheep scab

  55

  37

  35

  Swine vesicular disease

  —

  —

  —

  Warble fly

  34

  8

  4

  Teschen disease of pigs

  —

  —

  —

  Tuberculosis in cattle (certain forms)

  —

  —

  —

  1 Notifiable since 21 June 1988.

  2 Notifiable since 20 May 1987.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which member states of the European Economic Community operate schemes of compulsory vaccination of livestock against foot and mouth disease; and if it is his policy to retain quarantine periods in respect of live animals imported from these countries.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 11 April at column 439.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce restrictions on the movement of offspring of animals which have been confirmed as suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to introduce such measures.

  Veterinary Checks
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the European Commission proposal to replace veterinary checks on animal health and animal products at national frontiers by checks in the country of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory memorandum concerning draft instrument 8062/88 which was deposited in the Library on 7 November 1988.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union on the recent increase in interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have had no recent discussions with the National Farmers Union on interest rates. Policy on interest rates is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ha. s made it clear that interest rates are set at an appropriate level to maintain downward pressure on inflation.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he
  693
  has received concerning the sheepmeat stabiliser system for the 1988 marketing year, and in particular the base line used for the calculation of the final stabiliser figure for each European Community country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: When the Commission fixed the sheepmeat stabiliser for 1988 it had census figures indicating that, for the Community excluding Great Britain, the reduction in the support level resulting from the stabiliser should be 7 per cent. They chose to adjust this figure downwards to 4 per cent., the same level of reduction as applied to Great Britain. They justified this on the basis that there were anomalies in certain countries' statistics.

  We have received a number of representations concerning the application of the stabiliser for 1988. We made clear our objections to the Commission's course of action, particulary in a situation where the Commission has itself been pressing the need for measures to control the rapidly rising cost of the sheep regime.

HEALTH

  National Health Service (Staff Training)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an estimate of the annual expenditure of the National Health Service in England on training of staff, differentiating between medical and non-medical staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have centrally comprehensive information on the total expenditure incurred. However, in 1987–88 relevant revenue expenditure amounted to at least £360 million, which includes the total Revenue expenditure of the National Health Service training authority (£5·5 million) and the English national board for nursing, midwifery and health visiting (£90·5 million). Most of the remainder was incurred by regional and district health authorities. While the expenditure of the English national board for nursing, midwifery and health visiting can be attributed to nurse education and training and the summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities identify some £10 million for postgraduate medical and dental education, in general the information available does not differentiate between expenditure incurred on training medical and non-medical staff.

  The National Health Service training authority is piloting a set of training activity indicators in a number of health authorities which, among other measures, are designed to identify more precisely expenditure on training on different staff groups.

  Overseas Patients
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he is giving to the number of overseas patients that can be treated in the self-managing hospitals proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are considering how treatment of overseas patients in National Health Service hospitals, including self-governing hospitals, might best be administered in the context of the White Paper and associated working papers.

  Clinical Grading
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimiliated to each of the new grades in the recent clinical grading structure for each of the specialty branches of nursing, midwifery and health visiting.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested cannot be derived from the data which are held centrally. The information which is available has already been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require health authorities to provide figures on the number of nurse regrading appeals currently outstanding in district health authorities within the Yorkshire region, and the stage in the appeal processes in each district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The processing of appeals under the national agreement is a matter for individual health authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to process nurse re-grading appeals in each of the district health authorities within the Yorkshire region.

  Mr. Mellor
  Appeals are being dealt with under a long-standing agreement between the management and trades union sides of the General Whitley Council on procedures for settling differences over NHS employees' conditions of service. Detailed arrangements for operating this agreement are for local decision, and we collect no information centrally.

  Toxic Waste (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations to date he has received from residents living in or near Doncaster metropolitan borough council concerning the proposed toxic waste site at Kirk Sandell by Leigh Environmental and the environmental implications for this populated area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  One representation has been received to date. Responsibility for the licensing of toxic waste disposal sites lies with the local authority, under powers granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Sites must be registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is responsible for subsequent monitoring and advice on discharges from the site. The Department of Health will advise the Department of the Environment on possible health effects of discharged chemicals if they are asked to do so.

  Male Circumcision
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the National Health Service of male circumcision operations in the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what was the cost of comparable operations in the private sector.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  GOS Forms
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what quantity of form GOS 2 (R), National Health Service repair and replacement of spectacles voucher application, was printed with(a) words indicating or implying that full-time students under 19 years would be eligible for free repairs without family practitioner committee approval and (b) prescription details requiring left eye before right; and if he will make a statement outlining what advice he has given to opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners regarding these errors;

  (2) what quantity of form GOS (V), National Health Service spectacle voucher applications, has been printed requiring left eye to be entered before right; and what advice he has given to opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners as to how to deal with this error;

  (3) what quantity of form GOS (P), patient's prescription/statement, was printed showing left eye first, right eye second, if he will make a statement as to what advice he has given to opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners as to how to deal with this error; and how the advice has been conveyed;

  (4) what was the cost of the new forms relating to eye examinations which were printed with errors, GOS(P), GOS2(R) and GOS(V); and who will bear the cost of any mistakes or confusion which arise as a consequence of these printing errors;

  (5) on what date family practitioner committees received the forms which were needed by opticians for use on 1 April;

  (6) whether he intends to continue to use forms GOS(ST)A and GOS(P) in their present design which makes it impossible to use carbon paper for information required to be duplicated on each form.

  Mr. Mellor
  The revised GOS forms were delivered to family practitioner committees on Monday 19 March.

  A total of 150,000 copies of forms GOS(P), GOS(V) and GOS2(R) were printed transposing left and right eye prescription details. FPCs were advised of this on 31 March in a letter which asked them to inform contractors to amend the forms manually until reprinted versions were available. Two million forms GOS2(R) were printed stating that students could have repairs made without reference to the FPC. A health circular and family practitioner notice has been issued advising health authorities and FPCs of this error.

  The design of forms GOS(ST) A and GOS(P) will be revised as soon as possible.

  Information on the cost of printing forms GOS(P), GOS2(R) and GOS(V) is not currently available. The cost of reprinting will be met by the Department.

  Optometrists
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had as a result of his two week consultation on his proposed exemption of optometrists from the requirement to examine for disease as well as refraction; and which bodies supported his proposal and which opposed it.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has received comments to date from 17 bodies and individuals. The great majority are opposed to the proposal.

  Air Ionisers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department studied the health effects of domestic air ionisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's expert independent advisory committee on the medical aspects of contamination of air and soil reviewed the research into the effects of air ionisers. This includes a presentation to the committee by researchers. The committee advised the Department that the evidence presented did not satisfy them that the use of domestic air ionisers had demonstrable health effects. Results of studies on the health effects of ionised air published subsequently in the scientific literature supports that opinion.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on research into schizophrenia in each of the last two years; and what proportion each figure was of expenditure on the National Health Service research programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1988–89, £1,307,900 was made available from the Department of Health and Social Security for directly commissioned health, personal social services and social security research programmes for research into mental illness, much of which will be relevant to sufferers from schizophrenia. In 1987–88 the comparable sum was £1,267,000. Expressed as a percentage of the health, personal social services and social security research budget the figures are 8–2 per cent. and 9–3 per cent. respectively.

  In 1986 a specific research initiative on schizophrenia was started consisting of seven new research studies. It is hoped that the results of these projects will provide valuable information on the pattern of care of schizophrenia patients.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current annual cost per patient to the National Health Service in the Mersey health region of the care and treatment of patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses;

  (2) how much was spent in the Mersey health region in the last year on the care and treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia psychoses; and what percentage that figure represented of total expenditure on (a) mental and (b) all health services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information relating specifically to the cost of treating patients suffering from schizophrenia psychoses in the Mersey region is not collected centrally.

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were written for anti-psychotic drugs in each year since 1985; and how many were written for(a) prochlorperazine, (b) thioridazine, (c) chlorpromazine hydrochloride and (d) trifluoperazine.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no information centrally about the number of prescriptions written by doctors. Official statistics are based on the prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists. The information about the drugs requested is therefore as follows:
  697

  (,000)

  England

  1985

  1986

  1987

  All anti-psychotic drugs

  4,430

  4,436

  4,409

  Prochlorperazine

  2,288

  2,214

  2,147

  Thioridazine

  597

  623

  657

  Chlorpromazine HC1

  542

  532

  513

  Trifluoperazine

  486

  471

  479

  Tardive Dyskinesia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to provide the public with information on the causes and dangers of tardive dyskinesia.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. It is for doctors to provide information to their patients about possible adverse reactions associated with prescribed medicines.

  Paddington Chest Clinic
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present ownership of property known as the Paddington chest clinic, Newton road, London, W2; when the property was sold and to whom; and whether the property was placed on the open market for sale by tender upon the advice of a professional valuer.

  Mr. Freeman
  The sale of property in the Paddington area is the responsibility of Parkside health authority.

  Midwives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by country the percentage of home delivery training that is given to trainee midwives in the European Economic Community member states: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information centrally on the percentage of home delivery training given to student midwives either in this country or in the European Community. The aim of midwifery education in England is to encompass antenatal, perinatal and postnatal care, as well as delivery, in both hospital and community setting in an integrated fashion.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had consultations with the Association of Radical Midwives; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have had no consultations with the Association of Radical Midwives. Our usual contacts with the midwifery profession are with the Royal College of Midwives and the statutory bodies for nursing, midwifery and health visiting.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has estimates for the extra revenue that would be generated through the extension of prescription charges to those reaching retirement age throughout the current year while exempting those on income support; and if he has further estimates for the additional revenue that would be generated if such a policy was projected over the next five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information needed to make these estimates is not available.
  698
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the extra annual revenue generated by the extension of prescription charges to all those over retirement age, exempting only those in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Mellor
  I estimate that the additional annual revenue would be in excess of £200 million.

  Hospital Formularies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives are contained within the existing hospital formularies system for the development in the United Kingdom of new and improved drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The existence of hospital formularies is, in itself, an incentive for the development of safer and more effective medicines. Hospital formularies are subject to ongoing review. Drug companies, bearing this in mind, will therefore work towards the production of medicines which meet criteria for hospital use and demonstrate advantages over existing products, to warrant their inclusion in the formularies.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make funds available for the compilation of local drug formularies.

  Mr. Mellor
  Extra funds have been made available to FPCs from 1989–90 to enable them to carry out their increased responsibilities, as announced in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health". These responsibilities include encouraging the development of local drug formularies.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the effect of European Community directives will be upon the prospects for the introduction of a national United Kingdom formularly for drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to introduce a national formulary. We do however wish to see the continued development of voluntary, local formularies as part of the effort by doctors to achieve more effective and economic prescribing. Such formularies will not be affected by the European Community directives.

  Modern Drugs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department last carried out cost/benefit studies on the potential savings to be made through the greater use of modern drugs instead of expensive hospital care; and what conclusions he has drawn from those studies.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has not itself commissioned any such research, but we are aware of some useful studies on this topic.

  Generic Medicines
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he intends to make to increase the information available to general practitioners through improvements to the labelling of generic medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information put on medicine labels is that essential to tell patients how to use their medicines.
  699
  Since most GPs never see labels, they are not generally a practicable way to provide doctors with information about drugs.

  Kidney Donor Cards
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current advice concerning the advisability of people in HIV high risk groups carrying kidney donor cards; and if he will list any medical conditions which render carrying such cards inadvisable.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 2 March 1987 the Department's chief medical officer wrote to all doctors to remind them of the precautions needed to prevent the transmission of HIV through the transplant of infected tissue or organs. He made it clear that it was essential that blood from the donor is tested and found negative for HIV antibodies before the organ or tissue is transplanted and that inquiries should also be made to exclude donors most likely to have been exposed to the AIDS virus. I do not propose at present to issue a list of contra-indications to organ donation because assessment of the medical suitability of a potential donor is a matter for the doctors concerned, and is undertaken at the time of donation.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to respond to the National Association of Health Authorities' report entitled "Action Not Words: a Strategy to Improve Health Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Groups;" if he plans to take any action to encourage implementation of its proposals and guiding principles and objectives by health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 9 February 1989 at columns 800–1.

  Hospitals (Site Value)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most recently calculated site value for each of the hospitals with over 250 beds.

  Mr. Freeman
  The valuation of the NHS estate does not provide site values in terms of bed numbers and to obtain the information by a special exercise would incur disproportionate cost.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received on the use of hormone replacement therapy for the prevention of stroke and fractures of the femur in elderly women National Health Service patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am advised that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prevents bone loss in post-menopausal women and therefore reduces the risk of fractures. There is also evidence that HRT may provide additional protection against heart disease and strokes. Since there may be risks as well as benefits of such treatment for some people, the individual patient's suitability for HRT should be a matter for the clinical judgment of their doctor. The Medical Research Council has set up a specialist group to look at the further research required into HRT.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from his Department's consultant adviser on ophthalmology on screening programmes for the early detection of glaucoma in National Health Service patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any advice given to the consultant adviser to the chief medical officer is confidential.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to introduce to encourage family doctors to screen National Health Service patients for cervical and breast cancers.

  Mr. Freeman
  Guidance to health authorities on cervical cancer screening was contained in HC(88)1 of January 1988. Breast cancer screening was covered by draft circular DA(87)14 of March 1987 and the letter EL(88)P/48 of April 1988. Copies of these are in the Library.

  The cervical cancer screening service is provided largely through GPs, whereas breast cancer screening is available through static centres and mobile units provided by health authorities. In both programmes GPs are involved in the issuing of invitations to eligible women.

  To encourage GPs to achieve higher levels of cover, the item of service payment for cervical cancer screening is to be replaced by target payments. Such payments will be made for achieving or helping to achieve (for example with the family planning clinic) cover of 80 per cent. of the relevant practice population. By this means we believe that a significant increase will be achieved in the numbers of women screened and therefore in the numbers of cases of early detection and successful treatment of conditions which otherwise might have developed into cervical cancer.

  In the case of breast cancer screening we would expect GPs to be involved in discussions on arrangements for the follow-up and treatment of any of their patients who have screen-detected abnormalities. Resource material for primary care teams, including a practical guide for GPs, has been developed by the Cancer Research Campaign. These information packs are being distributed free of charge to every GP practice in the country three months prior to eligible women in the practice being invited for screening.

  Health Screening
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures his Department proposes as a follow-up to the "Look After Your Heart!" campaign; and if he proposes to ask all family doctors to undertake screening programmes among National Health Service patients to detect and treat risk factors for coronary artery disease;

  (2) what measures his Department is planning to encourage family doctors to undertake screening programmes to detect patients requiring treatment for mild to moderate hypertension.

  Mr. Mellor
  The "Look After Your Heart!" campaign is a continuing one with two main aims. First, to raise awareness of the risk factors associated with coronary
  701
  heart disease. Secondly, to help people make the necessary lifestyle changes in key areas such as nutrition, smoking, alcohol consumption and exercise. Work continues on both fronts. Under changes to general practitioners' terms of service proposed in the document "A New Contract" which was sent to all GPs on 23 February, it will be a requirement that GPs offer patients regular check-ups. These check-ups will include measurement of blood pressure. We believe that this important development will provide an opportunity for GPs to advise patients, particularly those at risk, of measures to avoid developing high blood pressure. Whenever hypertension is identified they will be able at an early stage to take whatever action is appropriate to control the situation. We have also asked the standing medical advisory committee to advise on the cost-effectiveness of wider cholesterol testing in the prevention and treatment of heart disease.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department proposes to encourage special screening and treatment programmes to detect and treat National Health Service patients suffering from diabetes mellitus.

  Mr. Freeman
  Provisions of screening and treatment programmes for National Health Service patients suffering from diabetes mellitus is a matter for individual health authorities. Under changes to general practitioner terms of service proposed in the document "A New Contract", which was sent to all general practitioners on 23 February, it will be a requirement that general practitioners offer patients regular check ups. These check ups will include a urine test which, amongst other things, will provide an indication of whether further investigations are necessary to determine whether or not a patient is suffering from diabetes mellitus. The early identification of disease is an essential part of the package of changes to general practice set out in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health".

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1), pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield on 7 April,Official Report, columns 303–4, if he will give the reference for the press reports on cook-chill food which he refers to as biased and inaccurate;

  (2) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield on 7 April, Official Report, columns 303–4, he will seek a report from the Wakefield district health authority as to when it received representations from the hon. Member for Wakefield and which representations did not relate to cook-chill food at Clayton hospital.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is for the district health authority to follow up local complaints. But my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is writing to the hon. Member about his request for cook-chill to be suspended, and he will enclose with that letter a copy of the article referred to and a copy of the unit general manager's subsequent letter to the editor of the newspaper concerned setting out the true position.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the installation of electronic monitoring equipment in residential homes for the elderly.
  702
  Mr. Mellor
  The installation of such equipment is a matter for the local authority concerned together with the proprietors of independent sector homes. We would hope that any equipment installed would be consistent with the human dignity of residents, a homely atmosphere and the necessary human contact betwen residents and staff.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to introduce a system of care tests to ensure that elderly persons do not enter residential care unnecessarily.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are considering the case for introducing a system for assessment of need for residential care as part of our wider examination of community care following Sir Roy Griffiths' report. We hope to be able to bring forward our proposals on community care in the near future.

  Foster Parents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local authorities and voluntary organisations regarding insurance procedures for foster parents.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regulation 3 of the Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations requires local authorities and voluntary organisations to include with notices of approval to foster parents information on the agency's arrangements for meeting any legal liabilities of a foster parent arising by reason of the placement. The regulations come into force on 1 June 1989. The accompanying handbook of guidance suggests a number of different arrangements for meeting claims by or against foster parents in respect of damage, loss or injury or legal defence costs.

  Apnoea
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the condition known as apnoea is categorised.

  Mr. Freeman
  Apnoea simply means without breath. It can be normal, as with deglutition apnoea which occurs in swallowing, or abnormal, as a result of a number of medical conditions. It may occur on a temporary basis as a consequence of treatment, for example during the administration of an anaesthetic.

  Birmingham Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received a request from the Birmingham family practitioner committee to approve an out-of-time investigation into allegations involving one or more doctors in Birmingham, following an article in The Sunday Times on 22 November 1987; how many doctors are the subject of this request; and what reply has been sent to the Birmingham family practitioner committee.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: An application relating to one doctor was received on 3 March 1989. A reply will be issued shortly.

  Artificial Limbs and Appliances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the provision to
  703
  Parliament of sufficient information to monitor the development of the artificial limb and appliance services, in view of his refusal to provide substantive replies to parliamentary questions relating to services provided by the Disablement Services Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: Questions relating to services provided by the Disabled Services Authority (DSA) should be addressed to the Disablement Services Authority. The Secretary of State has referred most parliamentary questions relating to the artificial limb and appliance service accordingly. Hon. and right hon. Members who have been so referred have received full and detailed information of the progress made by the DSA in implementing its statutory functions. The authority also publishes an annual report which is available in the Library of the House. The Secretary of State has no plans for reviewing these arrangements.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what date he expects to transfer the responsibility for the artificial limb and appliance services from the Disablement Services Authority to health authorities; what wil be his policy on providing information concerning the services in reply to parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answe 12 April 1989]: The Disablement Services Authority will transfer responsibility for the artificial limb and appliance service (ALAS) to NHS health authorities on 1 April 1991. Until then, the Secretary of State will continue to refer questions relating to the ALAS to the Disablement Services Authority which he is confident will continue to provide, direct to hon. and right hon. Members, full and detailed information concerning developments in the services it administers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he now has any proposals to introduce free television licences for pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to approve the provision of the new Arwen Ace plastic bullet gun to police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to approve the provision of the new Arwen Ace plastic bullet gun to police forces in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce his decision on the provision of the new Arwen Ace plastic bullet gun to police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to approve the provision of the new Arwen Ace plastic bullet gun to police forces in England and Wales.
  704
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to approve the provision of the new Arwen Ace plastic bullet gun to police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Equipment for use in situations of serious public disorder is kept under review. No decision has been taken to replace the currently authorised baton round equipment but a number of baton round dischargers, including the Arwen Ace, are being considered as possible replacements.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in securing closer international co-operation on confiscation of drug traffickers' assets.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have signed bilateral agreements with the United States of America, Canada, the Bahamas, Australia and Switzerland, and have completed substantive negotiations with Spain and Sweden. Other bilateral discussions are in progress, and, in the forthcoming meeting of Ministers of the Council of Europe's Pompidou Group, we shall be discussing how to strengthen co-operation in this area.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reciprocal agreements he has now secured with other countries with regard to the tracing and seizure of drug traffickers and the freezing or confiscation of their illegally derived assets.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have signed bilateral agreements with five Governments and completed substantive negotiations with two others. We have played an active part in the adoption of a new United Nations convention against drug trafficking, and in work towards a new Council of European convention on the confiscation of criminal proceeds.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to improve the prevailing level of co-operation between European countries, including the United Kingdom, on drug trafficking prevention, detection and the concomitant prosecution of offenders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A suitable framework for such co-operation exists in the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, adopted in December in Vienna. We take every opportunity to encourage our European partners to sign and ratify the convention at the earliest date possible and meanwhile to implement its provisions to the fullest extent permitted by existing legislation. In all our contacts we lay particular stress on the value of international co-operation in tracing, freezing and confiscating drug traffickers' assets.

  Police Fingerprint Service
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements have been achieved in the efficiency of the police fingerprint service since the publication of the Audit Commission report on the subject in October 1988.
  705
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the police fingerprinting service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In February 1988, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers set up a group of police officers, forensic scientists and fingerprint experts to undertake a general review of the work of the scientific support services in police forces, including fingerprint services.

  The group has made a number of recommendations on the reorganisation of fingerprint departments and improved training for fingerprint experts. These recommendations, which take into account the findings of the Audit Commission, are currently being considered by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Remand Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to meet the union representatives from remand centres to discuss his proposals for the future of remand centres.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have immediate plans for such a meeting, but prison service management meets trade union representatives regularly to discuss developments in the service. Changes affecting individual establishments are also the subject of local consultation.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will provide the training for staff employed in private remand centres.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It remains to be decided how the training of staff for any private remand centres would be provided, but whatever the arrangements, we would have to be satisfied that adequate training was given.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting the abolition of a suspect's right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of suggestions that the right to silence should be modified. My right hon. Friend set up last year a working group to consider what changes in the law were necessary. We are now awaiting its report.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes previously established in London are now defunct or disbanded.

  Mr. John Patten
  The figures collected by the Metropolitan police do not distinguish between those schemes which have failed and those which have temporarily disbanded. Between January 1987 and the end of December 1988 487 schemes are recorded as having failed. During the same period some 2,400 new schemes were set up.

  AIDS
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to help counter the spread of AIDS in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  High priority is given to measures to prevent the transmission of HIV infection in prison. The main plank of the prevention strategy is education. Our latest initiative is a new package of education materials, including a video film, entitled "AIDS Inside and Out." Other measures include medical inquiry and examination at the reception stage, counselling of individual prisoners, and limited regime restrictions for prisoners identified as HIV antibody positive.

  Robbery
  21. Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the latest figures for robbery in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The provisional figure for the number of robberies recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1988 is 31,437, a decrease of 3·7 per cent. on the figure for 1987. The clear-up rate increased from 21 per cent. to 23 per cent. over the same period.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest national figures available for robbery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published in table 1 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Junior Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many junior crime prevention panels have now been established in England and Wales.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of junior crime prevention panels in operation.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of junior crime prevention panels in operation.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of March 1989 there were 165 junior crime prevention panels in England and Wales and others are being set up.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the safer cities programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  Good progress has been made in establishing the first nine of the 20 crime prevention projects which will comprise the safer cities programme. Bradford and Wolverhampton projects are already fully operational and Nottingham staff will be taking up post this month. Grant application in support of local schemes have been received and approved for Bradford and Nottingham projects. Five additional areas have recently been invited to join in the programme (Bristol, Hull, Salford, Sunderland and Wirral) of which four have already agreed to participate.
  707
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase funding available for the safe city programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  Financial planning for the safer cities initiative already takes account of the scheduled growth of the programme. Nine projects were set up in 1988–89, a further seven will be established in 1989–90 and four more in 1990–91. A sum of 4–2 million is available for the current financial year. A decision as to whether further expenditure on the programe is called for will be taken in the light of the success of projects now under way.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Illsley
  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. Martlew
  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
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to a similar question from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now consider, following the advice tendered by the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service, that those applicants who pass DNA tests should be allowed entry into Britain on the grounds that, although now over the age of 18 years, their original applications were made, and refused, when they were under age.

  Mr. Renton
  A person who makes a fresh application for entry clearance when he is 18 years of age or older is normally expected to meet the requirements set out at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the immigration rules. However, my right hon. Friend is considering whether, and in what circumstances, it might be appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of over-age reapplicants who do not qualify for admission under the rules. We hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions before long.

  Violent Crime
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to tackle the current levels of violent crime.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the levels of violent crime in the inner-city areas.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to ensure greater safety of women from violent crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  By strengthening the police, and by fostering the safer cities programme in some urban high crime areas, we hope to increase the safety of all citizens. Simple precautions that members of the public can take to reduce the risk of attack are given in the Home Office crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime."

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence were recorded in(a) 1979 and (b)
  708
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested for 1979–87 is published in Table 2·1 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1987", Cm. 498; and for 1988 in table 1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Latchmere House (Detainees)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to transfer detainees from Latchmere house to Haslar in Gosport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 13 March at col. 9 and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 5 April at col.220.

  Broadcasting Transmission Systems
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in full the consultants' report on broadcasting transmission systems.

  Mr. Renton
  We have yet to decide how the results of the study should be made public. Parts of it will be commercially confidential.

  Magistrates Clerks
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the recruitment of magistrates clerks.

  Mr. John Patten
  We shall shortly be discussing with representatives of magistrates courts committees what steps relating to pay and other matters they can take as employers of courts staff to improve the present shortage of court clerks. We have already approved the establishment of 25 additional trainee posts this year. We plan to authorise more, and to make provision for training accordingly. We also plan to issue by the summer new recruitment publicity material for the magistrates courts service.

  Community Volunteers
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which areas he proposes to run private schemes for community volunteers; and over what period.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding for the proposed community volunteer schemes will come from existing police authority budgets; and what additional funds will be made specifically available.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received for the creation of community volunteers.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) earlier today.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review procedures for re-referral of possible miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal.
  709
  Mr. John Patten
  We see no present need to review the procedure.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the figures for reported crime in North Yorkshire for 1988.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for the West Midlands.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Leicestershire.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Lincolnshire.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the figures for reported crime in Cambridgeshire for 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the figures for reported crime in Surrey for 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is published in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89, a copy of which is in the Library. My right hon. Friend has also sent some further details of the figures for their local police force area to all right hon. and hon. Members for constituencies in England and Wales and placed copies of those further details in the Library.

  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the problems caused to his force by working in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Commissioner and my right hon. Friend meet regularly to discuss policing issues including the particular problems caused by working in London, especially the recruitment and retention of officers and civil staff. My right hon. Friend supports the commissioner's efforts to overcome them.

  Broadcasting White Paper
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to meet the general advisory committee of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss the White Paper on Broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have immediate plans to do so, but we have had several meetings with the IBA and have now received the IBA's response to the White Paper.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to impose controls on the private security industry.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to questions from the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 15 December 1988 at column 716.

  Caldy Island, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made to restore the franchise in respect of European and parliamentary elections to the residents of Caldy Island, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that residents of Caldey Island are included in the register of electors for south Pembrokeshire published and effective from 16 February 1989. Ballot papers should, therefore, be available to the residents for all elections held this year, as in previous years. Nevertheless, I recognise that legislative action needs to be taken to regularise the position of Caldey Island. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering the available options as a matter of urgency.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of suicides in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the prison service suicide prevention procedures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The prison service's strategy for the prevention of inmate suicides has two main elements: to identify inmates who may be at risk of suicide, by means of constant staff vigilance, particularly when the inmate is first received into custody; and to prevent such inmates from actually killing themselves, both by reducing the physical opportunities for suicide in prison and by offering medical and social support to the suicidal inmate. Initiatives such as enhanced staff training in suicide prevention awareness, better cell design, and work on the development of CCTV for the monitoring of suicidal inmates, all contribute to this strategy. While we do not expect to alter the main thrust of our strategy, we are considering in the light of recent experience whether any modifications to our procedures may be helpful.

  Police Cars (High-speed Chases)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables about the use of police cars in high-speed chases of those believed to have committed criminal offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on 20 March to discuss a range of London policing matters, including police car chases.

  Fear of Crime
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the working party on the fear of crime chaired by Mr. Michael Grade.

  Mr. John Patten
  I hope that the working group will present its report to the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention on 11 December.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the members of his working party on crime chaired by Mr. Michael Grade.

  Mr. John Patten
  The appointment of members to the independent working group on the fear of crime is a matter for Mr. Grade, and has yet to be completed.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget has been allocated to the working party on the fear of crime chaired by Mr. Michael Grade.

  Mr. John Patten
  The sum of £3,000 has been allocated in this financial year to support crime prevention working groups, including that chaired by Mr. Grade. The Home Office will also provide administrative and secretarial support for Mr. Grade's working group and will meet the cost of publishing the working group's report.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent surveys he has made of fear of crime among women.

  Mr. John Patten
  Questions about fear of crime were included in the British crime survey, in a recent international survey conducted by telephone, and in local surveys on housing estates. In each survey care was taken to provide a representative sample of both men and women.

  Public Interest Defence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the need for a public interest defence to be incorporated in Official Secrets legislation.

  Mr. Hurd
  From the publication of our White Paper on the reform of secion 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 on 29 June 1988 up to 4 April 1989 I have received representations in support of a public interest defence from 30 organisations, including 11 from the branches of two national organisations, and from 113 individuals.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce the numbers of women with infants imprisoned for non-violent offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Court of Appeal has made it clear that custody should be used only when a court considers it absolutely necessary. Last July, the Government published proposals for punishing in the community more offenders convicted of less serious and non-violent offences; we are considering how to take matters forward in the light of the responses to those proposals.
  712
  Meanwhile, the national standards for community service orders, which came into effect on 1 April, asked probation areas to ensure that community service placements are available for women offenders, including those who are pregnant, and offenders with young children. We are also revising the handbook "The Sentence of the Court" which reflects the Court of Appeal's guidance on the use of custody, and the new edition will refer specifically to women offenders with family responsibilities.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons allow women prisoners the right to seek pregnancy advice and counselling independent of the prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prison medical officers have statutory responsibility for all aspects of the health care of prisoners. In the exercise of that responsibility they make extensive use of the specialist consultancy, treatment and counselling services of the National Health Service and other outside agencies. Whether such help is called upon in a particular case is a matter for the clinical judgment of the medical officer concerned.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pregnant women were released from prison before their confinement in each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of pregnant women released by the exercise of the royal prerogative, between 1979 and 1988 is provided in the table. Information on pregnant women released on completion of their sentences is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pregnant inmates released by royal prerogative

  Number

  1979

  3

  1980

  5

  1981

  3

  1982

  1

  1983

  6

  1984

  8

  1985

  8

  1986

  6

  1987

  15

  1988

  9

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the carrying out of a full social inquiry report on pregnant women arid mothers of dependent children before sentencing.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office policy on social inquiry reports is set out in Home Office circular 92/1986. This states that a social inquiry report should inter alia contain information about the defendant's personality and character including the family situation. I would expect social inquiry reports written on pregnant women and mothers of dependent children to draw attention to those facts without fail and to make recommendations that take account of them in order to help the courts decide on a suitable disposal.

  Drink-Related Crime
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the percentage of crimes by under-21-year-olds which are drink-related.
  713
  Mr. John Patten
  Of the people under 21 convicted in 1987, the latest year for which full figures are available. 8 per cent. were convicted of drunkenness or drink-driving offences. No reliable estimate can be made of the extent to which the offences of which the remaining 92 per cent. convicted were alcohol related.

  Special Constables (Metropolitan Area)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of special constables in the Metropolitan police are(a) from ethnic minorities, and (b) women.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that, of the 1,419 members of the Metropolitan special constabulary of 14 March 1989, 9 per cent. (134) were from ethnic minorities and 32 per cent. (460) were women.

  Transfrontier Broadcasting
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in negotiations to establish a new European convention on standards of taste and decency in transfrontier broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  Agreement on the final text of the Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television was reached on 15 March. We hope that a decision to open the convention for signature will be taken shortly.

  Co-operation Against Crime
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to promote greater European co-operation against crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 2 February, column 384.

  Passports
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average times taken to process non-urgent passport applications at major passport offices; and what were the comparable times one year ago.

  Mr. Renton
  The current processing times for straightforward non-urgent postal applications at the six United Kingdom passport offices are shown in the table below, together with those of a year ago. Urgent applications are given priority, and are not normally subject to delay.

  Average time between receipt of application and issue of passport (working days)

  Passport office

  9 April 1989 21

  10 April 1988

  London

  21

  55

  Glasgow

  33

  28

  Peterborough

  26

  27

  Newport

  33

  17

  Liverpool

  42

  13

  Belfast

  4

  3

  Metropolitan Police (Efficiency)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps is he taking to promote greater efficiency in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 2 February at column 386.

  Burglary
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest national figures for burglary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published in table 1 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Association of Chief Police Officers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with chief officers of police in the course of meetings, visits and conferences. He has not had any recent formal meetings with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but will be attending the ACOP drugs conference on 20 and 21 April.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the names of the chairman and members of the firearms consultative committee.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not yet able to announce appointments but we regard it as important to have the committee in place as soon as possible.

  Local Authorities (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking more fully to involve elected local authorities in creating safer environments for their citizens.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have welcomed the support local authorities have given the safer cities programme and encouraged their direct involvement in those areas where projects have already been established. We shall continue to seek local authority involvement in the programme as further projects are set up. We have also involved seven local authorities in the two year experiment to test byelaws which prohibit alcohol consumption in particular public places.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the imposition of a duty on all local authorities to undertake crime prevention work.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to impose a duty on local authorities to undertake crime prevention work and we have received no representations on this matter.

  Charities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to complete his review of the law on charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope shortly to publish a White Paper setting out our proposals for legislation in the light of Sir Philip Woodfield's efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities.

  Police Establishments (Civilians)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of civilians currently employed in police establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 December 1988 there were 39,201 full-time and 6,297 part-time civilian staff employed by the police service in England and Wales.

  Armley Prison (Leeds)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he expects the publication of the full report by the deputy director general of prisons on Armley prison, Leeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 10 April at column 325.

  Dog Registration Scheme
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal's proposals for a dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The RSPCA sent to the Department its proposals for a dog registration scheme on 3 December 1987. We have no plans to introduce such a scheme.

  Sapphire Investigations Bureau
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contracts his Department has placed over the past 10 years with the Sapphire Investigations Bureau.

  Mr. Hurd
  Records are readily available only from April 1984. They include no contracts placed with, nor payments made to Sapphire Investigations Bureau by or on behalf of my Department during that period.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the feasibility study into the privatisation of the Horserace Totalisator Board; and when he intends to make a statement on the inquiry into the long-term funding of British racing.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that Lloyds merchant bank has completed its work on the feasibility study on the privatisation, and my right hon. Friend expects to receive it soon. As my right hon. Friend explained in reply on 22 March to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for 716
  Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) at columns 600–1 he will announce his conclusion on the possibility of an inquiry into the long-term funding of racing when he has considered that advice.

  Pompidou Group
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when next the Pompidou Group of Ministers is planning to meet; and what he will be discussing with them.

  Mr. Hurd
  The next ministerial meeting will take place in London on 18 and 19 May. I hope it will give a powerful encouragement to efforts throughout Europe to pass legislation on the confiscation of drugs traffickers' assets and to establish a network of reciprocal agreements. We shall also be discussing AIDS and drug misuse, which is a major problem in a number of European countries, and the growing threat to Europe posed by cocaine.

  Wapping Dispute
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the number of police officers deployed on public order duties outside the News International plant at Wapping on 24 January 1987; and what were the ranks from commander downwards of those employed, the length of the tours of duty of police officers on that date, and the number of divisions within the Metropolitan district from which officers were drawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 1,018 officers were deployed. Their ranks were as follows:

  Number

  Superintendent

  1

  Chief Inspector

  2

  Inspector

  42

  Sergeant

  102

  Constable

  871

  A commander and a chief superintendent were initially in charge of police operations; a deputy assistant commissioner subsequently took charge. The average tour of duty was 8·8 hours. No central record was kept of the number of divisions from which officers were drawn.

  Prisons (Child Care)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what agencies are allowed to enter prisons to inspect and monitor the arrangements for child care provision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Health visitors from the local area health authority regularly visit the three mother and baby units and provide child care advice to inmate mothers. Arrangements for a Department of Health team to inspect the units and report periodically on matters such as child care practice are being considered.

  Imprisonment (Dependent Children)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is currently being carried
  717
  out into the effects of the imprisonment of a parent who has care of a child on the long-term development of the child.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Research commissioned by the Home Office into the physical and psychological development of babies in prison, compared with those not subjected to this experience, has recently been published by the university of Sussex. We are not aware of any current research into the long-term effects of imprisonment on prisoners' families.

  War Crimes Inquiry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the war crimes inquiry to submit its report to him on the presence of alleged Nazi war criminals in the United Kingdom

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the inquiry hopes to submit its report to my right hon. Friend in May.

  Crimes Against the Person
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the clearing-up of serious crimes against the person; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The provisional clear-up rate for offences of violence against the person and sexual offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1988 was 75 per cent. This is the same figure as that for 1987. The police rightly give high priority to detecting these types of crime.

  "Broadcasting in the '90s"
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s," whether he will take steps to protect the rights of charities to continue to have air time allocated for the purpose of making appeals.

  Mr. Renton
  There is at present no requirement on the broadcasters to allocate air time to charities for the purpose of making appeals. We shall be considering the general question of positive programme requirements in the light of the responses to the White Paper.

  Pub Bombings (Demonstration)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why relatives of the six persons convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings were not permitted to display a banner saying, in English and Russian, "Justice for the Birmingham Six," near the Guildhall during the visit of President Gorbachev;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the City of London police as to the basis on which a demonstration by relatives and friends of the persons convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings near the Guildhall during the visit by President Gorbachev was broken up;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the commissioner of the City of London police as to how many persons were arrested or detained during a demonstration by relatives and friends of the persons convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings near the Guildhall, during the visit of President Gorbachev; and why.
  718
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police for the City of London that a crowd of several hundred were present to see the arrival of President Gorbachev at the Guildhall. A group was chanting and produced a number of banners which obstructed the view of others. The reaction of the rest of the crowd, and the ensuing arguments and jostling, led the police to direct the demonstrators to move on. They did so but resumed their disruptive behaviour nearby. Further police requests to desist were met with abuse and nine arrests were made in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Those concerned were subsequently released without charge.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why relatives of the six persons convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings were not permitted to display in Whitehall a banner saying, in English and Russian, "Justice for the Birmingham Six," during the visit of President Gorbachev to Downing Street.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that to prevent the occasion of the visit turning into a demonstration, which might infringe sessional orders or lead to a breach of the peace, the police did not allow the display of any banners which required two or more people to hold them aloft.

  "Women, Children and Custody"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the National Association of Probation Officers' report entitled "Women, Children and Custody", dated March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received the report. Policies on the treatment of offenders are kept under review.

  Mrs. Riffat Iqbal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mrs. Riffat Iqbal, ref: IMP A421556 and KA55157, applied to the post in Karachi to enter the United Kingdom; when the application was referred to him; and when he expects a decision will be taken on this application.

  Mr. Renton
  Riffat Iqbal applied for entry clearance as a fiancee at the British Consulate-General, Karachi on 10 December 1987. The entry clearance officer was informed on 2 February 1988 that she had married the sponsor on 10 January 1988 in Pakistan. Mrs. Iqbal was interviewed by the entry clearance officer on 3 July 1988; following further inquiries, the application was referred to the Home Office for a decision on 8 March 1989. The decision to refuse Mrs. Iqbal's application is to be sent to the entry clearance officer in Karachi today; Mrs. Iqbal will be informed of this decision and of her right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities once the papers are received there.

  Pet Animals (Protection)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will now sign the European convention for the protection of pet animals; and if he will make a statement.
  719
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 1 December at column 1.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the procedures for the revocation of the granting of naturalisation if evidence becomes available that recommendations given in support of the application are unfounded.

  Mr. Renton
  In circumstances prescribed in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Home Secretary may deprive a person of British citizenship obtained by naturalisation or registration if citizenship was obtained by fraud, false representations or the concealment of material fact, provided he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a British citizen.

  Hosni E Farhat
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to the case of Hosni E. Farhat in reaching the decision to ban the operations of Libyan Arab Airlines from the United Kingdom in October 1986.

  Mr. Hurd
  None. The case of Farhat, who was sentenced in 1981, was not relevant to the decision, taken in 1986, to terminate flights to the United Kingdom by Libyan Arab Airlines.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement regarding the recommended minimum length of sentence to be served in the case of Hosni E. Farhat;

  (2) whether the decision regarding the recommended minimum length of sentence to he served, in the case of Hosni E. Farhat, was made by the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The date of the first formal review by the local review committee of a life sentence prisoner's case is determined by the Secretary of State in the light of advice by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice on the period of detention necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence in his case, and is normally set three years before the expiry date of that period. Following the judgment of the Divisional Court on 2 March 1987 in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Handscomb and others, the date of the first review in cases where a life sentence is imposed at the discretion of the court rather than as the mandatory penalty for murder is fixed strictly in accordance with the judiciary's advice. The date of the first review in Mr. Farhat's case, which had then already been set, was reviewed following the judgment but there was no reason to change it. His case is due to be reviewed in accordance with these arrangements in 1998, when he will have been detained for 17 years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Letter Board
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on whose authority the limit of six letters allowed to be placed by any hon. Member on the Members' letter board at any one time was established; what are the reasons behind this limitation; and if he will review this limitation with a view to its abolition.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The limit of six letters which right hon. and hon. Members may place on the letter board each day is approved by the Services Committee. Should any greater number be permitted, the handling of urgent mail would be significantly delayed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, if he will estimate the cost incurred by the House of hon. Members having to use franked envelopes to communicate with colleagues where they have reached their limit of six unfranked letters on the Members' letter board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not possible to estimate this cost.

  Members' Secretaries
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the procedure for hon. Members' private secretaries to claim redundancy payments in the event of the death of the hon. Member by whom they are employed; if he has any plans to change the present arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  On learning of the death of a Member, the Fees Office, having first established that an employee of a late Member is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978, prepare the appropriate documentation in draft which is then forwarded to the peronal representative of the deceased Member (who is legally liable for any redundancy payments due) for factual certification and signature. On receipt of the completed certificates, payment is made by the Fees Office to the employees direct.

  I am not aware of any unnecessary administrative delay in settling outstanding redundancy payment claims, or of an alternative method whereby payments might be expedited.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the terms and conditions of employment of hon. Members' private secretaries to be reviewed by the Top Salaries Review Body with a view to them being employed by the House and paid a salary specified by the hon. Member for whom they work.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. The Top Salaries Review Board last reviewed the office costs allowance, which is payable to Members in respect of certain expenses incurred in carrying out their parliamentary duties including secretarial assistance, in 1987. I see no need for a further review at this stage.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield):The Lord Chancellor On the Woolsack.

Air Traffic: Runway Capacity
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that an additional runway for use by civil aircraft is provided in the South-East before the end of the century.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is due to provide my right honourable friend in July with advice on the adequacy of UK airport capacity in the period to 2005. Our first step must be to consider that advice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he in a position to say that if the universal opinion in the aviation world is borne out, and another runway in the South-East is required by the end of the century, it will be possible to provide it; or has time gone too far already?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, obviously we shall need to see what advice we receive in July from the CAA when it has completed the consultations that it sought in its CAP 548 document. I have no doubt that if another runway were required in the South-East by the turn of the century it would indeed be possible to achieve.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, before asking a supplementary question I ought to declare an interest. I am chairman of Kent international airport. It may be better known to your Lordships as Manston airport in Kent. Is the Minister aware that Kent international airport has a runway long enough to take the largest aircraft, new passenger terminal buildings, and is outside the London control zone? It is therefore ideal for easing congestion in the South-East.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his information. I have no doubt that Manston will be putting forward, or will have put forward, its views to the CAA so that those can be taken into account when the time comes to give us advice.
Lord Ferrier:My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the authorities are giving sufficient attention to the development of the various connections with airports such as Prestwick in order to relieve the pressure on the South?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Prestwick is a long way from the South-East, to which my noble friend's Question refers. I have told my noble friend Lord Ferrier on a number of occasions that the BAA has asked us to review the situation at Prestwick. We have not yet made a decision.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not hear all of the Minister's reply. However, Prestwick is becoming nearer as the railway services speed up.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be nearer in time, but the distance remains the same so far as I know. One must recognise that 75 per cent. of the traffic using south-eastern airports emanates in the South-East of England.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that as much traffic as possible should be taken away from the South-East. Perhaps we can all agree on that, whatever methods one uses to do so.
I assume that the report will also include air traffic control as well as runway capacity. This extremely important subject is of great concern to everyone as the Minister will know from the number of Questions that arise on it and the public interest in it. Will he use his best effort to have an open debate in the House as soon as the report is available for publication?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, obviously a debate would be a matter for the usual channels to decide. Air traffic control will have to be taken into account by the CAA when it gives us advice. It is one of the most important factors in the equation.

Tower Hamlets: School Places
3.5 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they intend to do about the large number of children for whom there are no school places in Tower Hamlets.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the provision of education in Tower Hamlets is at present a matter for the Inner London Education Authority, and will from April next year become the responsibility of the local borough council. The Government are closely monitoring the problem of Tower Hamlets children who are not receiving school education.
Baroness David:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not a fact that there has been a complaint made under Section 99 of the Education Act 1944 to the Secretary of State about the failure to educate all these children in school? What will he do about it? Is it not his legal responsibility when a complaint has been made?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The Government have received a complaint under Section 99 of the Education Act 1944 that the Inner London Education Authority is

381
failing in its statutory duty to provide sufficient schools in Tower Hamlets. Until a decision has been reached by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science it would not be proper for me to comment on that question.
Lord Renton:My Lords, will the Minister inform the House to what extent the existing school places are occupied by children of immigrants, and how many immigrant children are at present awaiting places in those schools?
Viscount Davidson:My Lords, according to the most recent ILEA data there are currently 410 registered children of compulsory school age registered in Tower Hamlets who are not receiving education at school.
I should tell your Lordships that the problem arises from a recent large influx of immigrants of a different culture and that it is difficult for local authorities to cope with it. I know that Tower Hamlets Borough Council, which will be taking on this responsibility in April 1990, is working very hard to try to resolve this difficult situation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is estimated that it would take £12 million to provide the schools necessary to educate these children and that so far the Government have budgeted for only £4 million?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no shortage of accommodation. Three new primary schools have opened since January 1989. However, owing to staff shortages, one is operating at less than full capacity and the other two have admitted one class each rather than operating at their full capacities of 210 places each.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a member of the Toynbee Hall Council and chairman of the Attlee Foundation, which is in Tower Hamlets, I am under constant pressure to do something about providing extra school places? I can think of nothing better than to tell them in due course that I have pressed the Government to do something about it. I hope that the Government will do so.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord can say that he has pressed the Government and that the Government are trying to do something about it. It is a very serious problem. However, the primary responsibility for this matter lies with the local authority. But the Government are concerned about the difficulties. As I have said, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science is to meet the Inner London Education Authority and the borough in the very near future to discuss education provision in Tower Hamlets.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in his reply the noble Viscount used the expression "until a decision is reached". How long will that be? Those children who are not in school are losing the education experience at the exact time that they are not in school.
382
Nothing that one can do later can offset that. If these are the children of immigrant parents I should have thought a fortiori that this is a case where one should be acting with urgency. How rapidly will something happen?
Viscount Davidson:My Lords, I should like to welcome the noble Lord back to the Front Bench after his absence. However, I am afraid that I cannot answer him.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the shortage of teachers in Tower Hamlets. This is a problem that affects the whole of inner London. It is not a question of the local authority's responsibility. It is a question of government responsibility for wages and conditions of teachers, and housing, in order to be able to attract teachers to the inner London area.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Tower Hamlets already receives very substantial Section 11 support—currently the equivalent of over 275 full-time posts in education. Whether more Section 11 teachers are required is a matter for ILEA in consultation with Tower Hamlets, as the successor authority, to consider. Should the authority wish to apply to the Home Office for additional funding, any such application will be considered on its merits.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are the Government intending to take steps in the immediate situation with these hundreds of schoolchildren badly needing facilities in school? There is accommodation for them but there are not enough teachers. Do the Government intend to stand by and do nothing, apart from conferring?
Viscount Davidson:My Lords, as I said, it is a matter for ILEA; but the Government are giving all the advice that they can. My honourable friend is meeting ILEA and the borough to try to resolve the problem. We are trying to get teachers from Bangladesh and from elsewhere to help resolve the problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister does not seem to realise the seriousness and the urgency of the problem. It is now beyond the local authorities, and they cannot cope. The situation will get worse. I understand that the rolls in Tower Hamlets are to rise by a further 5,000 in the next few years. It is a desperate problem and I hope the Minister will pass back the feeling in this House this afternoon.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thought I had given the impression that the Government feel strongly about this matter, are worried and are trying to take all the necessary steps. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall pass on her remarks to my right honourable friend.

Heathrow: Immigration Facilities
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the number of immigration officers at Heathrow is adequate to deal satisfactorily with outgoing and incoming passengers.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in normal circumstances the answer is yes. In 1987 and 1988 a satisfactory level of staffing was maintained and very few complaints were received. Arrangements for the peak periods of 1989 are at present being determined.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Earl care to comment on an incident which occurred on the morning of 22nd March? On that occasion there was only one immigration officer on duty at Heathrow for outgoing passengers, and there were between 100 and 150 passengers trying to get through to catch early morning planes. That caused total confusion, chaos and a good deal of complaint. Is he further aware that I was informed that this was not an isolated incident in recent times? If the Government intend to go ahead with a Customs and immigration hall at Waterloo in connection with the Channel Tunnel, can he indicate whether such delays could also occur? That would frustrate the whole endeavour of having a Channel Tunnel.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was kind enough to refer this incident to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on 22nd March. Records indicate that there was some congestion at the embarkation point at Terminal 1 between 06.35 and 07.35 hours on 22nd March. At that time there was the routine allocation of two immigration officers on duty; although one officer was dedicated to the clearance of a high risk security flight. A third officer was deployed to the embarkation control at 07.15 hours to help clear the congestion. I apologise to any passenger—I naturally include the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—who may have been delayed at that hour. Regarding his second point about the Channel Tunnel, I understand that discussions are already taking place upon that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister inform me whether there is a possibility of greater flexibility in the use of immigration officers for incoming passengers? I speak as one who only recently has become entitled to come through the United Kingdom channel. On Saturday mornings in particular there is often two or three hours' delay while waiting to pass through the "All other passports" channel, because too many immigration officers are unoccupied at the UK channel. Is there a possibility of the Government being able to use their influence to see that there is a more fair distribution of officers on duty?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that at all times there is considerable flexibility. Staffing levels are reviewed regularly in
384
the light of volume and the type of passenger traffic. Regard must always be had to the need to restrain public expenditure and the size of the Civil Service. We aim to provide an adequate but not an extravagant level of service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that perhaps for security reasons alone there could be improved liaison in training between immigration officers and Customs officers?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the increased level of security checks at Heathrow can lead to queues forming as passengers await baggage checks at embarkation. But that should not affect the rate of clearance at passport controls.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I apologise for asking my noble friend about an incident of which he is unaware. However, the other day at Customs control everybody went through the green channel bar 10 people. There were 20 Customs officers on duty in the green channel and one in the red channel. The reason was that most people waiting in the red channel line lived in the West Indies. After I had stood there for half an hour, I asked whether somebody else could come from the green channel to the red. But by then all 20 Customs officers had gone. The reply was "Oh, we hadn't thought of it". Can my noble friend say who is in charge of the staff there, and whether the service could be improved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of the personal circumstances which my unfortunate noble friend had to pass through on that day. If he would be good enough to write to me, I shall see that he receives an answer in writing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the questions so far have related to United Kingdom citizens— —
Noble Lords: Not all!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the questions that have been asked so far have related to United Kingdom citizens? Is he aware that to visitors to our country the ports of entry and exit are the mirrors of our courtesy and consideration? Is it not therefore important that we should at all times ensure that there are sufficient numbers of immigration officers who can give that impression?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right that first impressions count when entering any country, particularly the United Kingdom. Experience has indicated that delays at embarkation points are most unusual, and that the routine staffing arrangements normally cope very efficiently.

Government Publicity: Expenditure
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total they propose to spend on advertising and publicity in 1988–89, and what was the corresponding total in 1986–87 and 1987–88.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the information is not held centrally except in respect of the publicity and advertising placed by departments through the Central Office of Information. The total invoiced by the Central Office of Information to departments was £145 million in 1988–89, £140 million in 1987–88 and 143 million in 1986–87.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the Minister also give the figure for 1989–90? To what extent does this very large amount of spending involve the use of public money for what is really party propaganda?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give the figure for 1989–90. I do not believe that any of this money has been used for party political propaganda.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the noble Lord let us know what the figure was for 1979 which is the usual benchmark in these matters?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said earlier this week that I did not think that going back to 1978–79 was particularly useful— —
A noble Lord: The noble Lord was still at school!
Lord Strathclyde:—but as the noble Lord has asked the question, the figure in 1978–79 was £35·4 million. However, one has to take into account the fact that media inflation has been substantially higher than ordinary inflation over the last few years and that the Government have to compete for prime television time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House whether government expenditure on the recent paper in respect of changes in the National Health Service is included in the figures that he gave for advertising? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government's increasing tendency to put out papers in the form of glossy magazines of an extremely expensive type is giving the impression that they are using public money for the purposes of furthering the party political ends of the Conservative Party?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I disagree with what the noble Lord said. Although I do not have the exact figure that he requires, I shall endeavour to find it and write to him. It is fundamentally important for a government to publicise the efforts of their departments. A recent survey carried out by Marketing Magazine (on 6th April, 1989) showed that almost 50 per cent. of those who answered believed either that government spending was sufficient or that they should spend more.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government constantly complain about local authorities having propaganda on the rates, while they are having propaganda on the taxpayers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I disagree entirely. The comparison between local authorities and central government is totally unjustified.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is not the true distinction between the giving of information to the public about policy or legislation on the one hand; and, on the other, the political campaigning that was such a signal feature of the local authorities' battles during the last Session of Parliament?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have approved the expenditure of £30 million in advertising the 10 water authorities in England and Wales? On the threshold of the water privatisation Bill going through this House, is that not a gross misuse of public money?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. It is important for people to know what is done by their water boards. Secondly, because the boards will belong to their shareholders, it will be for them to decide the future policy of advertising.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do not the publications of any government reflect their political complexion to some extent?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that that is entirely correct. We are talking about public information.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it not be better if instead some of those millions of pounds were spent on health and education?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, many millions of pounds are being spent on health and education. I believe that it is important for people o know what is happening in individual government departments.

Business
3.23 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business—and it may become necessary to make a further business statement later—the Report stage of the Football Spectators Bill may be adjourned at some period for approximately one hour and that during such an adjournment the Second Reading of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill may be taken.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for making that statement. If it is necessary to alter or vary the order

387
of business because the debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has overrun its expected time I trust that he will let Members of the House know as soon as possible.
On behalf of Members on this side of the House, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Hansard staff for preparing and publishing a complete version of last Friday's marathon debate by first thing Saturday morning. I understand it has been such a bestseller that it has already sold out.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to endorse the noble Lord's last remarks. In relation to the business statement, I hope that the announcement can be made reasonably early. Noble Lords speaking on the Second Reading of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill have already seen that moved on the order paper from first business to first business during the dinner hour. Clearly, they will wish to know as soon as humanly possible the time at which that business will start.
Lord Denham:My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their comments. I should also like to add the thoughts of noble Lords on these Benches and express their thanks to the Hansard staff.
I appreciate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The evening adjournment is for the benefit of those noble Lords taking part in the Report stage of the Football Spectators Bill rather than for those taking part in the business during the adjournment. However, I understand that it is only fair to let noble Lords know exactly what will happen as soon as possible.
The reason for having to make such an obscure business announcement—and usually announcements make matters clearer rather than more obscure—is that a number of noble Lords added their names to both speaking lists late this morning.

Fraud against the Community: ECC Report
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on fraud against the Community (5th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 27).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the debate on the report of the Select Committee of the European Communities, the subject of which is fraud against the Community. The investigation was carried out by an ad hoc committee consisting of members drawn from the agricultural, legal and financial sub-committees of the Select Committee. The setting up of the committee was a new experiment. I venture to suggest that after some teething troubles—and members of my committe will understand what I mean—it turned out to be the correct way of dealing with this most difficult subject. It necessitated having the expertise
388
represented at our meetings from the other three sub-committees.
Before proceeding to the report, I should like to express my thanks to all the members of the committee for their hard work. In particular, I should like to thank our clerk, Mr. William Sleath, who worked indefatigably and even gave up some of his Christmas break to help us. I should also like to thank our eminent witnesses and single out Mr. Carey of the Court of Auditors. He was of tremendous help, and even went to the trouble of helping us to compile our questionnaire for the Customs and Excise authorities.
I am delighted that this afternoon so many eminent speakers will take part in the debate. It is a sign of the importance of the subject to Members of your Lordships' House. I am particularly delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, with all his experience, will take part. I am also delighted that the Leader of the House will reply on behalf of the Government.
The committee was set up as a result of public concern about the issue of fraud which was evidenced in the press. The inquiry revealed such concern to be fully justified. However, the committee did not consider the question of MEP's expenses or early retirement provisions for health reasons within the Commission. It concentrated on the major problem of unlawful receipts or non-payment of Community funds.
The report was published on 10th March, just in time for the ECOFIN meeting on 13th March. The committee welcomed the fact that fraud was a major part of the discussions at that meeting. The Council endorsed the declaration on fraud and foreshadowed new or revised proposals in a number of areas, notably export refunds and intervention storage. It also promised an annual report by the Commission and early discussion of key issues chaired by the head of the Commission's anti-fraud co-ordination unit.
Those measures are in line with some of the recommendations contained in the committee's report. But they go only part of the way towards solving the problem. The committee believes that in order to achieve success a three to five-year programme must be initiated and carefully monitored by the Commission's anti-fraud co-ordination unit.
I was also delighted to receive a report, published on 23rd March, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control in the European Parliament. Its rapporteur is Mr. Dankert and its recommendations are completely in line with those put forward by the committee of your Lordships' House.
I should now like to turn to the contents of the report, and as the introducer my comments will basically be an outline of what it contains. However, many other eminent speakers will no doubt concentrate on special aspects of it.
The first part of the report, the introduction, explains the reasons for the inquiry, describes how the terms "fraud" and "irregularity" are used in the report and gives summaries of the Community budget and the structure of the Community. It also

389
deals with the questions of estimates of fraud. Although figures have recently been given in the press varying between £2 million and £6 million per year, no estimate has been accepted as authoritative, although the Commission itself describes it as substantial. Referring again to the Committee on Budgetary Control, that gives an estimate of 10 per cent. However, your Lordships' committee decided not to seek an estimate because in our view that would be to waste time and effort to very little purpose.
Parts 2 and 3 of the report seek to explain the main sources of Community revenue and the main types of Community expenditure. Those are considered in turn with a view to describing how fraud takes place and why the system allows fraud to flourish. Those pages lean heavily on the investigations of the Court of Auditors and conclude that controls on income and expenditure are patently inadequate. The blame for that state is spread over all the institutions of the Community and the member states. The system itself places enormous burdens on those administering it and the sums involved create incentives to fraud.
For example, the system of advance payment for FEOGA acts as a disincentive to the member states to pursue fraud because, however diligently a member state pursues a case of fraud, the state suffers a loss if the fraudster cannot be traced or goes bankrupt. The Commission has not made fraud prevention a priority when formulating proposals and has not helped member states with clear instructions and a list of irregularities. However, in the last analysis it is the member states which administer the bulk of income and expenditure. It is their failure to apply Community rules strictly and to impose strict controls, their apparent unwillingness to report fraud in full and their reluctance to agree to change in the Council of Ministers which stand out.
Some of your Lordships may feel that those two chapters in the report are unnecessarily long, but it was the committee's view that if someone reading the report was to understand the problems which we are highlighting, it is necessary to understand the complicated administrative structure of the Community.
Part 4 discusses the audit function in the Community, detection, remedies and co-ordination. Despite the best efforts of the Court of Auditors—and I mean that—Community income and expenditure are not properly audited. Indeed, in spite of serious criticisms made by the Court of Auditors, the Council of Ministers failed to give its report serious consideration. That part then explains where responsibility lies for prosecutions and describes some of the obstacles to cases with international complications. It also discusses some proposals for a harmonised definition of "fraud against the Community" and for increased Commission powers. Finally, the part discusses collaboration between member states and with the Commission and the Commission's anti-fraud co-ordination unit.
Part 5 summarises those causes, with the general conclusion that sound financial administration is
390
lacking in the Community and that consequently fraud is widespread. The part ends with a criticism of the failure of the member states to act against fraud. The problem is not a new one and nothing has been done to prevent the losses from increasing.
Part 6 gives the committee's recommendations for change. To address the many reasons for fraud, the sub-committee considered that a programme should be devised tackling the problem as a package. Otherwise some steps might be taken in certain areas without any real impression being made to stop the losses. The report proposes that the task of preparing that programme should be given to the anti-fraud co-ordination unit, which at present has neither the staff nor the power to make a real impact.
The report then lists some remedies which should be included in the programme I shall mention just a few. There should be clearer regulations and fewer product classifications. In agricultural goods, as long as there are as many as 4,000 different codes and up to 14,000 non-standard recipes for processed goods, you cannot expect Customs and Excise in any of the member states to be able to deal with the problem efficiently. Therefore, it is important that we must reduce product classifications. There must be better instructions given to Customs and Excise and tighter internal controls. Above all, there must be better publicity when fraudsters have come to light. At the moment the inadequate register of fraud reported by member states kept at the Commission does not mention the name of the fraudster. That is under a code name. Therefore, the value of the register is non-existent to the member states.
When fraud is detected and prosecuted, the publicity should be very much greater, as should be the communication between member states and the Commission to all other member states that that individual has been convicted of fraud. It is very easy for that person to move to another member state and do the same thing again as long as communication does not exist between member states. That necessitates that we insist that member states should report all cases of fraud and should not be discouraged from full reporting by the fear of financial loss. That is why the report recommends that when a member state can prove that it has done all in its power to apprehend the fraudster but has failed, the loss should be carried by the Community.
The Commission will need increased powers of inspection across the full range of Community operations, and the gap which exists in the auditing of Community funds between the powers of the Court of Auditors and the responsibilities of national audit bodies should be closed and close co-operation between the Court and the national audit bodies should exist.
There may be some member states which do not have a national audit office in the sense that we have in this country, although even our National Audit Office is not really responsible for auditing Community funds. Member states that do not have the equivalent of a national audit office should be encouraged to employ professional auditors to do the job for them.
Perhaps one of the most important things is that the Council should no longer be able to get away

391
with ignoring the Court of Auditors reports. The committee believes that the Council should be obliged to comment on each recommendation by the Court of Auditors and explain whether action will be taken and, if not, why no action is being taken. The aim of such a recommendation is to ensure that more crime is prevented and more detected by putting Community financial operations on a sound footing.
For such changes to be implemented it is necessary for the Council of Ministers to take the problem far more seriously than hitherto. In the committee's view the Council has to exhibit real political will on the question of fraud. The Dankert Report refers, in paragraph 9, to exactly that problem. It highlights the fact that the (mission has for 12 years put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers on which no decision has been taken.
The report has not tried to conceal the problem behind moderate language but I emphasise, above all, that this is not an anti-Community report. It has been produced against the background of a sincere wish to make a contribution to the success of the Community in its advance towards a Europe without frontiers. It is essential, if we are to achieve a Europe without frontiers, that we create an atmosphere of complete trust and co-operation between member states. Therefore, I sincerely hope that your Lordships' House will accept, despite some of the strong language, that this report has been produced with the aim of furthering a Europe without frontiers. The committee has no doubt that the losses involved are serious, even scandalous, and it hopes that the report makes a meaningful contribution to the solution of the problem. I beg to move.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the report of your Lordships' Select Committee raises issues of great importance which cause real concern and demand urgent and effective action. I am only too glad, therefore, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is now treating this matter seriously. I only express the hope that she will have the support of her own Government, which is more than I had when I tried unsuccessfully to take a step to deal with this matter in 1986 –87. Indeed, this somewhat negative attitude towards dealing with this important problem is reflected in the explanatory memorandum which was sent to your Lordships' Committee and of which it took a very poor view.
It is difficult to understand why the Government should react in this way, because if ever there was a country which had the least to fear from active measures against fraud it is our own country. We have a very high level of administration and a high level of fiscal probity, with very little to fear from active measures taken in this field.
I wish to draw your Lordships'attention—this is very relevant in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said towards the end of her remarks —to the title of the report: Fraud Against the Community. It is not fraud by the Community and still less is it fraud by the Commission. It is fraud
392
against the Community and that fraud is perpetrated by, or connived in, and certainly not stopped by, the member states of the Community, by their governments, and by their citizens. If anyone is inclined to criticise the Community on these matters they should bear in mind who it is they are criticising. They are criticising their own member state, the government of the member state, their fellow citizens and, indeed, very often themselves.
On 7th February The Times carried a banner headline which read:
"Thatcher to attack £6bn EEC fraud".
The article stated:
"The Prime Minister is spearheading a drive against fraud in the EEC".
It continued:
"Mrs Margaret Thatcher has taken the initiative because of British concern"
at the turn of events. It also stated:
"She rai1sed the subject at last week's Cabinet meeting".
It was in view of that report that I put what I thought was a perfectly simple supplementary question to my noble friend Lord Young in your Lordships' House on 14th February. I asked why the proposals that I, on behalf of the Commission, had put forward to deal with the question of fraud had been,
"vetoed by the United Kingdom in conjunction with the Finance Ministers of the other 11 member states".—[Official Report, 14/2/89; col. 65.]
My noble friend was unable to answer the question. I say this not in any criticism of him because he has no departmental responsibility for this matter. The responsibility rests with the Treasury but unfortunately it was my noble friend who I had to question on this matter.
It is important to draw your Lordships' attention to the precise wording of the proposal that I had put forward on behalf of the Commission. The wording was:
"For the purposes of ensuring that the law on customs or agricultural matters is correctly applied, the Commission may carry out Community administrative and investigative missions in third countries and in the Member States in co-operation with the competent authorities of the Member States".
Since then there have been a number of attempts on the part of the Government to explain why they, in conjunction with the other 11 member states, had vetoed this proposal. Frankly, the explanations given are so transparently weak that it would have been wiser to have given no explanation at all. The first limb of the explanation was that the proposal had been rejected by unanimity. Of course it had, and that is what I had said myself; but if one looks at this as a moral issue as distinct from a mere statement of fact it is surely unacceptable for this or any government to argue that if one can find 11 other sinners to shelter behind, one's own transgressions ought to be overlooked.
The second explanation given was this. I quote the actual words used. The Government objected to,
"Commission-led investigations".
Instead, it said,
"the Commission and the member states working together should tackle the problem".

393
That is precisely what I had proposed and that is why I read out to your Lordships the actual text of the proposal that I had put forward. If the objection is simply to the investigation being led by the Commission, surely that is an unacceptable argument. These investigations are designed to deal with the failure of the member state concerned to operate the law correctly or to administer it properly. Surely you would not put the prisoner in the dock on the Bench to lead the investigation into his own shortcomings. That is why it was right and proper that any such investigation should be led by the Commission which represents all the member states.
I have set out these facts in some detail because it is important to bring out the reasons we have made so little progress in this field. Had we taken an important step forward in 1986 –87 to deal with this matter, we would have had two years in which to tackle some of these problems. It is this lack of will that has lain at the heart of the matter. One of the great problems in the Community—we meet it here as well as elsewhere—is that action does not match the rhetoric. We have now got the rhetoric right. We need to take action to back up that rhetoric. My own views on this subject do not differ very much from those that have been put forward in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee.
The first essential is that we must repeat and reinforce the fact that the primary responsibility rests with the individual member state. The member states have signally failed to discharge that responsibility both in terms of commitment and of action. It is essential that the Heads of Government should give the political commitment to deal with this matter. It is useless to leave it to ECOFIN. That is simply a meeting of the Ministers who have themselves failed to deal with this problem. It needs to be tackled at the level of the Heads of Government. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is entirely right on that point.
There must then be a proper legal framework in which the Commission and the Community as a whole can operate. That framework will inevitably have to confer additional powers on the Commission. That is where the powers should be vested. The member states should be associated with the work that is done in this field. That is precisely what I have said from the very beginning. The Commission must be given adequate resources in terms of both staff and funds to discharge this duty. It may very well be that a great deal of the work can be contracted out in the way that our own Government have increasingly relied on that procedure. If that is to be done the necessary funds must be made available.
It is absurd for the member states to starve the Commission of both the funds and the resources needed to do the job and then to criticise the Commission for the fact that it has not succeeded in dealing with the problems. If the report of your Lordships' Select Committee has suceeded in ensuring that vigorous action is now taken in this field the committee will have more than justified its labours.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I find myself in the somewhat extraordinary position, perhaps for the first time, of being able to cite the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in support of many of the observations that I shall address to your Lordships. Fraud in the Community is being perpetrated at a rate of between £2 billion and £8 billion a year. In its latest observations on the subject the Commission, and Mr. Delors in particular, puts the figure as somewhere above £2 billion, which was the first estimate of the fraud actually being carried out.
It is important that the people of the United Kingdom realise just how much this fraud is costing them as individuals. We already know from the report put out under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that individual families in the United Kingdom are bearing an extra £10 to £12 per week in food costs precisely because of the operation of the common agricultural policy. I do not propose to enter into the arguments about that. It is important to realise that an additional burden is being borne by all our citizens in their role as taxpayers, not only in terms of income tax but also as regards the much larger sums raised by purchase tax and various other excise duties that they pay in one way or another.
The recent estimates of government expenditure put out by Her Majesty's Government show the total net contribution by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom to the Community, after all receipts by way of regional funding and everything else have been taken into account, will amount to £1,970 million in the current year, 1989 –90. On the basis of the estimates given for fraud, every individual in the country will have contributed between £10 and £30 per annum as part of that figure. That is on the assumption that some 20 per cent. of the figure is borne by the United Kingdom. The figure may be larger.
The question of fraud within the EC is not a new one. I was a fellow Member of the European Parliament with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. He will recall that myself and Mr. Michael Shaw, who is now Sir Michael, and Sir James Scott-Hopkins, as members of the budget committee, listened to complaints by Commissioner Tugendhat, who was in charge of the European budget at the time, concerning large-scale frauds that had taken place in the famous Como butter scandal. By virtue of that scandal surplus butter was circulated across frontiers, collecting export rebates wherever it went.
There were complaints also that the Italian and French authorities had not given the Commission the support it required in investigating those matters. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will well recall this. He will also recall that when we discussed the matter with fellow members of the European Parliament from Italy and France we received very little support from them.
Moreover, in those days, there was no point in telling the press about fraud within the European Community. There was absolutely no interest in fraud. It was thought that anyone who raised the question was somehow being anti-European and, as it were, below the salt, and that therefore no attention

395
should be paid to it. The fact that no press comment has been made until comparatively recently has been on the assumption, perpetuated by a race of Euro-fanatics, that every time one raises any criticism of the working of the EC one is somehow being anti-European. Fortunately, owing to the perception of Mr. Robin Oakley of The Times, there appeared a feature in that newspaper of 13th October 1987 which made shocking reading and put estimates of losses due to fraud, derived from Commission resources—though not I hasten to add from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who did not associate himself in any way with what appeared—at some £2 billion.
Shortly after that the 1986 Court of Auditors' Report appeared. As your Lordships may recall, on 20th January 1988 I tabled a Question to the Government asking what initiative they proposed to take in the EC Council of Ministers to secure Council action in respect of the large-scale frauds set out in the then latest report of the European Court of Auditors. The Question was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. At this point I should like to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Noble Lords who read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Young, at col. 207 of the Official Report of 20th January will observe—I shall not quote him exactly unless challenged—that he tended to play the whole thing down and indeed slightly to pooh-pooh the whole idea.
I shall convey his general sentiments in these words because they are quite clearly expressed. He said:
"However, until it can be proved, there can only be suspicion. We must not listen to reports about suspicion".
If ever there was a case for vigilance and for sitting up and taking notice, this was the occasion. However, the Government—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on this point—tended to play the whole thing down. So it was that later during the year the European Communities Committee appointed a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, to whom I should like to pay tribute for coping with the difficult task of bringing us all together, many of us of a slightly dissident nature, until the final report was produced. I should like also to associate myself with her remarks about Mr. Sleath and the advisers who assisted the committee.
The report was proceeded with. We investigated many matters, with some of which noble Lords who are to speak later may wish to deal in greater detail. Quite clearly, the bulk of the frauds, although not all of them, were concerned with abuses of the system of export restitution and with the disposal of stocks. These were all investigated in some detail, and the report was eventually published. However, in the Question which I tabled shortly before then, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, gave no details as to what had happened and gave the general impression that things were under control and that the matter would be brought up at the Commission shortly, although, as your Lordships will recall, I had to tell him what his own Minister had been doing
396
two days before at the very meeting to which he referred.
Where is the real responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud and its prosecution? I should have thought that it lies within each member state. It does not lie with the Commission or with the Council of Ministers. The Commission has no territory over which it has jurisdiction except in one respect. I refer to enforcement of the competition rules in respect of which it can intrude into the conduct of cases in individual member states. However, the member states themselves are primarily responsible. As we are talking in the United Kingdom Parliament, it is appropriate that we should address ourselves to this problem as though it were our own country's problem as well and not try to pass it off into other countries. The only thing we can do here is to try to deal with it ourselves.
It became quite clear in the course of our inquiries that a strategic role in the whole matter was played by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. That department is responsible for the spot checks made when goods enter or leave this country, although there are no specific allocations in respect of dealing with common agricultural policy goods. It has to deal with the shipments affected by export restitution and the activities of the intervention board locally in disposals of stocks.
However, the number of personnel in Customs and Excise has barely increased at all since 1978. In fact, earlier in the years of the present Administration the numbers were reduced on the grounds of economy. Even today, and bearing in mind that this is not only a question of a greatly increased volume of imports since 1978 but also of increased drug trafficking, there is also that additional burden upon our Customs and Excise officers, some 8,000 in all. They are trying to deal with the situation on the basis of the same number of personnel as existed in 1979.
Therefore, what should we do additionally in Britain? There is no doubt whatever that we should increase the strength and the quality of the Serious Fraud Squad, which ultimately becomes involved when a prima facie case has been made out for investigation. Also, the activities of the National Audit Office in the United Kingdom should be greatly increased. The office produced a most excellent report at the end of 1987 which attracted attention at the time and which explained the various detected cases of fraud that had taken place in connection with the disposal of intervention stocks.
Those measures must be carried out, and they must be carried out in the United Kingdom. The matter is under our control because detection is the most important aspect of all. Once the character who tries to pass out sleepers of wood as hindquarters of beef and get them through the Customs of third world countries in order to obtain rebates upon them knows that there are effective detection methods, that the percentages of sampling is much increased and that the whole matter will be followed through resolutely, fraud will progressively decrease.
I should like to lay before your Lordships a rather important consideration. The law should be

397
indivisible. The maintenance of law and order is the most important function that the Government can undertake. Her Majesty's Government give me the impression, which I believe is widely shared, that as regards the small fraudsters—whom I would not defend—who defraud the state of social security benefits to which they are not entitled, there is immediate and resolute action the moment those cases come to hand. Hundreds of additional personnel are appointed in order to detect them. However, that is not so, I am afraid, when it comes to dealing with the larger-scale frauds. They tend to be fudged and put off.
Your Lordships may remember that I addressed a letter to a former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, about the prosecutions in the Peter Cameron-Webb case. I think that noble Lords would have been amazed to hear at the time, as I was, that one of the reasons the case was not proceeded with was that the noble and learned Lord's budget could not run to the expense of employing the number of counsel who would have been required to counter the number of counsel who would have been employed for the defence. I have the exact references to that matter.
I am very glad indeed that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, the Prime Minister will take the matter personally under her wing. Let us hope that that is not just rhetoric; let us hope that there is a determination to do it. I say that even if it means increasing Customs and Excise personnel by a further 500 and even if it means increasing the Fraud Squad by a further 500 and making a deal with it in view of the volume of fraud which exists in the City of London at present—as everyone knows. The authorities should not shrink, if necessary, from increasing the trained personnel of the National Audit Office or providing the office with the necessary funds so that it can get specialist service from outside when investigating fraud.
What can the Commission itself do? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfied, has now left the Commission and can view the matter objectively. One of the things it can do is to present to the Council of Ministers proposals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, pointed out, for the simplification of the various regulations under the common agricultural policy which give considerable scope. In the long term the Commission ought to produce proposals for a complete change in the common agricultural policy. But, above all, the Commission should be instructed that it must, so far as it possibly can and within its budget, make information as to fraud interchangeable between states; and compulsorily interchangeable by obtaining the consent of the Council to the proposals which the Commission would lay before it in that event.
So far as concerns the Council—because it can act only on proposals submitted by the Commission—it should take steps to address itself to achieving unanimity with the Commission in its determination to rid the European Community of this scourge which is so costly to the people of Europe. Perhaps I may address the noble Lord the leader of the House as regards the United Kingdom. For the United
398
Kingdom it is a matter of honour, as well as anything else, that we should take steps domestically and ensure effective action to prevent something which may, unless checked, conspire to the dissolution of the Community itself.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, the annual revenue of the Community is some £25 million and expenditure is much the same amount. The great bulk of that expenditure, and the revenue, takes place in the member states. Under every head of expenditure and revenue in the member states, fraud is rife. The amount has never been quantified, but the estimates vary between £2 billion and £6 billion every year. That is a disgraceful situation.
Perhaps noble Lords would care to think of any organisation within their knowledge; for example, a bank, a department store, or the newspaper shop round the corner. If any such organisation was put on notice that between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of its revenue was being frittered away by corrupt practices and irregularities, it would immediately do three things: it would find out why; it would quantify the amount and it would stop what was going on. However, that is not the practice in the Community. The Community has known for many years that fraud is rife in the areas to which the report is directed. The Community has not ascertained or identified the causes. It has not quantified the amount and it has not stopped the fraud. That is a disgraceful situation.
If your Lordships would care to glance at Part 5 of the report, it will be noticed that every well-established administrative procedure for protecting the payment and the receipt of money has been applied either weakly or not at all. The regulations are complex and contradictory. There is a huge proliferation of product classifications. Lucid instructions have not been issued to each operating level. The normal and ordinary internal controls have not been applied. Fraud has not been reported in accordance with the regulations and fraud, when discovered, has not been followed by civil or criminal action. The normal deterrent of publicity has not been used. The training of staff is wholly inadequate. Moreover, the co-operation between officials in the various member states does not take place. That is a disgraceful situation.
If your Lordships would care to glance at parts 4 and 6 of the report under the heading "Audit Function", you will notice that the Court of Auditors is not given enough resources to carry out the obligations imposed upon it by the Treaty of Rome. You will notice that the audit coverage of the Court of Auditors in the member states, where most of the money is collected and received, is wholly inadequate. The Court of Auditors' reports are of high quality. Year after year they make serious criticisms of the financial administration. Year after year those reports are not followed up or are ignored completely.
If your Lordships would care to glance at paragraphs 177 and 204, you will notice that the report says that in all Community institutions and in all member states there has been an absence of

399
political will to stop those corrupt practices. That is a disgraceful situation.
For the record, it is necessary to state, sadly, that this country is as responsible for carrying out those practices, and for the absence of political will, as all the other 11 member states. The report draws attention, merely by way of example, to three major areas where fraud and irregularity have taken place: export refunds, the structural fund and intervention storage. Your Lordships will notice from the report that this country is involved in them all.
A blush of shame should suffuse the cheeks of everyone from the European Council down to the humblest operating level in the member states at the fact that the financial misfeasance has been allowed to continue for so long. The concluding paragraphs of the report describe it as a public scandal; but it is a criticism of the report that it expresses the situation in such moderate terms.
In the past three months a good deal of attention has been given to fraud in the Community, partly as a result of the report. There of course will be much talk and much protestation of good intention, but so far the measures proposed do not get to the heart of the problem. I am sure that we shall be told that the staff of the co-ordination unit has been increased from 12 to 18 and that it is very busy; but the co-ordination unit has neither the power, nor the responsibility or authority for the three institutions where action is needed; the Council of Ministers, the Commission itself, and the member states.
We have been informed that the Commission has now been asked to make an annual report on fraud. That is not the correct institution to make the report. There is no possibility of making a satisfactory report unless one has first decided what one is going to do. There is one way, and one way only, in which that disgraceful situation can be brought to an end. Four simple steps need to be taken. The first is to identify the causes of fraud and irregularity. Just to make the point clear beyond doubt, if a train crashes due to faulty signalling one must correct the faulty signalling; if fires on the Underground take place because lighted cigarettes are dropped on rubbish heaps, one must stop smoking.
In paragraph 183, the report identifies 13 causes of fraud, but there are others. The second step is to prepare a co-ordinated programme embracing all the concerns involved; that is to say, the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the member states. That programme will have to be extended over at least three to five years because of the extent of the defaults. The third step is for the programme to take each cause one by one, and to specify how it is to be corrected; who is to take action and when; and the date on which each phase is to be completed. The fourth step is to ask the Court of Auditors (not the Commission) to make a report each year saying whether that programme is up to date and, if not, who is responsible and why, so that appropriate action can be taken.
It is for that reason that I invite the Minister in the course of his reply to indicate whether it is the Government's intention that such a programme and such a report should be prepared. I say bluntly that
400
if those causes are allowed to continue, as they have in the past, fraud will be rampant in the Community deep into the next century.
There is one cause of fraud in the Community which is not mentioned in paragraph 183; it is mentioned earlier in the report. The first cardinal principle of good administration is that there should be a single unbroken line of responsibility and authority from the decision-making body at the top down through every operating level to the lowest level. That is totally absent in the Community. The top hamper of the Community comprises six separate layers of authority, all disjointed and unco-ordinated. Unless that is corrected no only will it be difficult to stop fraud in the Community, but inefficient administration in the Community will be continued into the future.
I therefore invite the Minister to answer a second question when he replies. Have the Government addressed their mind to simplifying that impossible structure by which the Community is governed, and how and when they propose to bring it into force.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, this is an excellent report, as one would expect from the excellence of the individuals who composed the Committee. I want to make it clear that my noble friends and I endorse every one of its recommendations and conclusions. I want also to thank all the members of the committee, of which I was not a member, for their work and constructive thinking. I want to thank the Government for continuing to regard your Lordships' Select Committee on European Affairs with the same authority as they have ever since I was connected with it, which has enabled civil servants of top quality to give evidence to the Select Committee and therefore enabled it to produce such excellent reports.
I am tempted to say that I am grateful to all those who have spoken hitherto for what I might call the clarity of expression. It is a long time since your Lordships' House has been treated, as its intelligence entitles it to be treated, with such clarity of expression on matters which are of the highest importance.
Lest it be thought that I, the third accountant in a row called upon to speak in the debate, am mainly interested because of my professional and government background, let me say straight away that that is not the case. My main interest is the standing, the reputation and the credibility of the Community. I can do no better than quote the words of Mr. Tomlinson, the MEP, who gave evidence to the Committee at paragraph 186 and said:
"there is no single aspect of Community activity, I believe, that brings the Community into greater disrepute than the kind of fraud about which every one of us has got a legion number of stories".
I hope that the Government will take that on board. When they have read the report and listened to the debates in the House, I hope that they will take the necessary action.
There is already a wide belief in the country that the Community is riddled with fraud. We all know how easy it is for people to be led into believing this

401
and how difficult it is to remove that perception when there is perhaps much less justification for it. I therefore fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Benson, took the view that unless something drastic was done immediately, fraud would continue unabated, if it did not increase, well into the next century.
We shall not receive the necessary support from the British elector and taxpayer for the steps which the Community proposes and for the development of the Community idea if people continue to believe that all they are doing is supporting an organisation which sets up a crooks' kitchen and spends vast amounts of taxpayers' money in support of it. I think that the anxiety that has been expressed is fully justified. In terms of volume none of us can measure the fraud with precision. I can only goon my hunch, my sixth sense which one develops over a period of very many years of working in the field. I listened with interest to what was said by a co-professional about the figure and raising the upper limit already from £6 to £8 billion. I can only say that my hunch is that the figure will be shown to be far nearer the top than the bottom estimates when the whole story has been revealed.
A great deal has been said about where the responsibility lies. It has been said with far greater authority than I could bring, and I therefore propose to turn immediately to the steps which I think ought to be taken in the future, starting now, in order to put the matter right. There are three major headings which I invite your Lordships to consider.
First and foremost is political will, enabling the Government to take a much more positive stand in their attitude to fraud and irregularities. That political will could enable us in this country to share sovereignty with other countries in implementing the cross-border measures which are undoubtedly necessary to trace and bring to account fraudsters. That political will could enable political pressure over the necessary very long period which will be needed to get to the bottom of the series of frauds and the means by which they have been perpetrated. One knows that it is easy to create enthusiasm to start something new. That will be of no avail in this case. We shall have to pursue it over a long period. One cannot maintain that pressure without the political will and determination.
Above all we shall need the political will to simplify the structure, as has been pointed out. It is a major task which needs a great deal of political will, but we shall have to provide it, not only to simplify the structure, the complexity of which is almost beyond belief, but also to adjust the system itself, especially in relation to agricultural products. The complexity of the system seems to me to invite or provide opportunities for fraud. The system itself, involving huge cash handouts, seems a direct encouragement to fraudulent practice.
All this requires political will and determination of a kind which have hitherto not been very noticeable in the Government. I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has told us about the Prime Minister's present attitudes and intentions will be confirmed by the Leader of the House when he comes to reply to the debate.
402
The second heading is in relation to the audit function. I think that perhaps my professional colleagues will agree with me when I venture the view that 5 per cent. of the value of an audit is to be found in the fraud discovered and 95 per cent. in the fraud deterred lest there should be discovery. But that is only the case if the audit system is well provided, widely practised and highly regarded. There must be full support for the audit systems which we apply in the Community in terms of the necessary manpower and in carrying out the various recommendations which have been made.
If we look at some of the figures for manpower and compare what is expected of those people with what we do every day in our commercial lives, as every noble Lord present knows, in terms of internal audits, we pay two people to do the job of one so that a person's activities may be checked, and external auditors are brought in to see that everything is proper. If we think of what a bank does every day in seeing that the cash at the till is checked, and so on, and of the amount of auditing which goes on in every commercial activity, yet we expect some 10 people to carry out a major auditing function for 11 nations. That is pitiable. This is a serious debate; otherwise one might explode with laughter. So there needs to be full support for the audit function, which can achieve enormous results. The extra expenditure on it will undoubtedly repay itself 10 and 20 times over.
The final heading to which I wish to refer is punishment. As we all know, the major deterrent to crime is the risk of being found out. But what happens at present according to the report? There is a large area where the would-be fraudster works out the following argument: "If I am successful in my fraud, I make a very large gain. If I am unsuccessful and I am found out, I lose precisely nothing. I merely have to pay what was due for payment in any event. I am not fined; I am not pilloried by publicity". Publicity is beneficial not only in making life unpleasant for the fraudster in the future but in deterring others by bringing what happens to their notice. "I am not pilloried, I am not prevented from having another go and continuing the same business, perhaps in a slightly different name, and gaining more fraudulent receipts to the credit of my bank account".
All these matters need attention. I can see no reason why the fraudster should be compelled not only to pay whatever is due but to pay a penalty of three times what would otherwise be payable. We are familiar with this in our tax affairs. I do not see why it should not be translated into our Community affairs.
I have already referred sufficiently to publicity to show how much I believe that it is necessary. I also believe that when a fraudster is convicted of a criminal offence, he should be debarred from continuing in that activity until such a time as he can satisfy the same court that convicted him that it would now be proper to release him onto the commercial world again. So my conclusion is that only if all this is done, and persistently, will we save both the waste of taxpayers' money and the reputation of the Community.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I also wish to congratulate most warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, on initiating this debate. I wish to thank the noble Baroness and the Select Committee for an admirable report which has done a great public service in fully exposing what everyone, I believe, now agrees has become a major public scandal.
Out of a total EC revenue of £25 billion, or a little more, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, we now know pretty well that something between £2 billion and £6 billion is being lost through sheer fraud. My hunch is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—the figure is probably nearer the upper limit.
The report of the Select Committee stated that:
"Fraud and irregularity arise in the member states under all the relevant items of revenue and expenditure".
It expresses its deep concern at what it sums up as:
"The loss of huge sums of Community money each year due to fraud and irregularity, weak financial administration and the absence of adequate controls".
What makes these abuses even more deplorable in my view is that the money thus lost is being raised by a highly regressive system of heavy taxes, very largely on food, and other indirect taxes which bear most heavily on those with the lowest incomes throughout the EC. As the report rightly puts it:
"The huge sums being lost due to fraud and irregularity against the Community are losses borne by all the taxpayers and traders of Europe".
I agree with the expression "irregularity against the Community". Nearly £1 billion of what is being raised in the UK itself, on the figures we have been given, must be being lost in this way. That is a solemn thought.
These consequences of this country's adoption of the common agricultural policy come as no surprise to me or to many of those who have long predicted that unconditional acceptance by this country of the policy of high-protectionist food taxation would have this, as well as many other, damaging consequences. Frankly, the only surprise to me is that the frauds are on such a colossal scale. They are not on a scale of millions, as might be expected, but billions. Further, no one has mentioned the fact that with the coming of 1992, if Customs and administrative controls are further relaxed, the situation will become even worse if we are not careful.
It is another great merit of the report that it sets out clearly and candidly the many reforms which now should be introduced. Other noble Lords have added some others today. The Government, I believe, would be wise to spend less time and money on continually publicising 1992 and rather more on firm action to check these scandals before we slide even further down the road of lax administration and fraud. Can we at least be assured tonight, as a minimum, that the Government will press with the utmost energy for the remedies proposed on page 38 of the report?
Unfortunately, as the report says, and as many have mentioned today, a major obstacle is the lack of political will. However, I am not sure that that applies only to the member states. It was indeed
404
rather noticeable that, despite the excellent intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the reaction of Delors to the publication of this report was not to assure us that he was going to tackle the problem seriously but to accuse the committee of making an attack on the Community. I do not think that that is very helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, told us, with much reason, that a major responsibility falls on the member states and not on the Commission. There is much truth in that, but I think the weakness of that argument is that, if the system is such that it is really impossible to administrate without gross fraud, it should never have been adopted at all. My fear is that as long as the Commission tries to maintain—I agree that here the responsibility also lies with the Council of Ministers—a level of food prices which are double or treble world prices, these massive frauds are almost inevitable because the profits arising from fraud are immense in such conditions. If the system involves a level of EC food prices which are double or treble the level of world prices, of course the temptation to fraud is enormous.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course attacking the policy of the EC. But when he says that prices are double world prices, can he tell me of one area in the world where the farmers are making a great deal of money out of that?
Lord Jay: My Lords, I did not say that, and it would not be true. Most of the profits have not gone to farmers but to landowners. However, that is not what I am arguing at the moment. But the truth is that if there was no gap between world prices and EC prices, there would then be no export subsidies, no major storage and, as a consequence, no fraud. The frauds largely consist in ingenious methods of acquiring foods at the world price and selling them to the EC at the artificial EC price. That would not matter if the gap between EC and world food prices was something like 10 or 20 per cent., but for the past 20 years it has averaged 100 per cent., 200 per cent. or even 300 per cent., and that is still the case. It is interesting to recall that under the notorious British Corn Laws of 1815 to 1846 levies never rose above 20 per cent., but here we are dealing with food levies of 100 per cent. to 200 per cent.
The EC Commission, up until the early 1980s, published a most valuable table showing the gap between EC and world prices. It is rather interesting that those figures are no longer published by the EC, which appears not to be very proud of them. But such figures as exist make it clear that EC prices for grain and meat have been running at nearly 100 per cent. above world prices. For dairy products and sugar EC prices have been running at 200 per cent. and even 300 per cent. above world prices. That has been the case now for many years past. That means a food tax of 100 per cent. and upwards on standard foods.
Indeed, one striking symptom of this gap is that some hundreds of thousands of tonnes of butter have been sold to the Soviet Union in the past two years at about one-tenth of the price which is charged to

405
the British consumer. If the Minister has any more up-to-date and accurate figures of the price gap, I should be extremely glad to hear them. If one charges two or three times the market price, one will not of course sell very much of a product. It is a mistake to think that there are, in any real sense, surpluses of those commodities in the EC. There is no surplus to the needs of the consumers. The trouble is that prices are so outrageously high that most people cannot buy what is produced.
Therefore, I am afraid that the conduct of the CAP has not merely laid a heavy burden on living standards within the Community but on top of everything else—raising labour costs and living costs here and elsewhere, and incidentally damaging many other food producers in the outside world as a result of the export subsidies—it has generated this scandal of fraud. By all means let the Government now press as hard as they can in Brussels for all the remedial measures rightly advocated in the report. I believe that that is the minimum that we can ask. However, my own realistic belief is that as long as EC prices are two or three times the world market price the fraudsters, from Portugal to Greece and from Sicily to Northern Ireland, will discover and invent new tricks as soon as one loophole is blocked.
Far the best and the only real remedy would be for the Government to concentrate their future energies on getting EC lood prices down at least to nodding distance with world prices. They should let the EC know that if that is not done by a reasonable date—say, 1992—this country cannot continue to operate the common agricultural policy in this fashion.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I too must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and her colleagues on this excellent, if highly complex and highly disturbing, report.
Over 10 years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was rapporteur on the Community budget and I was also a member of the budget committee, I thought that the creation of the Court of Auditors would resolve some of the problems of possible fraud and irregularities. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has mentioned, my honourable friend Sir Michael Shaw in another place—also a member of the European Parliament's budget committee—strongly supported the noble Lord in the creation of the court, as I did myself. He was also supported by my honourable friend Sir James Scott-Hopkins, who succeeded me as Vice-President of the European Parliament. I believe that we must all pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his great knowledge of the subject and his very considerable achievements in respect of the Community budget and in the creation of the court. I agree with a good deal, indeed most, of what the noble Lord said.
I have received a first-class brief of over 30 pages on this very complex subject. It would take me well over an hour and a half to deliver it, and your Lordships wil be happy to know that I do not propose
406
to do so. We must accept the complexity of the problems, but I shall be as ruthlessly selective as I can.
I am persuaded that Her Majesty's Government have led the way in seeking to stamp out fraud and crack down on irregularities. I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead in his reply to the debate will be able to confirm that and tell us how the Government propose to identify and plug existing loopholes. I think that the battle will be long term. Progress cannot be achieved overnight when the governments of 12 member states are concerned. It cannot be achieved overnight any more than control of domestic public expenditure or CAP reform could be. However, I have been assured that the Government are resolute in their determination to deal with the problem.
One of the main problems is that responsibility for stamping out fraud is shared between member states and the Commission. As some other speakers have said, some of the remedies are in national hands. I believe that that is a very important point. The scale of the problem is considerable. One expert has estimated—this has been quoted several times this afternoon—that frauds amount to between £2 billion and £6 billion each year. The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Benson, quoted those figures. Yet the head of the Commission's anti-fraud unit has told the European Parliament that that figure is much too high. I do not know who is right but I think we must accept that all the figures quoted can be no more than "guesstimates".
In 1987 the Court of Auditors' annual report found weaknesses in intervention arrangements, in export refund payments and in early retirement payments to Commission staff. I know that the Commission has now set up a special working party to examine the court's recommendations on intervention storage. I gather that that work should be completed during this month of April. As I understand it, the Government agree with the court's recommendations and have called for the early implementation of its recommendations, especially in regard to export refunds, so that expenditure is reduced to no more than the amount necessary to allow Community exporters to compete in the world market. That is not a bad thing.
I am also glad to learn that the Government share the view of your Lordships' Committee that Community regulations should be simplified and that there is scope for reducing the number of product classifications, as the noble Baroness said.
On the question of the practices of our own Customs authorities, the committee notes that those vary from port to port. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are looking at that problem as well as that of establishing effective internal controls. I understand that in Britain HM Customs and Excise have, among other things, set a target of 7 per cent. for the level of physical examinations of export goods subject to refunds. I am also glad to note that the Government share the committee's view that better training of staff in anti-fraud work is essential and that seminars in member states are intended to increase awareness of national administrators.

407
I do not know how relevant this is to your Lordships' House, but I was glad to note that the Italian olive oil control agency has been a notable success, and that the Commission announced this March in the Economic and Financial Council (ECOFIN) that it intends to bring forward proposals in regard to improving the exchange of information. I am glad too to read the recommendation supporting the abolition of advance payments for FEOGA guarantee expenditure.
I am particularly glad to learn that, in Britain, fraud against the Community budget is pursued just as vigorously as fraud against the national budget, and that the Government consider that the Commission should crack down hard on member states which try to conceal negligence by evading their obligation to report fraud. I am glad too that our Government recognise the value of publicity for deterrence purposes. The publicity generated by the report of the noble Baroness is a good example of that and is most welcome.
I am also happy to hear that the Government consider that the Commission should be more active in closely scrutinising member state systems for the prevention and detection of fraud and in laying down minimum police standards in, for example, physical inspection.
Finally, as I have said, I am convinced that HMG here in Britain have taken the lead in fighting fraud, enhancing the role of the Court of Auditors and strongly supporting the establishment and operation of the Commission's new anti-fraud unit as well as encouraging the work of the European Parliament's budgetary control committee, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, supports that work, as I am sure he supports the arrangements introduced by the Intervention Board on Agricultural Produce (IBAP) for successfully controlling cereals intervention, which were complimented by the Commission last year.
All in all, it seems to me that the United Kingdom has consistently made it clear that it will support all practical and cost-effective measures against fraud. I should add that, as far as I understood it, there was no question of Britain vetoing a proposal by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who made a most important speech this afternoon presenting his proposals to combat fraud. However, as many noble Lords have said, the political will is necessary. It is no use just having the political will of Her Majesty's Government; we need the political will of 12 member states. I very much hope that the remedial proposals in the report of the noble Baroness will be considered seriously by Her Majesty's Government. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Leader of the House has to say to all noble Lords on this subject.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps I may join in expressing gratitude for and appreciation of the efforts of the clerk, advisers and staff of the committee.
408
It is, I fear, a fact of life that, whenever people are liable to pay a tax or levy, the amount of which is dependent upon facts or figures declared by them, there is a risk that their declaration may tend to understate their liability. Equally, whenever payments, grants or rebates can be claimed which vary in amount according to what one puts on a form, there is a like risk that the content of that form may tend to overstate the entitlement.
People who are scrupulously honest in their personal dealings one with another become somewhat less so when dealing with large and impersonal organisations such as insurance companies or tax authorities. It is hard to think of an organisation which is perceived to be larger or more impersonal than the European Community.
The reasons for that tendency to gild the lily for grants or to be economical with the truth for liability can vary from a deliberate long-term scheme for fraud to a momentary self-serving optimism in rounding statements up or down. It may even be a completely honest mistake, although I believe that it was a distinguished solicitor to the Inland Revenue who once expressed his surprise that, during all his years of experience, every honest mistake made by a taxpayer had always happened to be in the taxpayer's favour.
The tendency to declare too little and claim too much will inevitably increase if the relevant rules seem to be both arbitrary and complicated. I venture to suggest that the report makes it plain that the regulations of the European Community certainly answer both those descriptions. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to anyone who had thought about the situation to learn that there is a wholesale evasion of liability to the Community and a wholesale milking of the funds of the Community.
Having said that, I must admit that the facts which emerged as the work of the sub-committee progressed came as a great surprise to me. That was probably because I had never before had occasion to address my mind to the problem. I suspect that there may have been many other people in a similar position. But, henceforward, no sensible person can doubt that there is a grave problem and there can in future be no excuses for not recognising and addressing the problem.
That a single trader can, in two years, make £11 million by exporting offal and describing it as prime beef and by importing prime beef and describing it as offal is a scandal that must be tackled. It is perhaps worth mentioning—in defence of that much maligned race, the farmer—that it seems to be the middle men, and not the farmers themselves, who are the prime offenders in this matter.
However, it is one thing to recognise a problem and a pressing need for action; it is quite another to remedy it. There can be no doubt that a much greater simplicity in both the content and drafting of the regulations would be a great help. Paragraph 63 of the report draws attention to the fact that, for agricultural goods, there are 4,000 product codes and over 15,000 recipe codes. Some 3,000 regulations govern that field. In the words of Mr. John Tomlinson, it is a case of,

409
"a flood of legislation leading to a chaos of ill-understood paper".
It is perhaps not suprising that, if the United Kingdom Customs and Excise advice to traders were placed in a pile, it would be seven inches high.
For my part, I do not feel that those who decide the structure and categorisation of, for example, the refund system give any thought—or certainly any adequate thought—to the enforceability of the rules that they make. I very much doubt whether those who make those rules ever think to ask those who will have to operate them whether the rules they make are workable or whether they are an open invitation to fraud. Merely because a system that one is operating is open to fraud and may be abused does not mean that one can throw out the whole system. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, one does not give up paying social security just because some people abuse it. Whatever is done to clarify and simplify the system, there will still be those who try to take advantage of it. Thus I suggest it must follow that there has to be efficient detection of wrongdoing combined with remedies and sanctions that are both enforced and seen to be enforced.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that 95 per cent. of the benefit of an audit is the deterrence of those who might commit fraud. Equally I suggest that for every case of fraud that is detected and published one prevents 19 other cases that might happen if people thought that they could get away with it.
I shall return to detection in a moment. Perhaps I may first say something about remedies. In relation to remedies for fraud one's natural reaction is to think primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of the criminal law. There is in my mind no doubt that criminal prosecutions could and should be brought. Although the report goes into some detail about technical legal problems that may hinder prosecutions in a few instances, these are no bar to prosecution in most cases, as in most areas covered by the report the essential problem is not a lack of powers but a lack of use of existing powers.
In any sphere of complicated finance, however, obtaining convictions for fraud is notoriously difficult, as anyone who has read the Roskill Report will appreciate. There will inevitably be many cases where a prosecution cannot be usefully brought even though many of us would be deeply suspicious that fraud had taken place. For these cases and indeed for those where there may genuinely be an irregularity, the civil law should be used, first, to recover the moneys that have been improperly received or not paid and secondly, to recover interest thereon and penalties. I should like very strongly to endorse the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the system of penalties that form such an important part of the sanctions for the tax laws should equally be applied to moneys both due to and taken from the Community.
I return to detection. Whenever one has fiscal dues or financial grants one must then have also a well-funded and efficient inspecting and investigating service to discover evasion and irregularity. Within an autonomous country the government will
410
generally find it worth while to incur the expense of such a detection service because the country will be spending its own money in the interests of its own exchequer. The Community, on the other hand, is peculiar in this respect. While the resources belong to the Community as a whole, the task of inspection and detection falls—rightly so—upon the individual member state. Thus the inducement to fund an adequate official service is much less powerful. It is of course true that any fraud on the Community's budget is a proportionate injury to each member state, but it is perhaps a little optimistic to expect, say, Germany or Denmark to spend such sums on ensuring financial probity within their boundaries while the inhabitants of, say, Italy or Geece are seen to be plundering the Community exchequer unhampered by any adequate control by their own state. I use those names purely at random. By omitting the United Kingdom I must not be taken as agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that there is not a great deal of fraud within this country itself. On that, I wholly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said.
Having regard to the fact that the money is being spent within a state to protect the revenues of the Community generally, there must surely be a strong argument for saying that the Community rules should be such as to reward or recompense those states which are diligent in the pursuit of fraud while perhaps also penalising those which are slack. For example, why should the Community not bear the costs of pursuing some rogue to judgment if it transpires that in the end he cannot pay and those costs are unrecoverable? Whether or not that proposition commends itself, in any event the rules should surely not be such as to be a positive discouragement to detection.
At present some of the rules as just that. A country which reports that levies are due but that it has not been able to collect them is at present liable to make up the shortfall. If on the other hand that country does not take the trouble to discover the shortfall or, having discovered it, does not report it, then there is nothing for it to make up. Therefore, the idle and secretive country escapes while the honest and diligent country finds itself making up a shortfall. The situation in that example is to be remedied, as the report makes clear, but I think that it is indicative of the counter-inducement that the system is liable to foster.
If one looks at the problem overall there can be no doubt that this is a very grave matter, not only because of the drain on the funds but also because rampant evasion of liabilities and rampant fraud on grant is a discouragement to honesty in others.
In the past much has been left undone that ought to have been done. With all respect to the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Bruce of Donington, I venture to hope that everyone will now eschew both the allocation of blame and the making of excuses for that which is past, and will concentrate on the task of finding remedies for the future.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by joining other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady

411
Robson of Kiddington, for putting down this Motion and enabling us to debate the report. As a member of the sub-committee, I thank her for her chairmanship and the skilful way in which she steered us through a complex subject. I add my own tribute to the work of the committee staff.
As we have agreed, the report reveals a scandalous situation. To put the figures in perspective, if the lower estimate of £2 billion is taken, this is about twice the total net income of the United Kingdom farming industry. If the higher estimate of £6 billion is taken, it is approaching six times the total net farm incomes of all United Kingdom farmers. The irony of that comparison will not be lost on your Lordships because the majority of the fraud, as we know, takes place within the common agricultural policy.
Over the years those of us who have opposed the greater lunacies of the common agricultural policy have been told that we should withhold our criticism because this is the one common unifying policy in the Community. The policy is not that much of an advertisement for the European Community. As a result of the policy we know that farm incomes have been drastically reduced and consumer prices are well above world prices. The policy positively invites fraud, irregularity and corruption, as we have seen.
I think that the extraordinary thing is the political response to the whole question. If a similar report as that produced by the sub-committee or the Report of the Court of Auditors was produced by the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office in this country, one would expect that the elected politicians responsible would have to consider resignation, and among officials heads would roll. However, the Treasury's Explanatory Memorandum to the Court of Auditors Report of 1987 provoked a certain amount of correspondence between the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, and Sir Peter Brooke, the Paymaster General. Under Financial Implications the Memorandum states:
"There are no direct financial implications, though improvements in procedures and practices resulting from the Court's work could be expected, over time, to have an impact on the level of the Community budget and on the pattern of member states' receipts".
I venture to suggest that Mr. Pangloss could not have put it better.
It seems that when this matter was being debated in the columns of the press, the first reaction was the politicking about where the matter of fraud should come on the agenda for the next European summit. It was all seen as a part of the normal agenda horse trading. There have been a number of references to the lack of political will. We must ask ourselves this. If the politicians refuse to take the matter seriously, why should the traders or the bureaucrats do so?
Although my first job was as an audit clerk, there are others much better qualified than I am in this debate to speak about the various controls and procedures that need to be adopted. I should like to concentrate briefly on those matters that have been within my experience of the Community's operations as a farmer, a farm adviser, a trader and a member of a Commission advisory committee.
412
The fundamental problem is attitude. It is the feeling that somehow European funds are "funny money", and that really fraud against the Community is somehow a "victimless crime". My first experience of this at a practical level was as a member of one of the network of official advisory committees which entailed regular visits to Brussels. The first task always was to fill in the expenses sheet. No proof was required of the expenses; and within two or three hours, long before the lunch break, an envelope would be brought round that would be bulging with crisp Belgian francs. With the number of committees that were meeting, there must have been vast sums of cash floating around the Berlaimont. Those who served on more than one committee—I served on only one—could obtain two or three lots of expenses as their travel expenses for one weekly trip. If one brought an expert adviser, he or she would also be paid without any check on his or her status. As a member of Government committees in this country with their attitude towards expenses, I had the feeling in Brussels that it all seemed to be a long way from the home life of our own dear Treasury. To be fair to the Commission, I understand that the control procedures over expenses are now much tighter. Whether this is due to genuine concern over irregularities or to budgetary pressure, I cannot say.
Another example of attitude, or the "funny money" syndrome, at the micro level was this. There used to be a grants scheme where substantial grants from the Community were available for capital expenditure on farms. But the eligibility depended on the number of labour units on the farm. Many times I have sat down as an adviser with a farmer client and the appropriate official to complete the application form. We had to have a number of labour units to qualify for the grant. The official would say if we were short, "What about the wife? Does she help in the farm office or answer the telephone?" Down she would go for 10 hours a week. "Does the old chap who helps in the garden ever help on the farm? Does he look at the livestock occasionally?" He would go down for another five hours a week. The process went on, with the active encouragement of the official, until we had enough labour units to qualify for the grant. Then we had to show on the form how the resulting grant-aided capital expenditure would reduce the requirement for labour and thereby improve efficiency. When one thinks about it that was quite easy to do. Out went the wife and the gardener for a start!
This is not simply a trivial anecdote. The grant scheme involved very substantial sums of money. The crucial point is this. In my experience, if the same official dealt with an application for grant that was wholly UK-funded, the attitude was totally different. He was helpful; but going by the rule book to the letter. The difference was that this was not funny money from Europe, but UK taxpayers' money with proper control procedures on its expenditure.
Another area of fraud and irregularity that is mentioned in the report concerns me as a trader. It is the possibility that insider dealing is endemic in the operation of the common agricultural policy.

413
Foreknowledge of a change in the rate or the timing of subsidy or some other technical change resulting from a bureaucratic decision has immense commercial value. I am putting it as politely as I can when I say that I have been extremely impressed over time by the extraordinary prescience of certain large traders in their market operations. At times one could not help feeling rather ruefully that perhaps their crystal ball may have received an occasional friendly polish. This was touched on when the committee interviewed Mr. Carey of the Court of Auditors who confirmed that the Court was aware of this problem. He said that certain people seemed to have access to rather earlier information than certain other people. This is bound to be a risk where so-called market management is based on the combination of budgetary pressure and bureaucratic decision which is intrinsic to the operation of the common agricultural policy.
My last point concerns 1992—it was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jay—and all that it entails. Not once have I seen the obvious possibility of an increase in fraud and irregularity discussed properly as a certain result of the freeing of trade and the ending of border restrictions. As the report points out, Professer Tiedemann, who gave evidence, was concerned that the completion of the internal market would lead to a lot more economic crime. I cannot help wondering whether the committee's report would have been so devastating in its findings if the same apostolic zeal which has been seen in some quarters in this country and in other member states for 1992, and the completion of the Common Internal Market, had been devoted to the rooting out of fraud and irregularity.
Perhaps the most dispiriting feature of the whole business is the low regard of some member states for Community decisions. Let me give one example. As we all know, milk quotas were introduced in the Community in 1984. We all know the trauma that was involved. I understand that Italy has still not produced an acceptable or recognisable scheme for milk quotas. There is still milk super-levy unpaid from last year. That is just one example. However, if member states take this attitude towards decisions of the Community, how can we ever hope to have the co-operation that is needed to deal with this immense problem of fraud and irregularity?
In conclusion, the committee's report reveals a scandalous situation. There is considerable doubt whether there is the political will among the members of the Community to deal with the problem. If the problem is to be solved, it must involve some invasion of national sovereignty. However, if the problem is not dealt with, we can be sure that there will be increasing cynicism among the general public towards the whole European adventure leading to a total disrespect for Community institutions.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be rather brief. However, I should like to intervene in the discussion to make one or two points that seem to me to arise on this important
414
report. We are all agreed that this is a complex subject. It is one fraught with great difficulty. We are extremely fortunate to have before us a report that deals with the topic in such a comprehensive and clear manner.
The report is impartial. It is also timely. These are very large merits when dealing with such a difficult topic. Speaking as one who had no share in the labours of the group who were responsible, I am extremely grateful to them for the work which has been done.
Some noble Lords may ask themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has, how it has been possible for fraud to develop to such an extensive scale, apparently unchecked. As this factor is such a large part of the subject, I should like to suggest some explanation of how it may have come about by examining the motives of the two main actors of importance to us in this House, namely the European Commission and Her Majesty's Government. I say "explanation" for I have no wish to excuse the blush of shame which has been correctly applied as the description of this grave problem.
I shall first consider the views of the Commission. I believe that these may be rather more serious and have more merit than is generally supposed in this country. The Commission has taken a consistent attitude to fraud. It has always said that the kind of fraud discussed in the report is a fraud against the Community itself. The Commission has also said that the right way to deal with these offences is to make them a crime against the Community. A proposal along these lines has been before the Council of Ministers since 1976, but the member states have not felt able to agree with the Commission's view. It seems to me, looking back on this proposal and the difficulties it has encountered, that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Commission's view.
The legal difficulties which the rest of us have seen in this proposal can be found on pages 30 and 31 of the report. But when we take account of the long-term development of the Community and the size and scale of the fraud which we now believe to be taking place, it seems to me that the Commission's original idea may have more merit than was thought at the time. I suggest that some modest legal innovation to confront serious crime should not be excluded in our approach to this problem.
The motives of our Government—here I include not only Her Majesty's Government but their predecessors—are also perhaps less devious or malign than has sometimes been suggested. As a nation we have always been jealous of our legal sovereignty, and many of us understand that attitude. After all, the prospect of investigations on British soil by an international organisation is not very welcome to many British citizens, even if the organisation in question is one of which we are a member. There was also another element present in the attitude of our Government over the years. Since joining the European Community, we have been one of the few member states which has been a net contributor to its budget. At the beginning we were one of two—the other being the Federal Republic of

415
Germany—and now one of three, France having joined the distinguished band of net contributors.
There was thus a natural reluctance on the part of our Government to take steps which would have the effect of reducing the Community's expenditure within our frontiers. This reluctance was strengthened by the belief felt for many years, and only recently dispelled, that there was nothing seriously wrong with the way in which Community funds were spent in this country. Needless to say every other member state in the European Community felt likewise.
These explanations relate to the past attitudes of the Commission and our own Government. The report makes it clear that the scale of fraud is now so great that new attitudes and policies are necessary in all member states and in Brussels, so that the fraud can be brought under control and finally extinguished. All 12 member states would benefit, as a number of previous speakers have already pointed out.
I note that there has also been a considerable degree of unanimity on the political will needed to bring this about. In my experience political will is an easier commodity to prescribe than to provide, so perhaps we might look instead for a new impetus, which is what in practical terms we need. In dealing with such a large problem, a whole programme of diverse measures will be required. These are clearly and comprehensively listed in the report. Broadly speaking, the remedies are of two kinds: first, those measures which require an enhanced and intensified co-operation between member states and the Commission. This is the only immediate way in which we can proceed. I do not believe that I am alone in thinking that practical steps must be taken, in spite of the legal difficulties to which I have referred and which may make more ambitious action difficult.
I was particularly pleased to learn in Brussels two days ago of a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government which could have significant and positive effects. I was told that Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to envisage a change in the own resources regulation which would permit Commission participation in investigations against fraud in this country. This is the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke to us earlier in the debate. It is my hope that the Leader of the House in winding up may be able to tell us some more about this development, which could prove to be a significant step.
The second type of measure would require a more far-reaching change of attitude on the underlying legal problem; namely the definition of fraud against the Community. I should like to see a further look at that. The problem is set out in paragraph 173 of the report. It now deserves fresh examination. My suggestion is that the finance ministers of the Community might be encouraged to resume their discussions on this question at a future meeting of ECOFIN. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, does not have a very high opinion of that body. While I disagree with him with some trepidation, I suggest that if a meeting of ECOFIN
416
were to examine this important possibility with the authority of the heads of government of the Community, that might lead to some helpful results.
In short, I believe that this report is an extremely timely document. It gives the opportunity for a fresh impetus and a new approach by our own Government and the governments of other members states and by the Commission. I hope that the opportunity will be taken.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, while I do not have any of the agricultural, legal or financial expertise that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, described her committee as having, nevertheless I enjoyed working under her chairmanship on that committee. I would describe myself as a commercial man, and as time went on I became increasingly frustrated at what I saw to be a general lack of concern over what is now 30-plus years of the existence of the Community which arrives here in 1988 with the cheating of these very substantial sums of money from its funds.
I do not want to be specific, because others before me have noted particular points. But I was especially encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said earlier in this afternoon's debate in relation to the three major points: that of establishing how much a company or an organisation is being defrauded, how this is happening, and what steps can be taken to put an end to it. None of those steps has been taken. I should not blame any one of the institutions other than that which directs the activities; in other words, the "board" in commercial terms, which is the Council of Ministers.
From time to time the European Parliament has made aggravating noises about the matter. The Commission has put forward various proposals but, for one reason or another, the Council of Ministers has failed to instruct or make appropriate provision for action to be taken. That is encapsulated in our report under the term "political will". That is not necessarily the will of the Government of the United Kingdom. It is of all the member states—certainly of 10. One can hardly expect Spain and Portugal, which joined the Community only a short time ago, to be able to exert the influence which older members may have.
I do not wish to pre-judge the debate on 1992 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, which is due to take place on 3rd May. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, this issue is connected with that. We cannot expect to go forward into a fully integrated and open market by 1st January 1993 when that marketplace is being defrauded of enormous sums of money by its constituent members.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, spoke at length about the anti-fraud co-ordinating unit. The unit is comparatively new and appears to have been set up to deal in the main with the political pressure which is being placed on this issue. Whether the membership of the unit has increased from 12 to 18 is totally irrelevant unless it has the authority with which to pursue its objectives. I am not so sure that it has such authority.

417
The unit can help in the investigation, but I believe that in pursuing and prosecuting the fraudsters we must be extremely careful to ensure that the prosecution rights are retained in each member state. I should not like to find an international body such as the European Community prosecuting in the English courts, for example, where practices are very different. While we are arguing and asking for a greater effort to bring fraudsters or criminals to court, we must ensure that the court is in the domestic country. It behoves each member state to prosecute the cause more vigorously in its own country. In some countries the culture of fraud is somewhat different from that which obtains here.
I should like to make one further point. I am delighted that in recent weeks my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given voice to the intention that she, and presumably the Government, will take a firmer stand in these matters. If that is so, so be it. The political will, to which noble Lords have referred this afternoon, has been lacking. Therefore, I suggest that if politicians are unwilling to tackle this as a political matter, the effects of 1992, which essentially will be industrial, business and commercial, will force industry, commerce and business—which will meet the bulk of the losses—to exert pressure. That pressure is likely to come upon us before the completion of the Single European Market.
In her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested that the report is partly a contribution to the process of the internal market. It might be seen in that context against the remarks I have made about British business. All the talk will not put aside this matter. We shall be looking for action. I wonder how long it will take the European Parliament to give the Court of Auditors' report its discharge. I hope that when the European Parliament takes on board that report it will be a good deal firmer than it has been in the past and ask for commitment from the council to discharge its responsibilities to reduce, if not end, this wicked waste of money.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I find that at this stage of the debate almost all the points I wished to make have already been made. I shall be brief and make only two points. First, a number of speeches have been made outside your Lordships' House about fraud and other matters. They give the impression that the Commission is staffed by many bureaucratic pen-pushers, earning tax-free salaries with expense accounts, doing little and winking at fraud. My experience is entirely different. I visited Brussels before I retired from business and I have visited it several times as a member of the Select Committee. My impression of people working in the Commission is very different and I wish that fact to be made more public. They work extremely hard and are committed to trying to make work what some people call "an impossible system".
Secondly, for those people who have not and will not read the report but will read Hansard, it is
418
necessary for me to read two short paragraphs in order that they are printed in Hansard. I believe them to be the nub of the report. I refer to paragraphs 136 and 137 on page 30. Paragraph 136 states:
"The detection of fraud and irregularity is the responsibility of the Member State within whose territory the fraud or irregularity took place. The prosecution of fraud is the responsibility of the Member State under whose jurisdiction the crime falls, in accordance with national laws. Equally it is for Member States to ensure that there are adequate civil remedies against those who have caused loss, and that those civil remedies are fully and promptly pursued. Fraud is fraud regardless of the ownership of or responsibility for the funds involved. From which it follows that dealing with fraud, and for that matter irregularities, requires a commitment from each Member State to take all the necessary measures to prevent or deter the commission of crime; and to detect and prosecute or sue the individuals or corporate bodies concerned".
Paragraph 137 states:
"Although in some cases, considered in the following paragraphs, there may be international complications which create difficulties, in the great majority of cases those who have not paid their dues or who have acquired funds improperly could be prosecuted or sued under existing procedures if there were the political will in Member States to spend money on detection and remedies".
That point has already been made by a number of speakers, but I make no apology for repeating it. I believe that those two paragraphs probably contain the crispest and the best part of the whole report.
Also, I believe that I must say, in addition to those paragraphs, that the Councils of Ministers—and there are six of them—must bear considerable responsibility. As Mr. Carey of the Court of Auditors said in evidence:
"The Council of Ministers has neglected its responsibilities and its neglect has led to the position where it is easier to believe there is no political will to tackle fraud, than to have any real confidence in our mechanisms".
It is true that there is now an anti-fraud unit in Brussels but, unless the staff is greatly increased, it seems to me bound to be ineffective and it is within the member states that effective action must be taken.
The figures for fraud are so great that extensive additional policing and inspection could be very cost effective. From the United Kingdom's point of view as a net contributor to the cost of the EC, our taxpayers are paying for fraud in other countries. Therefore, surely this country should press for common standards and controls throughout the Community as recommended by the Court of Auditors. Furthermore, the appalling laxity of reporting frauds to the Commission must be stopped. An example was given of Germany. According to Professor Tiedemann, Customs in Hamburg detected more than 200 cases of fraud but only four were reported for the whole of Germany. To me, that general blasé approach to fraud is inexplicable and inexcusable. The Court of Auditors, for which I have the highest regard—and the Select Committee has reported very favourably on the Court of Auditors—has done excellent work in calling the attention of all concerned to the problem but it has been regularly disregarded.
Therefore, I come back to my opening remarks that it is not in Brussels, where conscientious staff are doing their best to implement an almost impossible system, that we should look for the solution but in

419
our own country. I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will be able to tell us what action is being taken to cure the alarming state of affairs so ably demonstrated in this excellent report.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should also like sincerely to congratulate the Committee and my noble friend Lady Robson. It has obviously been a marathon to examine this incredibly complicated subject over so many millions of acres of ground and so many different governments, with an enormous complexity of regulations. I believe that the debate has shown great admiration for the report and practical unanimity in endorsing the steps recommended. It is all very well to analyse the situation; that is the first thing to do. However, I thought that the Committee was very brave when it listed the remedies so confidently and I am sure that it is right.
I should like to say a few words about the origin of the matter but before doing so, I hope that the Minister will relieve my feelings of shock when he comes to reply. I was astonished that the Committee should so unanimously say that member governments were lax with the Community's money. That is quite extraordinary. I am sure that the Minister will reply but I hope that he will not stress the Government's impunity in the past but will tell the House what is to be done in the future on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, whose speech I much enjoyed, was totally consistent with his attitude over many years. He said that the main reason for the whole mess is that if there is a low world price and an enormous price inside the Community then of course there will be corruption and fraud. Of course, that is perfectly true. Where I disagree with him is that the surpluses which caused the low world price are exported on to this market at a subsidised price both by ourselves and the United States and it is not a true world price. Any competent producer on the fens of Lincolnshire could not produce, for example, grain at the so-called world price. Therefore, we must look for another way to correct that if the original aims of the common agricultural policy are to be continued and realised.
The common agricultural policy was enormously successful in persuading farmers all over Europe to produce food when it was badly needed. There is no question but that it is far better to have a surplus than a shortage. The problem with the operation of the CAP is that either it was not known how to stop that or there was not the political will to do so. That is the real problem. Certainly, Sub-Committee D of your Lordships' Select Committee which deals with legislation inside the EC has recommended for over 10 years methods by which that could be stopped and indications which could be given to farmers. For example, a freeze on prices would be better than the continuation of the rise in prices which has gone on and has resulted in the extraordinary situation in which we now find ourselves.
I must say that the fault there lies with the Council of Ministers. Time and again the Commission,
420
perhaps gingerly, proposed methods to cut the surplus and time and again for political reasons, the Council of Ministers cut across those recommendations and raised prices when they should have been frozen or dropped. That has not been good for farmers throughout Europe. If one looks at farmers in this country and in the United States, one can see that their income has dropped severely.
Having said that, there are a number of steps which could be taken. The Commission and the Council must vigorously tackle the method of reducing surpluses and having some form of balance. For example, I believe that intervention buying is now being cut back, and rightly so. In my view it is ludicrous to have intervention buying of fresh vegetables and fruit because for years it has been a feature of that kind of farming that you take the risk. You plough them in if there is no market and if there is a good market you make a lot of money.
In 1982 there was a report on olive oil. I had the honour of chairing the sub-committee which dealt with that. In 1982 one recommendation stated:
"Whatever method of production aid is given it is essential to ensure that scope for fraudulent practices are kept to a minimum; taxpayers will not be willing to continue to meet the costs of the policy if they suspect that funds are being misused. As a matter of urgency control measures should be tightened".
There is a nice reference in the present report to olive oil. The Italian Government took steps and have improved the situation enormously. In the olive oil report we made recommendations which were followed.
One recommendation was very simple; namely, that instead of trying to buy in oil—and the extent of the swindle there was apparent even then—the trees should be counted. In the poor areas where it is necessary to maintain the population, culture and so on, the trees should be counted and a fiat rate subsidy should be paid. We cynically said that if the olives drop and there is merely a subsidy paid on the trees, that at least will reduce production and it will be known exactly how much is to be paid. The Commission and the Council must do something like that in order to reduce these enormous subsidies which lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, to the degree of fraud which exists.
In this country for many years we have had subsidies for farmers on hill ground. They have occasionally been the subject of frauds. Farmers have overstated the number of ewes on the hills, or they have overstated the number of cows. The Ministry of Agriculture has been unable to count the exact numbers and there has been a limited amount of fraud. I should also say that this fraud has been dealt with extraordinarily well by publicity. Where people have been charged and convicted the resultant publicity has done more good than practically anything else. Therefore, I recommend that section of the report.
I come now to the main reason for the report—the enormous amount of stealing. It is obvious, as the report says, that it is the traders who are involved. They are very much smarter than the farmers and not nearly as honest! They are the people who have been getting away with enormous sums of money. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is absolutely right

421
in saying that we should hit them where it hurts—in the pocket. There was a famous case in the 1920s when the national sport of moving goods across the border between Ulster and the Free State was at its height. A very well known man (indeed, he later became a senator in Ireland) was charged and convicted by the sheriff, or whatever he is called in those parts. When passing sentence he said, "£10,000"—which was a large sum of money in those days—"or three months". Without a flicker of hesitation the future senator said, "I'll take the three months. I have never earned that amount of money in three months before".
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is right. There is no question but that there should be penalties. I see no reason why the Commission, or our own ministries, should not apply them when someone is charged with or suspected of an offence. I do not see why the subsidy should not be cut off and the offender put on a computerised black list. If he feels he has been unjustly dealt with he can go to the court to appeal for justice, rather than the other way round.
Certainly something savage needs to be done. The figure of £5.8 billion is enormous. It is the kind of figure I am unlikely ever to experience. It has been quoted several times. Clearly we can afford to pay the staffs in the Court of Auditors, and in bodies in this country and the other countries, in order to ensure that the taxpayer is saved that amount of money and—something that is dear to my heart—that the EC and its practices do not come into disrepute.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I first join other noble Lords in thanking the Select Committee for this report. The committee has a well-deserved reputation for producing well-researched and penetrating reports on Community affairs and this must, by any standards, be one of the most important documents it has ever published. We are fortunate to have noble Lords of great experience on the committee and we are indebted to them and especially to their chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who opened our debate with a full and clear introduction of the report. Other noble Lords have also made valuable contributions. I am sure we were all impressed with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and his call for urgent and effective action.
We know that allegations of fraudulent dealing in the conduct of Community affairs have been circulating over the past few years and growing in intensity in recent months. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington dealt with that in some detail and it is also mentioned in the introduction to the report. It is as well to remember that as far back as 1986 a committee of the European Parliament said that,
"virtually no form of Community finance is untouched by fraud".
That was three years ago! The committee went on to say that fraud not only depletes the resources of the Community—as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, that includes the British taxpayer
422
—but it distorts competition and, as such, threatens the purity of the internal market.
In fact, it does much more than that; it undermines people's confidence in the future of the European Community. If it is not dealt with decisively and effectively by member governments and the Commission, it could lead to the gradual decline and, ultimately, to the dissolution of the Community itself. It is as serious as that. The facts as presented in the report are therefore a most powerful warning.
We have also been alerted to the facts by the reports of the European Court of A aditors—a very important body. The Court of Auditors said last December that the Common Market budget of £31,000 million,
"is riddled with fraud, deception and mismanagement".
The noble Baroness paid very proper tribute to Mr. C. J. Carey, the United Kingdom member of the court. His evidence spells all this out in impressive detail and his analysis of CAP expenditure is revealing. In his initial statement to the committee on 25th May last, he referred to the Commission's role, which he describes as one of "guidance and supervision". He dealt also with the duty of member states whose ministers and officials have the day-do-day responsibility of putting into practice the policies and measures which cost the money.
The member states have automatic access to the funds they need to implement CAP measures on the basis of monthly unverified statements of their requirements. The more one reads, the more one realises how fraught with unpleasant possibilities the system has become. One of the, report's most significant findings is based on a study of the system of export subsidies or refunds to European beef traders to bridge the gap between world prices and normally higher EC prices. The court found a series of weaknesses in controls operated by member states and also criticised the checking procedures of Customs officials.
The system has all the ingredients of an almighty mess which must be recognised and tackled forthwith. The whole story raises fundamental questions about the whole erratic, illogical and perilous development of CAP; and also about the effectiveness of financial controls provided by the Commission and the member governments. My noble friend Lord Carter listed some of the defects. In fairness, I think Mr. John MacGregor, the Minister of Agriculture, also fully appreciates the dangers and wants to deal with them.
However, the question we have to ask in this debate is whether the Community as a whole, with its 12 governments, has the will, conviction and desire to tackle the problem speedily. As we read the Select Committee's report we must recognise that, with all the complexities of management and administration and with all the loopholes which manifestly exist, this is by no means an easy task. The Community is large and varied, with hugely differing agricultural backgrounds and problems, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just described. However, when the Court of Auditors blames Brussels for failing to control and co-ordinate

423
national procedures the fact emerges that, as things are, the Commission's hands are tied. There is nothing practical that the Commission can do. The Commission can ask questions and inspect the accounts of member states, but where it suspects fraud it cannot send in its own flying squad to see if its suspicions are justified. The truth is that under the present system, as noble Lords have said—the relevant paragraphs 136 and 137 were read by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his speech—the responsibility falls on national governments. If we read their responses at pages 103 to 112 of the report, they all appear to agree on the essential interpretation of fraud and that it is in fact a crime. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly suggests that that is a point that needs further consideration and study and I agree with him.
At this stage the full extent of the fraud and its cost is not yet known though further inquiries into other sectors; namely, dairy produce and cereals, are now proceeding. But Herr Waechter, the head of the Commission's anti-fraud unit, has said that it may amount to £6 billion or up to 20 per cent. of the budget. That is a sobering thought although Herr Waechter went on to say that,
"It remains a zone of shadows about which we know nothing".
My noble friend Lord Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were even more pessimistic and they may well be right at the end of the day. Mr. John Wood, the director of Britain's Serious Fraud Office, also gave evidence to the Select Committee. I read it with considerable interest and I was impressed with his words. He made some very alarming statements. For example, he said:
"Our own domestic experience (in this country) is that the money obtained by fraud is being used to finance the traffic in narcotics and is also being used to finance the trade in arms and terrorism".
Is this true? It is extremely serious and takes us into a new dimension. He warned that the plan to dismantle internal EC borders by the end of1992 would lead to increased fraud. Mr. Raymond Kendall, the secretary-general of Interpol, has issued a similar warning about 1992 saying that it will "open markets to economic crime". These are matters to which we can address ourselves when we debate "1992" in three weeks' time.
These grim predictions are not to be dismissed lightly for they come from the most authoritative sources. We are therefore in a situation where a volume of hard evidence is accumulating to the effect that fraud on a frightening scale is being committed and that large criminal organisations may be involved. But on the other hand neither the Commission nor the member states have thus far combined to deal with the scandal. That is implicit in the recommendations of the Select Committee's report that we are debating and other sources have underlined it.
Mr. John Carey of the Court of Auditors has said:
"The Commission's response to our Report is a classic demonstration of what is wrong with the system. Faced with the evidence that the thing is not working at grass roots level, what does it do? … they wash their hands of it and say that it is a member state problem".
424
What has been the British Government's response? They were guilty of dithering as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, rightly charged. But it seems clear now that the Prime Minister is deeply concerned. I earlier mentioned Mr. John MacGregor's constructive reactions.
It has been reported that the Prime Minister has directed the Treasury to lead a Whitehall study of how the money is lost and what powers the Community has to stop it. Furthermore, he has said that she proposes to raise the matter at the Madrid Summit in June. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to a headline in The Times of 7th February which described the Prime Minister as "spearheading a drive against fraud". That kind of headline sounds promising, but we need to know a little more than that. I shall be most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he will tell us how the Treasury study set up by the Prime Minister is proceeding. Perhaps he can also tell us when it is likely to be completed and whether it will be published when the study is finished. I believe it is a matter of such fundamental importance to Parliament and the country that nothing will satisfy people other than that the study should be available in the public domain.
Further, do the Government have a specific plan and if so, can we be given some idea of what it is? We come back to the basic point that noble Lords have stressed; namely, that detecting fraud, catching the alleged criminal, taking him to court and prosecuting him is a matter for national governments and not for the Commission in Brussels. All the Commission can do with its fraud squad is to co-ordinate the investigation by governments and ensure that they do not cover up fraud. The alarming fact is that governments do have a reason to cover up because if they do nothing the Community takes the loss. But if governments proceed to court and succeed, that money must be paid back to Brussels. That is how I understand the working of the system and perhaps the Minister will confirm that I am correct.
It is not a pleasant scenario and I do not believe that a British Government would participate in so squalid a manipulation. I hope that the Government will press unremittingly for fundamental reform. That involves not only tackling the fraud but also recognising the flaws in the system which make fraud so easy. That is the lesson which emerges from the Select Committee's report. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, did not mince his words when he dealt with the inadequacies of the system.
As I conclude, I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us what co-operaton exists between Mr. John Wood and his colleagues at the Serious Fraud Office, on the one hand, and Herr Helmut Waechter, the head of the Commission's anti-fraud unit, on the other. I noted that the Paymaster General, Mr. Peter Brooke, said in another place on 2nd March that the Government have not ruled out a supranational agency to control fraud. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to enlarge on that and explain what formulation the Paymaster General has in mind and whether that is one of the Government's objectives. I believe the House will agree that the Government

425
have been helped substantially to consider and find solutions by this excellent report.
The recommendations of the committee in Part VI are impressive, logical and practical. The remedies that are listed in paragraphs 183 and 186 I hope will be accepted by the Government. We noted that the committee is sensible enough to accept that the programme cannot be carried out in less than three to five years. I feel sure that the deep concern of the committee will be shared by every Member of this House. I propose to quote only a few words from the report that appear in paragraph 205, which states:
"The huge sums which are being lost due to fraud and irregularity against the Community are losses borne by all the taxpayers and traders of Europe. This strikes at the roots of democratic societies, based as they are on the rule of law and its enforcement, and is a public scandal".
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that this report, which has already been welcomed by the Government, will be accepted and that its practical recommendations will be put to the Commission and other member states for implementation. A failure to take action can have profoundly serious consequences.
6.19 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this has been a most constructive and informed debate on a report which is important to the Government as we consider how the Community should make progress in combating fraud. I thank all noble Lords who are members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for this absolutely excellent report which, as the debate has shown, is detailed and practical in recommending improvements in the Community's arrangements for the prevention of fraud.
There is a great deal of common ground on this subject between the Government and the Committee. I should like to describe what progress has been made reccently by the Community, not least as a result of pressure from the United Kingdom. In this context, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Bessborough for saying that in his view the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard in facing the need to tackle fraud in the Community.
The Court of Auditors has undoubtedly played a crucial role in raising the alarm over European Community fraud, especially through its report on the 1986 budget (mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn) which devoted a separate chapter to fraud, and its report on the 1987 budget, which deals at length with agricultural fraud and mismanagement. These two reports provide the main backdrop to the intensified efforts which the Community is now making. It was again my noble friend Lord Bessborough who reminded the House that the United Kingdom has been a longtime supporter of the Court of Auditors. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has this point very much at heart. It is the truth that the British Government have left the Community in no doubt about the need for follow-up action to the court's reports. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture pressed for this, as the noble
426
Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was good enough to say in his speech. Then in February my right honourable friend the Prime Minister signalled the United Kingdom's grave concern about the extent of fraud revealed by the court and suggested that the issue might be raised at the Madrid European Council in June.
In his speech my noble friend Lord Cockfield gave his opinion that the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers was not the place to tackle the problems of fraud. I should say that ECOFIN has been responsible for ensuring concerted action in the areas highlighted by the Court of Auditors and for establishing a procedure to ensure that fraud remains prominently on the Community's agenda. I am glad to report to the House that at the March meeting of ECOFIN, in the context of its consideration of the court's latest annual report, the Community gave the first real signs of responding adequately to the problems of fraud. In this process I would claim that the United Kingdom played an important part. Before the meeting we had submitted proposals on how the Community should address both the key recommendations in the court's latest report on specific areas of policy where fraud and mismanagement were found to be rife—a word used by several of your Lordships this afternoon—and on ways of raising and carrying forward the momentum of anti-fraud activity in the longer term. We suggested that the Community should commit itself to a firm timetable in taking action in the area of export refunds and intervention storage; in particular, the Commission should be asked both to revise its 1987 proposal on the control and monitoring of export refunds in the light of the court's recommendations, and to bring forward proposals for improving the regulations governing intervention storage. We also urged that the Commission should produce specific proposals for clarifying and tightening up the anti-fraud legislation and controls in agriculture, following its intention, stated in the context of the 1989 price-fixing proposals, to address this issue.
On the more general front, we made two suggestions; first, that the Commission should convene an early meeting of anti-fraud experts to examine key issues, such as the adequacy of the Commission's powers and how best to use, if I may use the expression, "the carrot and the stick" to ensure that member states take all necessary measures; and, secondly, that the Commission should present annual reports to the Council and the European Parliament on anti-fraud action, with the Court of Auditors being associated with the budgetary authority's examinations of these reports.
In addition to our specific proposals, we recognised that fraud is not confined to agricultural expenditure, and we suggested that it would be helpful to have from the Commission a report on its progress in implementing those provisions in the structural funds regulations which deal with the introduction by member states of adequate financial controls in that rapidly expanding area of Community expenditure.
At the end of her most interesting speech at the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was critical of the stance of the Council of Ministers over the years in reacting to and trying to

427
prevent fraud. That was a view also expressed by other noble Lords. It is true that although the United Kingdom was the only member state to put forward concrete anti-fraud proposals to that ECOFIN meeting, I have to say that there was a good, practical outcome to the meeting. The Commission submitted to the meeting a declaration of intent which took on board, among other things, all six of the United Kingdom's specific concerns to which I have referred. This declaration was endorsed unanimously by the Council, and the Council also agreed to return to the issue of fraud at its June meeting, by which time the Commission will have formulated a number of the proposals it promised in its declaration, and the Council will have had the benefit of the Commission's meeting of anti-fraud experts, which has now been fixed for May.
Perhaps I may take this oportunity to deal with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I can tell the House that at next week's ECOFIN meeting the United Kingdom will urge other Community Finance Ministers to accept a Commission proposal for on-the-spot audit inspections in the area of traditional own resources similar to those which it can already conduct in the area of agricultural expenditure.
At this point I shall try to answer one of the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. He asked whether the Government agree that an anti-fraud programme is needed. The Government agree with the noble Lord. It was precisely for the reasons which the noble Lord gave that the United Kingdom sought at last month's ECOFIN meeting to get agreement on procedures which will enable such a programme to be devised and its implementation to be monitored. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that we are heading in the right direction in giving that answer to one of his questions.
I should like to say a few words specifically about the report. What struck me most forcefully about this remarkable report, apart from the wealth of evidence and the commentary which the Committee managed to amass, is the straightforward practical approach which the Committee takes. It is best summed up in the assessment, which the noble Baroness specifically mentioned in her opening speech, that a properly mounted Community anti-fraud programme will almost certainly require three to five years to implement, and that any attempt to complete it in a shorter time will not be practicable.
The Committee's first major recommendation is that the Community's regulations should be simplified. This objective commands very wide support. If I may take up a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, we believe that the Council and the Commission ought to be required to fraud-proof, as it were, all new Community legislation before that legislation is let loose on the Community. However, that is not to say that the Government can simplify the structures by which the European Community is governed, a second point specifically put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. The Government have considered it best over the years to concentrate on practical and achievable measures which we hope will yield early returns. Attempts to
428
alter the structure of the Community's institutions or the way in which it does its business are unlikely to lead to any progress against fraud in the foreseeable future. The noble Lord will forgive me if I give a rather negative reply to that route.
The Committee's second recommendation is that the number of product classifications is an area crying out for simplification, with 1,200 separate classifications alone for agricultural exports refunds. But here we must not aim for oversimplification. Some degree of multiplicity is bound to be built into the system for budgetary purposes. For instance, it would be quite unjustified, and an unjustified waste of money, if we offered export refunds higher than necessary for particular markets, which is what would happen if the number of classifications were reduced by harmonising all rates and so reducing opportunities for some exporters. The Government are saying that they believe any reduction in classifications must be balanced against budgetary and trading considerations.
Noble Lords on the Committee also called for lucid operating instructions. That is a rather regrettable reflection on the Community's anti-fraud provisions and its financial management generally. However, I am glad to report that in response to the Court of Auditors' special report on intervention storage, the Commission has set up a working group to consider, among other things, the scope for issuing Community-wide instructions on physical and accounting controls based on the best practice of member states. It may be that the Commission will be in a position to submit proposals at the June meeting of ECOFIN.
As the committee points out, its recommendation on the need for lucid instructions is also closely linked with the recommendation on the need for effective internal controls in member states, with export refunds and intervention storage particularly in mind. The United Kingdom was surveyed by the Court of Auditors for its studies on both those areas. Perhaps I may say the briefest word about UK practice. Customs and Excise set a 7 per cent. target for the level of physical examination of exports subject to export refunds. It has also issued detailed instructions on the quality of examinations to be conducted. Recently its investigation division has mounted several additional operations targeted on export refund goods. I am glad to say that no evidence of fraud has been discovered in those investigations. As to intervention storage, I am also glad to say that the Court of Auditors had some praise for aspects of our control system, which is encouraging.
On another of the committee's recommendations, perhaps I may make it clear that the Government share your Lordships' view about the need for better training of staff in anti-fraud work—an area where we have made an intensive effort recently. Indeed, 1988 was christened "CAP Training Year" by the chairman of Custons and Excise. By the end of the present financial year, some 4,000 officers will have received training, with particular emphasis on detecting fraud and irregularity in CAP trade.
The Government also very much agree with the committee about the importance of exchange of

429
information both between and within member states, though I think that the committee was a little hard on this country in saying that it would take up to six weeks for an irregularity by a particular trader to be known by ports nationwide. The fact is that the Customs authorities do have a very sophisticated computerised system for processing entries and for rapid dissemination of information about fraud. It is the case that the information has to be input to a computer centrally because staff at ports do not have expert knowledge of the system. However, messages relating to fraud, once the investigation division has evaluated them, are inputted into the system on the day that they are received.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that so far as he knew there had been no increase in Customs staff since 1978, despite increases in imports and exports as well as the continuing menance of drug smuggling. In reply, I should say to him that in recent years the Customs authorities have installed, as I said, a sophisticated computer system for dealing with imports. That has enabled them to release staff from dealing with paperwork to the examination of cargoes and the gathering of intelligence. But, in addition, more staff have been allotted to the Customs and Excise Investigation Branch, which is responsible for tackling serious fraud of all types, including fraud against the Community budget. If there are any statistics which I can add to that answer, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take the matter further by writing to him. However, at the moment, that is all the information available to me.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. However, is he aware that his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, in the course of a WrittenAnswer (given by him on 22nd March of this year in answer to a Question tabled by me) put the number of Customs and Excise personnel—that is, those that are authorised and active, as opposed to clerical staff—at 7,591 in 1978–79 and 7,684 in 1987–88. That is no more than a minuscule increase, bearing in mind the terrific increase in trade passing through the ports over that period.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is making a perfectly fair point. However, so am I. I am saying that technology has meant that staff can be removed from doing what has been absolutely routine work to doing the very important work of examining cargoes and gathering intelligence.
There is just one other crucial recommendation of the committee which I should like to mention. It is one which the Government fully support. The committee recommended that member states should improve their reporting of fraud and irregularities to the Commission so that suitable preventive measures can be devised. However, I recognise the disincentive effect that there could be for some member states who fear being penalised by the Commission for shortcomings in their control systems which the reporting might reveal. That is an
430
area where the Community may need to rethink its approach as between the carrot and the stick. Your Lordships may ask what I mean by that expression. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wondered whether I would give some detail on the matter. My understanding of the legal position is that the Community will bear any loss arising from irregular payments which have been properly reported, provided that there is no negligence in administration or in recovery action. That is the carrot. So far as concerns the stick, we need to crack down hard on those who attempt to conceal negligence or evade the reporting requirement.
Equally crucial is another of the committee's recommendations. It recommended that the Commission should be more active in its surveillance of anti-fraud systems in member states. I should like to make clear that we attach particular importance to the need for the Commission to lay down minimum standards, for instance, in physical inspections and in monitoring much more closely the data on fraud and irregularity supplied by member states and the adequacy of their overall systems.
One of the committee's main conclusions, and one which was mentioned by several noble Lords, is that publicity is a powerful deterrent to fraud and that it has not been fully exploited in the Community. In the United Kingdom, of course, prosecutions for fraud offences are almost invariably held in open court, so that the details of cases are available to the media. Publicity about Community fraud in general can also help in bringing pressure on authorities Community-wide to focus on ways to defeat it. It is no coincidence that the response has been diligent to the latest Court of Auditors' report, which received wide publicity. In that regard, if I may say so, the committee's report is very helpful in keeping the issue of fraud in the public eye.
In the time available to me perhaps I may very briefly say a word to my noble friend Lord Cockfield, whose speech I found enormously interesting. I am glad that he took part in the debate. I ask him not to underestimate the strength of the objections, on grounds of both practicality and principle, to the proposal about amending the mutual assistance regulation which he made when he was Commissioner—that is, the proposal that Commission officials should, among other things, be allowed to lead administrative and investigative missions in member states.
As I think the debate which we have had this afternoon has shown, noble Lords share one of the objections which was held not just by the United Kingdom but also by all the member states; that is, the feeling that Commission officials involved would need to understand and comply with national criminal law, and the possibility that member states' own investigations could be jeopardised and that what is needed is that such matters should be in the hands not of the Commission but of national member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, made the point that the National Audit Office has no real audit function in respect of Community money. With respect to the noble Baroness, the NAO has an audit

431
function in respect of all funds which pass through the Exchequer. That includes all the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community budget and most of our receipts from it.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, drew attention to the paucity, as he felt, of the staffing of Community funds auditing. I believe that the noble Lord referred to only 10 staff, which I think the noble Lord then said had risen to about 18. Lest there be any misunderstanding about the matter, perhaps I may just say that the Commission's anti-fraud unit was initially only 10 strong. However, that is only a small part of the story. There is also a large anti-fraud section in the Agricultural Directorate. Moreover, fraud and financial control is a major responsibility of many other departments in the Commission. There is also the work of the Court of Auditors and the national auditors.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made the point that while Community agricultural prices are two to three times higher than world prices, the temptation to commit fraud would remain high. He asked me whether I could give him the latest information on prices in world markets. The Government fully support efforts to bring Community agricultural support prices more into line with world prices in order to bring the discipline of the market to bear upon agricultural production. The introduction of stablisers and the tightening of budget discipline by the European Council of February last year have greatly helped in that respect. The noble Lord may wish to note that Community support prices for cereals are now less than 50 per cent. higher than world market prices.
I come finally to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. He asked me about how the Treasury study was going and whether it would be published. The study to which he referred is an interdepart mental exercise. Ministers will consider it shortly. It is not customary for such papers to be published; but the decisions that Ministers take will reflect the strategy which the Government will pursue over the coming months and which they will have culled from the study. I cannot give the noble Lord the undertaking about publication that he wanted, but I hope that my other answer to him on that point will be satisfactory.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it would be helpful to the House and everyone else if the Government were to publish some kind of document (perhaps a short White Paper) in which the decisions of Ministers, and the action that they propose, are brought together so that we may know precisely what is taking place.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord no undertaking this afternoon; but I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the noble Lord has said.
The noble Lord asked me what co-operation there is, and what there will be, between Mr. Wood of the Serious Fraud Office and Herr Waechter of the Anti-Fraud Unit. Mr. Wood of course gave evidence to the European Parliament's budgetary committee
432
hearing into fraud against the Community budget last January. His presence reflected the Government's view that the budgetary committee should have the benefit of an expert view of the role of the Serious Fraud Office and recent changes in United Kingdom law.
It is the Government's intention that there should be the closest co-operation between Herr Waechter's unit and all agencies concerned in detecting fraud against the Community budget.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said in another place that she hopes to raise the issue of fraud at the next European Council, although the form of any Council initiative would be determined in the light of developments between now and then. It is right to keep the issue on the agenda. Fraud, as many of your Lordships have said this afternoon, is a crime against Community taxpayers. It of course has a corrosive effect on the Community's image, and so the report of your Lordships' committee is timely and important. On behalf of the Government, I express my thanks to your Lordships for it.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The eminent speakers, and the depth of their speeches, are a measure of the concern which the House feels about the problem of fraud against the Community.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his reply and explanation of the Government's actions. We all welcome the actions over fraud taken by Her Majesty's Government and the right honourable lady the Prime Minister. It is with some satisfaction that I was told that at the ECOFIN meeting on 23rd March that the only progressive suggestions were made by the British Government. We are delighted that that is so; but that is one occasion only. There was a lack of action before the 23rd March. I was therefore delighted to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that that will not be a flash in the pan, but that concerted action will continue until the problem has been solved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, it will take years to put the matter right. I should like to see your Lordships' House agree to keep the problem under close scrutiny and to continue to monitor progress. I suggest that within a year or 18 months a further debate of this type should take place to see where the Community has reached and what our further contributions should be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
6.45 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now announce that the Report stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.45 p.m. to enable the Second Reading debate of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill to be taken. The Report stage will recommence as soon as possible after 8.30 p.m.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
6.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report—(Lord Hesketh).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 5.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. The effect of the amendments is to delete a provision in the Bill as introduced which would have allowed the FMA the discretion to make reasonable charges in connection with appeals by people who have been disqualified from membership of the scheme. They follow my undertaking given in Committee to consider whether we need the power to charge for appeals. Clause 5(3)(b) provides a discretionary power to charge for appeals from a decision to withhold or withdraw membership of the scheme. We envisage the FMA making a charge only where it thinks it appropriate to do so; that the charge would be reasonable; and that the FMA should be able to repay the fee in appropriate circumstances. Having taken another look at this matter, we decided that the power to charge for appeals should not be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 4, line 47, leave out ("and").
Page 4, line 48, leave out paragraph (d).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 49, at end insert—
("(3A) The scheme may make different provision for different circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) The application form for membership of the scheme shall include a clearly indicated space where the applicant may state his desire for the information supplied to be regarded as confidential, and if he so indicates then the authority shall not disclose the information to any third party.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the issue of civil liberties and the possible intrusion into those civil liberties represented by what goes on to the identity card. The identity card must be preceded by a membership application form. When we last debated this matter I did not press the amendment because the Minister said:
434
"I have no hesitation in saying that the Government will consider the principle of this amendment sympathetically. My initial contact with the Data Protection Registrar suggests that it may not be necessary to spell out a requirement of the kind proposed in the amendment in the Bill. I understand the views of Members of the Committee that adding a provision to the Bill would remove any doubt about the rights of members. But the Bill cannot spell out any details of the scheme"
The Minister also then went on to talk about other important matters. He also said something hopeful:
"I hope that Members of the Committee will understand if I do not promise to reach a definite conclusion by Report stage".—Official Report, 14/3/89; cols. 155-156.]
When I raised the issue with the Minister and asked him what progress he had been making, he said:
"As you know, we will be discussing the possibility of amendments concerned with Data Protection with the Registrar. He was, as you say, consulted when the Minister for Sport's working party was preparing its report but that was, of course, before the Bill was published. We now need to consult him specifically on the points which you and others raised in Committee on the possibility of specific provisions in the Bill. 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".
I am sure that the Minister has come well briefed in order to be helpful to the Committee, as he has always tried to be during the various stages. I simply wish to reinforce our concern in the matter. When the issue of what did and what did not go on the form was raised, a number of people, while accepting the need for a scheme, a card and an application, blanched at the possibility that their details might then be hawked around for commercial purposes.
The Minister made kind comments about the possibility that the sale of membership lists could very well be a source of income which would offset other expenditure. That is as it may be. We certainly do not want the scheme to be looked on primarily, or even substantially, as a means of commercial exploitation. We wish to make sure that any individual, who wants his name to be excluded from any such list and his details to be used strictly and wholly for the purpose of the football membership scheme, should be able to do so.
I think that the argument has been well rehearsed. I invite the Minister to tell the House what has been the result of his consultation with the registrar since we last met. I have to consider very carefully why there needs to be any delay at all. After all, the issue which I raise was anticipated by many people outside the House. It was a matter to be resolved from last July, August, September or October when the report came out. The Minister makes a fair point that since the Bill was published and since we have been specific, there needs to be consultation. I do not know what other Members of the House will wish to say. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, I should like to hear the Minister's response to this request. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whatever any of my noble friends said at Committee stage about the matter, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment or any other amendment to the same effect or anything like it. I say that for the following reason. It is purely administrative detail. We should not clutter up our statute book with administrative detail, we do too much of it as it is. Some of it has

435
absolutely no sanction behind it. We are supposed to be making laws for people to obey.
A matter like this concerning what is to go on an application form is something which the department can perfectly well deal with, having borne in mind what the noble Lord and anyone else may have said in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may put forward a further point. What sanction would there be behind a provision of this kind? The noble Lord has not put forward anything which would create it an offence on the part of persons supplying the form if they fail to mention that the information is to be confidential. There is no sanction. I think that we should leave this, as we do so many other matters, to be dealt with not in primary legislation but in accordance with the usual administrative arrangements made by departments when they issue forms for the public to fill in.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in other words, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best, according to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However I do not think in most cases the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. In a matter of this kind it is not a case of pure administrative detail at all. It is a guarantee that a person who does not want personal information hawked around for commercial advantage should have the right for that information to be withheld. In my view nothing could be more reasonable. It has nothing to do with violence at football grounds but a great deal to do with the rights of privacy of the individual. I therefore very much hope that on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said on the last occasion we shall see some government amendment on the matter at Third Reading.
While I am talking about government amendments, perhaps I may say that we are now told—and my noble friends were told only today—that the Third Reading of the Bill will take place on Monday week. I understand that there is likely to be a significant number of government amendments, both from the noble Lord's department and from the Home Office. I very much hope that these will be tabled in good time, not later than Tuesday, so that those of us involved in the Bill will have the opportunity of discussing it with the various bodies outside the House who are interested in the measure.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too disagree wih the noble Lord Lord Renton. I do not think that this is a matter of trivial detail; important principles are involved. I believe that it would be very wrong of the Government to oppose the amendment. They clearly take the view that a substantial proportion of football supporters are thuggish individuals of low intelligence. Many of us do not share the Government's evaluation of football supporters, but if the Government are right and we are wrong then it is clearly unethical for the Government to expose these people of minimal intelligence to a financial temptation which is likely to get them into hot water. We should bear in mind how cleverly packaged and presented these direct mailshots can be and also that mounting consumer debt is generally acknowledged to be a grave national problem.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, in the absence of a sanction referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is not in my recollection that when a statute says that an application form is to be in the following form, it is thought necessary to spell out a sanction in the event of the form not being in that form.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that the amendment does not go far enough. I believe that there should be an absolute bar on information provided under the Bill—be it for the purpose of belonging to a membership scheme—being passed on to any other third party. After all, what are we doing here? We are not asking people voluntarily to fill in a form. We are saying to them, "If you wish to attend a football match, by law—by statute—you must fill in this form". Therefore, the giving of that information is not a voluntary act. It is an act of compulsion. When we ask people to fill in social security forms or tax forms, we give them an absolute guarantee that that information will be private and it will be an offence for it to be disclosed.
I know that this is not quite the same, but it is almost the same. People do not have to go to football. I suppose that people do not have to apply for social security benefit either. But here we are imposing on people a duty: if they wish to attend a football match they must fill in this form and give information which may be of a private nature. Therefore I think that they must be safeguarded. If the amendment has to go to a vote because the Minister will not give a satisfactory reply, I shall support it. But I have to tell my noble friend—and I appreciate that—it is my fault for not putting down an amendment to his amendment—that I do not think it goes quite far enough.
7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I wish to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that my own personal best endeavours will come to bear to satisfy his point concerning the change in the date of the Third Reading.
This is another amendment which was moved in Committee and which I undertook to consider further. In this case, I warned your Lordships' House that we might not be ready to reach a definite conclusion by Report stage, because we had to consult the data protection registrar further. That remains the position, but I can give an undertaking that our discussions with the registrar, on this amendment and the next, are in hand and will enable us to reach a definite conclusion before Third Reading.
I should also repeat the assurance which I gave in Committee on this amendment that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that the protection of the Data Protection Act 1984 is available to members of the scheme and to applicants for membership.
We do, however, wish to consider the registrar's views in relation to this amendment and the next, on whether specific provision is necessary on the face of the Bill and, if so, what form it should take. We shall report back on Third Reading on these points.

437
It is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out, that the data protection registrar was consulted about the Minister for Sport's working party on the national membership scheme. I am glad that he has been able to make encouraging comments about the Government's intentions in relation to the scheme. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also pointed out, he had not been consulted about the specific points raised by noble Lords on this amendment in Committee. It seemed to me right that he should be consulted before we reached any conclusions. The Government are sympathetic to the purpose of these amendments. We shall come back to the House at Third Reading. On that basis I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his comments. Despite what I consider to be the unhelpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the Minister and I are continuing the happy dialogue that had continued, virtually uninterrupted, on the previous stage of the Bill where a substantial measure of agreement was reached. I accept in good faith that there have been difficulties in resolving an attitude. The Minister has told us that he will not tell us exactly what he will do until discussions have taken place. But at least if we know before the appropriate time on Third Reading whether what he intends to do is, in our view, helpful, then we shall have the opportunity of returning yet again, and properly, to this issue.
This matter is certainly not, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, cared to categorise it, an administrative detail. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that for very many people outside this House this issue, more than any other aspect of the Bill, is the one that concerns them. There are other issues concerning the viability of football clubs, violence and all kinds of other matters, but people are concerned about the fact that their personal details may be traded. The Minister for Sport has, more than once, said that he envisages that the total costs of the scheme can be met by trading and selling the lists. That shows that this issue is not a pure administrative detail, but goes to the core of many people's objection to the Bill. They are entitled to take that view. I share that view.
As has been said, the registrar is in touch not only with the Minister but also with myself and others. It is clear to me from a letter from the registrar that he believes that in the context of the football national membership scheme there needs to be a specific reference to opting out of commercial uses of the information provided by an applicant for membership of the scheme.
I am very happy to leave these matters until we hear what the Minister has to say. I am certainly happy to leave them to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has played a major part in pursuing these matters. We may need to return to these issues, although I hope that will not be the case. I hope the Minister is satisfied that an amendment needs to be made. If he concedes that point, we will support what he says. We should
438
also be satisfied if he gives us copper-bottomed guarantees from the data protection registrar that such an opt out is not required. We would, of course, also expect a full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
("(4C) A membership card issued under sections 5(2)(j) and 5(3)(b) may be demanded for inspection only when the holder is on, or seeking entry to, club premises for the purpose of attending a designated match.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can also be helpful on this amendment. Amendment No. 49 relates not only to ownership of the card, and who has the right to demand it, but also to the possible over zealous nature of policing where a card may be used as an opportunity to undertake what we consider to be difficult actions.
On 14th March the Minister said:
"there will be no requirement on people to produce their cards away from grounds".—[Official Report, 14/3/89; col. 164.]
If one accepts the raison d'etre for the scheme and the card, one can appreciate the requirements to carry the card and for it to be produced, certainly inside football grounds, and perhaps in order to maintain good order and discipline, outside football grounds. However, we should like an assurance from the Minister that the act of demanding a card will not be used as an excuse to apprehend and question people away from football grounds.
I shall use my favourite illustration of Tottenham Hotspur. Many people arrive at that ground from the White Hart Lane railway station, which I estimate is perhaps 250 yards away from the fool ball ground. I can envisage that, if things get a little difficult, somebody who does not have a card and who gets off a train may very well look as if he is a football supporter, and there could be a temptation for the police to use the excuse of demanding a card to question a person who happens to be 250 yards away from the ground. We are entering a difficult area here. The Government must decide how far the zone for challenge extends, not only as regards ascertaining whether people have a card but as regards ascertaining whether cards are valid.
We have changed the wording of an earlier amendment and tightened it up. The earlier amendment I moved stated that the card shall become the property of the holder. In this amendment we do not mention who a. card belongs to. On 14th March I moved an amendment which stated that a card may be:
"demanded for inspection only when the holder wishes to obtain entry to a football match".—[0fficial Report, 14/3/89; col. 163.]
In Amendment No. 49 we are stating that a membership card should only be demanded for inspection when the holder is seeking entry to a designated match. The purpose of this amendment, in essence, is that, even if it cannot be written on the face of the Bill, we want the Minister to tell us that guidelines will be issued either by the FMA or

439
the Government to the police as regards how they should manage themselves in a situation which could be difficult for the police, the local community and the fans. We want the Minister to tell us that he accepts what we are saying. Then we shall certainly listen to the problems of carryng out the scheme as we propose it should be carried out, or to the way in which the Government will try to meet our demands.
For a lot of people this matter would not be an administrative detail, but a grave infringement of their freedom to move about their community. I used Tottenham Hotspur as an example, but I could also mention my home town of Newcastle and the team of Newcastle United and its ground in St. James' Park. In that instance the railway station is certainly 600 or 700 yards away from the ground. The police, or someone else in a position of authority, could use the excuse of wishing to examine a card to challenge people who just happen to be in that area, and thereby create a difficult situation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, unlike Amendment No. 47, which could perfectly well be dealt with by a firm undertaking by the registrar, as we were told it might possibly be, this amendment is suitable for primary legislation. There are precedents for it. In the case of motor licences and gun licences, it is provided by statute that the police may demand to see whether a person has a suitable licence. The question is whether in the circumstances envisaged in this amendment that demand should be limited to inspection:
"only when the holder is on, or seeking entry to, club premises for the purpose of attending a designated match".
I appreciate the point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has made. We do not want people to be unnecessarily embarrassed on their way to a match in the case, for example, where there has been trouble in a pub on the way to a match. But to inhibit police inquiries in this way could be against the public interest. It could also be against the interests of the card holder if he cannot be asked for his card.
Suppose the police have to make inquiries about a theft during a football match on designated premises. Suppose there has been violence. Suppose there has been a disturbance by people who have climbed into the ground and it is necessary to sort out the sheep from the goats—those who have climbed in and those who are there legitimately and who hold membership cards. To say that in those circumstances the police inquiries are to be inhibited by their not being able to ask the people concerned to show their membership cards, if they have them, seems to me to be quite unreasonable. Therefore my advice, such as it is, to my noble friend on the Front Bench would be that the amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, I always hesitate before crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on a matter of this kind. However, I cannot for the life of me see the relevance of a football membership card to a police investigation into an act of theft. There is no remote relationship
440
between the two. In my view it would never even cross the minds of policemen to ask to see someone's footbll membership card if they were simply investigating a theft. If the problem was a disturbance which had taken place at the ground, again I do not see the relevance of an FMA card. I may be being immensely dense, but I do not see the relevance.
Unlike others who have taken exception to noble Lords speaking twice, it would give me immense pleasure to give the noble Lord, Lord Renton, my warm approval to intervene.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. If there has been a theft at a football ground and a person who is followed up after he has left the ground gives the police a false name in order to evade his responsibility, the fact that he cannot be asked for his card may be a serious impediment to the police in their inquiries.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, if he is merely a witness, there is no obligation on him to give an accurate name and address. I do not say that it would be right and proper for him not to do so. Like the noble Lord, I should hope that he would co-operate in a police inquiry. However, in a criminal inquiry policemen cannot demand information in the way that he suggests if the person concerned is merely a witness.
My worry about this issue is a different one. My view is almost the reverse of that of the noble Lord. I am not sure whether the amendment in its present form should be carried or whether we should hope for an undertaking from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that there will be a Home Office circular on the subject, which would probably meet the point.
I am worried about identification cards coming in by the back door. There have been substantial debates on that issue at a number of conferences and meetings during the past 12 months. I believe that there is a very substantial degree of anxiety on the part of many people of good will and public spirit about identification cards being introduced in this country. I do not propose to become involved in the merits of that question. There are differences of opinion even within the police service as to whether it is desirable or undesirable, and there are chief officers on either side of the argument. The one thing I do not want to see is an identification card system coming in by the back door whereby a limited number of people can on almost any occasion be asked for an FMA membership card in order to prove their identity. That would be highly undesirable.
As I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I am by no means certain whether the amendment in its present form is the best approach. But if we are not to have the amendment I very much hope that at least a Home Office circular will be issued after consultation with the police. I think that there will be great anxiety on this question unless some limitation is imposed as to the circumstances in which an FMA membership card can be asked for.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, those of us who are concerned about the growing erosion of our individual liberties are, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, determined to resist all attempts to bring in national identity cards by the back door. In effect, we may well have national identity cards, at least for a section of the population, if this amendment or something very like it is not agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, moved an amendment on this subject in Committee. He explained then that he wanted to ensure that the police or club stewards should not, as a preventive measure, be able to demand to see membership cards from people approaching a football ground. I sympathised then with his intentions but was unhappy about the effect of the amendment which he proposed. I am afraid that my reaction to this amendment is much the same.
As I said in Committee, I understand the noble Lord's wish to prevent a demand to see a card being made in circumstances unconnected with football. I also accept that there should be no general requirement on people to produce their cards away from grounds. The Bill does not provide for any such requirement. However, the effect of the amendment would be to make it impossible for anyone to demand to see a membership card except when the holder is on or seeking entry to club premises for the purposes of attending a designated match. That is much too tight a restriction.
For example, it would prevent a club official from asking to see someone's membership card when he applied at the club for a ticket in advance of a match. Say that a Tottenham Hotspur supporter wanted to buy a ticket a couple of days in advance of a local Derby match with the Arsenal and went along to Tottenham's ground to do so. I do not think that we would want to prevent the Tottenham officials asking to see the supporter's membership card in those circumstances.
Another example might involve a match to be played abroad, perhaps involving an England team or perhaps a club team when English clubs are re-admitted to European competitions. The body responsible for the sale of tickets in this country, be it the FA or an individual club, may wish to take special precautions to prevent as many hooligans as possible from travelling. It may want to refuse to sell tickets to someone who has been banned from the scheme but who has not been the subject of a restriction order. It may therefore ask to see the membership cards of all applicants for tickets. I do not say that it would be essential for it to do so, but I can understand that it might wish to do so. The amendment would prevent it from doing so.
I also fully appreciate the point which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made with regard to the police. He mentioned the possibility of a Home Office circular to the police as a possible satisfactory alternative. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we shall consider that point. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Graham
442
of Edmonton, will be able to consider the possibility of withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, again, the value of this stage of the Bill is not to encourage the Minister to say more than he said earlier or something different. We are not in the business of trapping him into saying things that can be waived by someone else later.
This has been a helpful discussion. During our proceedings on 14th March, the Minister said:
"We accept that there will be no requirement on people to produce their cards away from grounds".—.[Official Report. 14/3/89; col. 164.]
Surely that means that one can ask for them only inside the grounds. If there is no onus on people to produce them away from the grounds, ipso facto, they can be demanded only inside the grounds. However, not unreasonably, the Minister has pointed out some circumstances in which it is a natural reaction to ask, "Can I see your card?".
In view of what the Minister said and the illustrations that I gave of what is abhorrent to those who share my view—namely, that the card should be used strictly for entry into the ground or other related matters—and in view of his suggestion that consideration will undoubtedly be given at other stages in the other place and that the matter will be pursued, all I asked for in my original speech was that guidelines of one kind or another could be issued. I believe that, just as the guidelines will be helpful to the authorities, they will also be helpful to the police. That is a matter on which consultation will undoubtedly take place, especially with the police, to make sure that they feel comfortable with the guidelines laid down.
We shall look at what the Minister has said. It seems to us that there has been a meeting of minds on this matter, and I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
"Phased application of scheme
.—

(1) The Secretary of State, in exercising his function of designating football matches under section 1(2) of this Act as matches in relation to which the national football membership scheme applies, shall have regard to whether it is desirable to achieve a phased application of the scheme.

(2) For this purpose—

(a) the Football Membership Authority shall consider the possibility of a phased application of the scheme and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State; and

(b) the Secretary of State shall have regard to any recommendations so made.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Criteria for phased introduction of scheme]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 51:
Leave out Clause 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disqualification for membership of scheme]:
Lord Hesketh moved Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("be") to end of line 38 and insert—
("(a) in a case where he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment taking immediate effect or of detention in a young offenders institution, five years, and
(b) in any other case, two years, beginning with such date as may be determined under the scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 55.
These amendments to what is now Clause 7 of the Bill fulfil another undertaking which I made during Committee stage of the Bill. Clause 7 deals with the procedure for mandatory disqualification from the scheme of people convicted of relevant offences. It provides for them to be disqualified for two or five years, depending on the severity of the sentence which the court imposes in convicting them. There was, however, some confusion about the use of the word "standard" in the Bill as introduced in referring to the periods of disqualification. I said that I would look at the terminology.
These amendments remove the word "standard" from the Bill. This is the approach proposed by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls when we discussed this point in Committee. I pay tribute to his suggestion. I think that the effect is to clarify the Bill's provisions in a helpful way. I hope that these amendments will clarify our intentions. I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly share the Minister's view that this is amore sensible form of words to deal with the situation. We are grateful to him
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. It relates to a case in which a person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He may be sentenced to three, four or five years, but he does not normally serve that long. Does the ban relate to the period that is given in the sentence in court or to the date when he is released early from prison?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two points here. First, the two different periods refer to a criminal offence which results in a conviction and imprisonment and to a criminal offence which does not result in imprisonment. I believe that we shall deal with the second point raised by the noble Baroness when we come to Amendment No. 54, and I hope to be able to illuminate the matter for her then.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("be") to end of line 38 and insert ("as is determined in his case under the scheme, and shall be—
444

(a) not less than six months and not more than two years in the case of offences specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) of the Schedule to this Act, or

(b) not less than two years and not more than five years in the case of offences specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (h) and (i) of the same Schedule.

(3A) In the case of a person sentenced to or serving a term of imprisonment, the period of disqualification shall run from his discharge from prison.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, surely Amendment No. 53 seeks, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to separate the sheep from the goats; in other words, some offences are more serious than others, while others are less serious. In effect, the offences are to be treated in a blanket manner in the Bill. In our amendment we seek to show that there are serious offences and we have tried to categorise them. We sense that the Government are attempting not only to be tough and to write tough, but to act tough. The deterrent element is well understood, although not effected and certainly not accepted.
In the amendment we attempt to ameliorate the punishments that could be meted out in respect of deprivation of membership. As regards the schedule to the Bill, in the light of the various amendments, there is a great raft of what we shall in future know as relevant offences. They are all treated in the same way from the point of view of severity. Once they are held to berelevant offences, any challenge to their being relevant will be dismissed or lost and they will be found to stick; the offences will then be as in the Bill. However, we believe that there is a differentiation as regards severity. We seek to ensure that for some of the offences the period of deprivation shall be not less than six months and not more than two years and for other offences between two and five years. The various offences are listed in the schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rather hope that my noble friends will consider the amendment. I do not think that they will wish to accept it in its present form, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is quite right to suggest that there should be some differentiation in the way in which the sentences for the various offences are described.
However, I must say that there is one point in the amendment that worries me a good deal; namely, the statement of minimum offences of not less than six months and in the other case of not less than two years. In order that the courts may have the desirable flexibility to achieve justice in sentencing each offender, Parliament has generally refrained from stating minimum offences, especially in respect of imprisonment. Occasionally, minimum fines have been stipulated, but very rarely. We should be a little careful before we stipulate minimum sentences of imprisonment, especially for as long as two years. However, in principle I believe that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, deserves further thought and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as someone whose name is to the amendment, I welcome the strong support in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He

445
appeared to suggest that the amendment does not go far enough by providing minimum sentences.
The unusual rigidity of the present formula seems to show a distressing lack of faith in the ability and commonsense of the courts. One individual could have been sentenced to one day's imprisonment for a football related offence possibly because he had no money on him and no prospect of getting any to pay a fine. Another individual could have been sentenced to a fine of, say, £250 for another offence, which in all probability would have been a much more serious offence. The first individual would automatically be treated much more harshly than the second if the amendment under discussion or a similar amendment is not agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton:My Lords, we are not talking about imprisonment for offences; we are talking about deprivation of membership of the scheme for various offences. In the schedule the relevant offences are listed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. This is all mixed up with what comes into Clause 5(2). I confess that that is what led me astray.
The noble Lord is correct. Disqualification can be for minimum periods. We have shown reluctance to make minimum periods of disqualification even in the case of motoring offences. It is a pretty tough thing to do. Although I was wrong in referring to sentences, I still say that we need to be careful about periods of disqualification as long as two years.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, I welcome some of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said and the fact that he felt it right—I agree that it is—to speak for the second time to the amendment. I am sure that that will be noted by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is concerned about Members making more than one speech on Report
I was worried for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I were recommending minimum periods of imprisonment. I was alarmed in case inadvertently we had strayed on to such a thoroughly undesirable path.
In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, now recognises, we are speaking of a period of disqualification. I think it will be found that there are indeed periods of disqualification for offences under some parts of the road traffic Acts. I note that the noble Lord nods in agreement.
I wish to ask the Minister one question to which I should know the answer myself but do not. We appear to be discussing amendments that are alternatives. The first lines of Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are addressed to precisely the same line of the Bill. I may be wrong in this. Perhaps the matter can be cleared up. It may be for the convenience of the House to be told whether we can continue on this course or whether they are indeed alternatives.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as Amendment No. 52 has been accepted, it does not seem sense to agree to Amendment No. 53; in fact, it will rot be possible to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
I have a question with which I hope he can deal. Does the reference to sentence cover suspended sentences as well as sentences that are actually carried out? There is a difference. It would be interesting to have the Minister's view on whether a suspended sentence carries the same penalty as one that is actually served.
My second point is one that I made in Committee. I dislike both Amendment No. 52 and Amendment No. 53. We are into the business here of punishing people twice for the same offence. That cannot be right. It means that an individual is told that for an offence he is sentenced to a certain period of imprisonment. After he has completed the period of imprisonment, he may reform himself, become a better person and no longer want to involve himself in football hooliganism or in hooliganism of any kind. Despite the fact that he is a reformed character, he is then told that he may not attend a football match for a period of two to five years. That would be very unfair. Indeed, it would be against the practice of British justice.
Although I do not expect the Minister to reply to what I am saying now, it is a serious matter and I urge him to discuss that aspect of the Bill with his right honourable friend. It may well be that we are going too far in this respect and that the Government might wish to retract on this point.
Lord Monson:My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, not agree that his arguments about the dangers of punishing people twice apply with even greater force to the provisions of Part II of the Bill?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, indeed, yes, I think that that is so. It is one of the problems that we find in the Bill. I hope that the Government will consider Part II as well as this part in that respect.
Lord Hesketh:My Lords, we shall come to Part II shortly. The amendment would affect significantly the way in which the Bill proposes to deal with people convicted of a relevant criminal offence. The Bill provides that if someone is convicted of an offence as listed in the schedule, he should be disqualified automatically from membership of the scheme for five years if he is sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment, and for two years if any other sentence is imposed. The court is required to notify the FMA of the conviction, and the FMA will set the date on which the disqualification is to begin under the scheme.
Perhaps I may refer here to Amendment No. 69 in my name, which we shall consider later. If fulfils my promise in Committee to provide for advance notification and appeals in relation to a declaration of relevance. I said that I would con3ider such an amendment when we discussed the procedure for

447
disqualification in Committee, and I am happy to be able to provide one.
Amendment No. 53 would weaken the Bill's provisions in this respect. It would weaken them less than the amendments which the noble Lord moved in relation to this clause in Committee, but it would nonetheless weaken them significantly.
In the first place, it would weaken the powerful element of deterrence which the Bill offers. If the Bill is enacted as drafted, a potential hooligan will know that if he is convicted for a relevant offence, he will be disqualified for a minimum of two years. If his offence is serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, he will face certain disqualification for five years. These are real deterrents to deal with real hooligans; to deal with the people—the criminals, I should say, since we are talking of those convicted of a criminal offence—whom we all want to keep away from our football grounds.
In place of these deterrents, the Opposition have proposed three major changes here from the Government's proposals. First, the period of disqualification would not be fixed. It would be at the discretion of the FMA, within set limits. Secondly, it is the type of offence that would determine the length of disqualification, rather than the severity of the sentence. Thirdly, the actual length of disqualification would be less than the Government propose in a significant numbers of cases—as little as six months in some cases.
This could mean that someone found guilty of a serious offence such as inciting racial hatred, which the Opposition apparently consider a "lesser" offence, and sentenced to a prison term might be disqualified from membership for only six months. Anyone sentenced to a prison term following conviction for one of the "lesser" offences, as proposed by the Opposition, could be disqualified for as little as six months under this amendment. I do not believe that this is the right way to distinguish between different groups of convicted offenders. It is better, as the Bill does, to determine the length of disqualification by reference to the severity of the sentence. Those guilty of an offence serious enough to warrant a prison sentence should be banned for five years.
The amendment proposes another change from the Bill's provisions in relation to the start of the period of disqualification. The amendment proposes that disqualification should begin from the date that someone sentenced to prison is discharged. The trouble with this approach—and I have sympathy with the intention—is that the FMA may not know when someone was discharged from prison. It has seemed to us better to allow the FMA to set the date of the beginning of the period of disqualification, under the scheme and at the same time we need to be able to avoid the possibility that a period of disqualification could be used up while someone was in prison. This is an issue that we need to discuss further with the FMA. However, I am not sure that the solution proposed in the amendment is the right one. I shall consider this aspect further but can offer no commitment to amend the Bill in relation to it.
448
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, questioned me specifically on the point of suspended sentence. The division will be that if it is a wholly suspended sentence it will be two years. If it is partially suspended, it will be five years. I was slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not supporting the Government on this amendment. On Monday he said:
"We hate football hooliganism and we would be prepared to support the most oppressive measures against football hooliganism and the football hooligans".—[Official Report, 10/4/89: col. 75.]
We are now discussing an amendment that will weaken the provisions that the Government have put into the Bill which, I remind noble Lords, are rather weaker than the provisions that the football authorities wanted themselves.
I hope that I have explained why I believe that the approach that the Bill takes in dealing with convicted offenders is the right one. We need a powerful deterrent to deter potential hooligans. The amendment would weaken that deterrent and it would distinguish between groups of offenders on a basis that is less appropriate than the one that the Bill uses. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords whether they would consider withdrawing their amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree with my contention that a fine of £250 is a much more severe sentence than a sentence of one day's imprisonment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are discussing the fundamental basis of the deterrent that we feel is right. As I explained earlier—and I shall repeat again—it is very straight forward. We are half-way between what the Opposition amendment wants and what the football authorities wanted. We believe that we have to have a firm deterrent. We are talking about a deterrent which is based on people who have been convicted of a criminal offence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Government create the criminal offences. Relevant offences are created here. To avoid any dispute, those that we believe ought to carry the heavier sentence of deprivation of membership are in the schedule that deals with threats of violence. The term "threats of violence" applies to four of those under paragraph (b) of my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is certainly not out of order. He recognises that someone who uses a threat of violence to the person or to property, or in any other way, needs to be dealt with differently from someone who is, for instance, attempting to enter without a membership card. In my view that is a less serious offence than someone who threatens somebody with violence. If one talks about carrying alcohol on coaches or trains, we believe that it is a less onerous offence than someone who is using a threat of violence.
My noble friend also raised the point about a suspended sentence. We recognise that violence needs to be dealt with. The football hooligan needs to be dealt with. Our complaint about the Government's attitude to this Bill is this. The Minister used these words more than once. He wants this to be a deterrent. He wants it to frighten. In my view, he has taken a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

449
It is not necessary. It is certainly necessary to punish or to chastise but not uniformly and globally in the way that the Minister puts forward. I believe that my amendment is eminently reasonable. I intend to press it.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 25; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonbv of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Blatch,B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Burton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grantchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trafford, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further debate on Report on the Football Spectators Bill be now adjourned until after the Second Reading of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill, which in any case will not be resumed before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
7.53 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The provision of rapid transport systems, or people movers as I prefer to call them, in urban areas of this country and abroad is becoming increasingly common. But naturally the choice or the system to be adopted depends in each case on the nature of the problems to be surmounted, the existence and effectiveness of transport systems and the available land corridors on which the system can be based. The London Docklands Railway and the Tyne &Wear Metro are recent examples, and light rail schemes have been authorised for Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, extensions of which are also planned. Other light railway schemes are on their way in Avon and the West Midlands. All these schemes are for improving public transport over wide areas.
However, the present Bill, which is promoted by the Southampton City Council and is unopposed by the Hampshire County Council, is of a different kind, as it is intended to improve transport in the city centre of Southampton but be capable of further extension if necessary. Southampton, like many other historic cities whose shape was determined by history rather than by planning, has serious problems of traffic congestion, allied to car parking problems. The existing transport termini—railway, ferry, coach, bus and car parks—are widely spaced and the walking distance to destinations is often considerable, since office centres, retail shops and the newly developing leisure and tourist attractions in the old dock area are also widely spread. All these problems are likely to be aggravated by approximately £1 billion of private sector development in the city centre, further stretching communication lines both south to the waterfront and to the west.
Southampton City Council, like many other local authorities beset by problems of this kind, has been seeking to identify possible solutions. Consequently it appointed a team of consultants with expertise in all the relevant skills to investigate the range of options available to the council and to make recommendations. This team carried out a detailed analysis of the city, its structure, its highways and traffic, its economic future and developments in the pipeline, its parks, leisure and tourism facilities, its offices and retail establishments and, last but not least, its historic and conservation background.
It became clear that in practice there were two chief ways of increasing accessibility within the city centre: namely a light rail system, such as I mentioned before, or the kind of system authorised by the present Bill; that is to say, a system of electrically-powered automated vehicles running on rubber-tyred wheels on a segregated guide way completely separate from other means of transport. Further research, not forgetting common sense, ruled out the first alternative; that was the light railway system, involving significant surface running on the streets in the city, which would have conflicted with existing and well-established highway use, with the inevitable delays which would lead to an inability to

451
plan journey timetables with any degree of accuracy and I believe the consequent poor support for the system from potential passengers. I should add that these obvious disadvantages resulted in this light railway system becoming unpopular with those private enterprise firms that were consulted with a view to providing the necessary funds to design, construct, operate and maintain such a system. Everywhere in the world today it is recognised that people movers must not conflict with the traditional transport routes. They must either go underground or overground.
I believe that Southampton City Council has been remarkably successful in recent years in developing a partnership with the private sector over many commercial issues in the city. The council felt it was right to act as a catalyst for the private sector in respect of this rapid transport system. It subsequently invested £ million in professional work examining feasibility and viability. I should say that this investment came from the city's capital account, and it confidently expects the money to be recouped when the operating concession is granted. The studies have also been grant-aided by the English Tourist Board, which is a strong supporter of the concept both regionally and nationally.
The Bill authorises a system which would be convenient, comfortable, quiet and pollution-free. It is planned in such a way that it does not disrupt the established highway activity and will cause least harm to the environment. Speaking about the environment, the reason the loop is not complete is that the council felt that the environmental advantages of not going to the park at this stage were paramount. However, it can be completed later.
I am perhaps one of the few people in the country to have experience in building and operating a monorail system, because one was established in my grounds at Beaulieu in 1974 and has been operating successfully ever since. It certainly does most expertly the job that it was designed to do; namely, to spread visitors round the grounds in a quiet and effective way.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that supporters of Southampton's rapid transit system include the local Chamber of Commerce and prominent business people in the community. There has been wide consultation through regional television, radio, local and national press, exhibitions, targeted information packs, public meetings and an independent scientific public attitude survey. All the evidence suggests that the majority of Southampton's residents are in favour of the proposals. Significantly, the major public transport undertakings in the city—that is, bus, coach and ferry operators and British Rail—which might have been expected to object, have not done so. They are supporters of the scheme.
As I have indicated, it is the private sector which it is hoped will provide the necessary finance to get Southampton's rapid transit system going. Although at this stage before the scheme is authorised by Parliament there can be little in the way of definite commitment, the private sector, when consulted,
452
expressed definite enthusiasm for linking proposed developments to the construction of the rapid transit system. A positive funding interest has been shown by major banking institutions and there has been interest from one property developer in building and operating a section of the works. Ten out of the 12 proposed halts have identifiable beneficiaries who would gain from increased trade, enhanced freehold and leasehold values, increased floor space rentals and so forth. What could be better for the business of, say, a departmental store than to have a rapid transit station halt close to it or even forming part of the building?
I have been assured by the Southampton City Council that, in the unlikely event of private finance not being available to build and operate the system, under no circumstances will the ratepayer be expected to fill that gap.
I stress that the route seeks flexibility in alignment, reflecting the integration opportunities within new development, some of which has yet to be finalised. For those reasons the limits of deviation are wide in several areas and, naturally, have drawn some protective petitions.
There are 16 petitions, which can be divided roughly into three interest groups. Four petitions are from individuals of past or current local political office. Eight petitions are from interested landowners or occupiers along the route, but, of those, seven welcome the proposals in principle but quite rightly wish to protect their interests. Officers of the city council are already in the process of visiting the petitioners to see what accommodation can be made. I understand that only today one major petitioner—Debenhams—has indicated that it wishes to support the scheme in principle. The four remaining petitions are from conservation groups.
It may be appropriate if I now speak as chairman of English Heritage. Although we have not yet resolved our formal views, one of my fellow commissioners together with a senior official has recently visited Southampton. Although we shall wish to express concern over the detailed design of this scheme and the actual route where it affects Mayflower Park and the city walls, we are confident that the matters can be resolved. We certainly should not wish to oppose the scheme in principle.
The detailed evidence of the petitions is of course a matter which can be examined by a Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing great faith in the ability of the Select Committee procedure of the House of Lords to give petitioners a fair hearing and to produce an objective and politically unbiased report on the scheme.
There is one new feature in that the Bill authorises an automatic system of a kind not yet in public service in a city centre in the United Kingdom. The promoter may be accused of being radical but is in fact following a well-established public transport trend both in finance and in technology. There are numerous examples of this tried and well-tested public transport technology operating in other parts of the world. For example, in the past three years Jacksonville, Miami and Sydney have opened their own systems and the early 1990s will see similar

453
operations starting in Bordeaux, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Orly, Taipei and Chicago.
However, one of the best examples of a fully automated, electrically propelled public transport system working successfully in an urban centre can be found in Lille, a city not dissimilar in size to Southampton. It opened in 1983 and has been extended twice in order to cope with increased demand. To date it has carried over 130 million passengers. The operators of the Lille system rightly claim that it is one of the most efficient public transport systems operating anywhere in the world.
I turn briefly to deal with the provisions of the Bill. Part II confers power to construct the rapid transit system. Clause 4 authorises the proposed guideway. Clause 5 authorises the stopping up of parts of two streets and the construction of adjustments to footways. Clause 7 will enable the council to construct various subsidiary works. Clauses 8 and 9 confer necessary powers upon the Secretary of State to approve the rapid transit system and particular details of it.
Others powers in Part II (including the temporary stoppage of streets, the underpinning of houses, the use of sewers for removing water and the making of by-laws and regulations) are generally common form in such Bills and I need describe them no further. Likewise, Part III of the Bill contains the usual land provisions for such Bills. Parts IV and V contain certain protective and miscellaneous provisions.
I believe that concern has been expressed by certain people and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 37 in particular. It gives the powers to form a company. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a highly desirable method of enabling private interests to fund, manage and control the system free of local authority control. This approach is being encouraged by central government in relation to other local government activities such as bus transport undertakings.
I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will see fit to afford it an unopposed Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
8.7 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for the manner in which he put forward the claims of the Southampton City Council in respect of the Bill. Were it not for the conventions of your Lordships' House I should have tabled a six-months' Motion or a notice of rejection of the Bill on the grounds which I shall later describe. However, I abide by the conventions of your Lordships' House and expect that the Select Committee to which the Bill will be committed will give due consideration not only to the petitions, to which I shall refer, but to this short debate.
I was born in Southampton and had business interests there for several years. I no longer have such interests. However, I claim some knowledge of the city. When I lived there it was a town but now it is a city of approximately 206,000 people.
454
Over the past few months the local press has described the project variously as a "sky bus" and a "toy bus" which runs over three miles from nowhere to nowhere and back again. I do not believe that it is right for my noble friend Lord Montagu to equate his aerial system with that serving a city. I shall come back to the kind of people who use the city and where they come from.
I start by suggesting to your Lordships that the survey, of which the city council make great play, has suspect details. When the scheme was put before the people in Southampton—and it was put forward in a variety of ways, at public meetings, in leaflets, during door to door surveys and so on—one survey suggested that 51 per cent. of the people who responded were in favour and 48 per cent. were not, with a few "don't knows". That was on the basis that the scheme was an entire loop. Subsequently, the northern section was omitted. My noble friend has given a reason for that. My understanding is that that is not the total reason but that does not matter. The northern loop is not there so it is not a circular system.
It was also put before the people before the total costs involved were known and long before the deposited papers indicated the lines of deviation which are now of great concern. My attention was drawn to that matter in late December by a small group of businessmen and I have been very surprised by the number of letters and telephone calls which I have received and by the number of people to whom I have spoken about it. There are 16 petitions, as my noble friend said, and I accept that he accurately described, broadly speaking, the three groups into which they fall. I am sure that he would agree that none of those petitions is frivolous or vexatious. As he said, there are a number which deal with the retention and use of parklands, rights given under Acts of Parliament going back to 1844, the 1850s and 1860s culminating in the 1938 Act.
This horseshoe people mover, which does not have the flexibility claimed, can certainly be extended but that is not flexibility. If you put up concrete pillars to support an aerial tramway, you cannot move them around. You cannot easily move them should the centre of leisure, shopping or commerce shift. Since I was a boy in Southampton back in the 1930s—oh dear, that is a long time ago, is it not?—I have seen the centre marginally change.
To the east the suggested scheme starts just above the railway and goes to the coach station. If you alight at any of those halts or stations you still have a fairly uphill climb to the centre of the city. To the south the scheme goes down to the ferry, marinas and waterfront. It is still three-quarters of a mile or so to the centre of commerce and shopping. To the west it goes through the parklands and finally stops behind the top third quarter of the main shopping area. Above that quarter of the main shopping area the transit system does not meet any demand at all. It does not meet any requirement in that above London Road and into The Avenue there are a number of professional houses, law houses, dental surgeries, commercial buildings and offices. Indeed, the magistrates' court is three-quarters of a mile away from where the railway either ends or starts, depending on which way you apply yourself to the

455
loop. In truth, it does not bring shoppers or business people nearer or more easily to the centre or anywhere near to the new law courts and law centre.
The economic basis of the city is essentially commercial and shopping although there is some light industry. It has a population of 206,000 people. The authorities (the economic development unit) claim a catchment area of something in excess of half a million people. They admit that daily 40,000 people come into the city to work and to shop and, conversely, those 40,000 people move out at night. There are 16,000 people who move out in the mornings to work in Winchester, Romsey, Portsmouth or wherever and come back again. Therefore, there are something like 100,000 car movements daily. Where do they come from? Basically they come from the conurbations to the east, from Bitterne, Hedge End and possibly as far as Fareham. To the north they come from Chilworth, Chandler's Ford and possibly as far as Romsey. To the West they come from Redbridge, Totton and possibly Lyndhurst. All those three areas, because not many come across the sea from the Isle of Wight to work, have difficult approaches. There are either bridges or causeways or the narrow avenue from the North.
Of course, the promoters say that the scheme envisaged in the Bill is not intended to provide access for the very people who work in and subscribe to the financial success of the city. It is not intended to help them. Presumably it is intended to help them when they have arrived. I believe that I have earlier described how it does not help them.
I suggest that the scheme envisaged in the Bill is no substitute for a real traffic engineering plan not only for the city and the environs, but the conurbations surrounding the city which provide the wealth of the city. There is no conflict. It is wrong for my noble friend to suggest that with a proper traffic engineering system, a surface transit system would conflict with existing traffic because year on year, as fashions change, a surface system can be adopted and car parks on the periphery of the city should be provided.
There really are very few car parking spaces. I believe that there are about 10,000 public spaces in the city. For some years the city has said that it would double it but no one has yet identified where it will be doubled. If it were to be within the city area, then there is still the problem of transporting the workers and the shoppers into the city. That is the real problem.
It is claimed by the city that it will provide a tourist attraction. I do not wish to be demeaning to the City of Southampton, my birthplace, but I have to face the fact that it has no unique selling feature as a tourist centre. Tourist authorities describe Southampton as a route centre. There are 1,100 beds in the hotels around the city. There is not a five star hotel there and those beds are largely occupied by business people during the week and at weekends by some visitors whose main reason for staying there is to visit the Maritime Heritage Centre at Portsmouth; the cathedrals at Winchester and Salisbury; the New Forest and the Isle of Wight.
456
Southampton itself has the Mitchell Museum, one or two other small museums, some medieval remnants—notably the old walls—but nothing else. The city claims, rightly and properly, the famous International Boat Show, which it expects to retain because the city is very energetic about it. It has been talking about a world trade and exhibition centre to my certain knowledge for the past 20 years, but it is not yet there.
The crucial question is, who pays for this? My noble friend said that business and some financial institutions are in favour of the project. I have failed to find, despite great diligence not only locally but in London and in the City, any commitment from the private sector to put up money for the scheme. My noble friend might well argue when winding up, "Why should there be an up-front contribution and a commitment until they know they have a Bill?" In Bristol, which I admit is a somewhat different and larger city, some millions of pounds of private sector money are already committed to its scheme. There is no such commitment from the private sector for this scheme, so far as I can establish.
The council says that the scheme is to be backed by private sector money. Perhaps my noble friend will make a commitment tonight, with his experience of such schemes. Perhaps he knows people. I do not. No one has come to me. Therefore, if the city has made that clear—I shall come in a moment to its recently produced statement, which was delivered to your Lordships and others on 11th April—why does the city need Clause 36 and, more particularly, Clause 37? I draw attention to Clause 37. It states:
"The Council may form and promote, or join with any other person in forming and promoting, a company for carrying on any activities",
and so on. Clause 36 states:
"The Council may sell, lease, charge or otherwise dispose of, on such terms and conditions as they think fit, the whole or any part of the RT system or the right to operate",
and so on. If the city council is so determined that the cost of this scheme, estimated at about £60 million, shall be subscribed from the private sector, why does it need those two clauses unless to preserve its position in the event of insufficient private sector money being attracted?
It is said that the scheme will not cost the ratepayers anything. So far, £75,000 has been expended in surveys, research, and so on. My noble friend was right that the Tourist Board provided £23,000—he will correct me if I am wrong, but the amount was of that order—towards that initial work. It is interesting to note that the council has provided for another £750,000 in the 1989-90 budget. That is all ratepayers' money.
It is suggested that, if this Bill goes through Parliament and provided the money is made available, 1993 is expected to be the operative date. We shall be in a very different local tax system by 1993—the uniform business rate. It has to be added that there are not many residential dwellings within the confines of the city. Your Lordships will note the petition of a Mr. Knox, who has a dwelling in the Town Quay area. In his petition he says that it is his sole dwelling. The aerial bus way will run within 75 yards of his home and will destroy his amenity. Therefore, there is some residential development and residents will also have to pay.

457
However, the business community suggests to me that it is the business rate which will have to provide the safety net. The business community can see no benefit, for the reasons I have already given, for tourism or for the commercial and shopping area of Southampton. That area itself is being developed towards the north end of what is called Above Bar Street. Southampton was rebuilt after the war, following the 1920s, in one straight spine with some lines off. There is a considerable amount of commercial shopping development which is to be undertaken, or is in the planning stage, at the northern end—the third quarter of the shopping area, as I have described it.
Clauses 36 and 37 give rise to great concern in the business community. It is not unusual in such Bills that a statement of interest should be issued. It is surprising to me, however, that Southampton City Council, apparently so assured of the support of local people—I have described some of the suspect points in the survey—should on Tuesday, 11th April distribute a statement through its parliamentary agents. I suggest that that statement was issued purely and simply because the local authority felt that the Bill might be denied a Second Reading in this House.
I draw particular attention to paragraph 5:
"Although the City Council have initiated the scheme for rapid transit, it is intended that the system should be largely financed by contributions from developers and from other sources in the private sector."
The Bill indeed contains provisions under which the city council may form or join with other persons in forming a company for carrying out activities to be authorised under the intended Act. It seems odd to me that a declaration of that kind should have to be made. If it is made, what then of Clauses 36 and 37? Why not add this statement to the Bill, thereby assuring the business community that in no way will any costs fall on it?
Paragraph 6 of the Statement says that:
"Several petitions have been deposited against the Bill, but the City Council submit that the merits of the Bill raise issues which can more conveniently be discussed in detail before a Select Committee of your Right Honourable House".
As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that point. My noble friend spoke about Debenhams. I believe he said that it has withdrawn its objection. I had no knowledge of that. I do not know whether he meant that it has withdrawn its objection in principle or whether it has withdrawn its petition. It matters not because your Lordships' Select Committee will deal with the petitions as they arise. There is a real issue here, and that is the threat that the residents, the ratepayers or polltax payers and the businesss taxpayers may have to pick up the tab for a scheme which does not bring the clients of commercial and shopping interests nearer to them. It does not deal with the crucial problem of getting 40,000 to 50,000 people in and out of the city twice a day. It does not substitute for proper road traffic engineering. I ask that the Select Committee appointed to give consideration to this Bill has regard to the matters that I have raised in this short debate and perhaps it will make a special report to your Lordships' House.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra:My Lords, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who introduced this debate for the way in which he did so. The noble Lord has clearly studied these matters with great care. He made a presentation of this imaginative scheme in such a way that it has led me at any rate to take a different view from that expressed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, rightly stated, the growth of modern cities requires a new approach to urban transport. Many are being tried out in the major cities of Western Europe, America, Australia and elsewhere. The initiative taken by the City of Southampton in pioneering this scheme is to be commended and encouraged. It has very carefully researched the project and it has come down in favour of one which will minimise the interference with existing built-up areas. As I understand it, 70 per cent. of the route will be through areas which are either being developed or are to be developed. Clearly Southampton is a City that is expanding. It is right that, at this stage of physical expansion, a new communications system should be developed.
Another aspect that attracts me to the system is that it will link different transport termini. When we debated recently in this House the problems of traffic in central London, many noble Lords deplored the fact that the linkage between termini is virtually non-existent or inadequate. Here is an arrangement that will provide just that kind of linkage. When speaking to my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport today about this subject, he asked me to say, as someone who is familiar with travelling to and from the Isle of Wight, everyone who makes that journey would welcome this development. It would facilitate usage of the fast train service from Southampton station more than has been the case hitherto because of the difficulty of getting over the short distance between the ferry terminal and the station. That link will now be provided by this system.
The council has given a very clear commitment that the scheme will be financed from private funds. It has stated that if private funds were not raised in no way would it proceed with this project. We must accept that commitment. I wish to deal with one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He said that he was concerned about the inflexibility of the system. Of course any fixed transport system is inflexible. Once laid down a rail system is inflexible. But flexibility can be introduced by extension. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, told us, regarding the very successful and similar station that they have in Lille, introduced in 1983, it has been extended now a number of times. That would be the way in which flexibility can be obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that instead of going ahead with this scheme, there should be a real traffic engineering plan. In all probability that is needed as well. I do not see why the one should necessarily replace the other. We need as many ways as can be devised for improving movement in and around our cities. He expressed some doubt about how the money would be raised. The acid test will come as to whether the money is raised', or not.

459
The noble Lord drew attention to Clauses 36 and 37 as implying that the City Council might take the project over itself. I do not see it that way. I believe it is doing what any prudent organisation would do in drawing up its articles of association. It would draw them up as widely as possible to meet any possible contingency. The council has made it very clear that this scheme is to be privately funded. While I totally respect the very great knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has of Southampton—I have been only an occasional visitor to that eminent city—I nevertheless feel that this is an imaginative venture, and that it is worthy of support. It has been very carefully researched and presented. I conclude by hoping that this Bill will go successfully through its remaining stages.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I also welcome this Bill and the proposals so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I wish to approach the subject from a slightly different tack initially and perhaps in not such a parochial way. I draw your Lordships' attention to a speech made by John Banham, the director general of the CBI, at the Chartered Institute of Transport last Monday. He said that in national terms we are developing a huge problem of congestion. He said that congestion costs money, and at the end of the day costs are not passed on to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas' businessman friend, they are passed on to the consumer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I am not quite sure what he meant when he said that the costs would be passed on to me and my business friends. I said that I have no business interests in Southampton. The inference that I draw from what he said is not totally fair.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had listened to what I said, he would have heard me say that the costs would not end with him and his business—I withdraw the word "friend"—but with his business advisers and contacts. At the end of the day, the costs are borne by the consumer.
The CBI carried out a nationwide survey and worked out that the cost of congestion may be in the region of 15 billion per annum. That represents about 10 per household per week. That brings me back to the question of Southampton and its householders. It is a national problem and a long term one, be it nationwide or that which Southampton is so ably seeking to address in bringing forward this Bill. Not only are there the current costs of congestion but there are problems of developing a new transport infrastructure. That is what Mr. Banham was getting at. A new railway can take 10 years from conception to opening. A new road—the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Montagu, know of the problems we have with the Winchester bypass—can take well over 15 years, of which perhaps only three years is taken on actual construction. The approach adopted by
460
Southampton is innovative and is a determined and positive attempt to get round such problems.
The scheme seems to have three merits. The first is segregation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that this did not address itself to the problems of people travelling in and out. This is a Southampton Bill. Totton is not in Southampton district: it is in the New Forest. Romsey is in the New Forest. The noble Lord can tell us better than I exactly where Chilworth is, but I do not believe that it is in the Southampton district. Most of the places on the other side of the estuary are not in Southampton. One has a sympathy with Southampton in addressing itself to a Southampton city problem. Segregation is an easy way. If it is put up on stilts most of the roads will be untouched. There are not many stopping-up orders or proposals in the Bill. It leaves most of the arterial roads in and out of Southampton untouched as far as I can see.
I turn to integration. Many of those who dabble in the transport debates in the House believe that transport should be integrated. That point was also made by Mr. Banham in his speech. The fact that the scheme will link the Isle of Wight pier and will link the bus and coach stations seems to be a form of integration and is thus to be welcomed. That is why, I presume, no rail, bus or ferry interest has opposed the Bill in its general principles.
My third reason for supporting the Bill is one I have mentioned before. Over the past decade the Government have created an environment in which private sector investment in transport infrastructure has become, if not fashionable, then certainly acceptable. I pay tribute to them for that. We have the undertaking from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on behalf of the council that this will be a privately funded project. That is absolutely excellent. This proposal is a rational approach to the complexities of transport planning and to some if not all of the problems of Southampton. I urge the House to give it a Second Reading and to pass it upstairs to a Select Committee.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, I believe that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and a Third Reading in time. I support it for the following reasons. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that transport needs new ideas. This is not the first light rapid transit railway to which Parliament has been asked to give approval. Parliament has given approval to schemes in Greater Manchester and in the West Midlands. I am aware that those schemes are rather different because they amalgamated existing and redundant railway lines and rundown streets and busy streets and their shopping centres. This is different. It may not be a monorail but it is a light rapid transit scheme. I wish it were a monorail, for which reason I shall explain later.
The London Docklands Light Railway has been a phenomenal and immediate success against all predictions. This scheme will, I hope, follow that success. I am not trying to show off, but I was in Sydney, New South Wales, last October. I travelled

461
on Sydney's monorail, which links the city centre to the Darling harbour complex. This was originally docks and marshalling yards but is now an impressive exhibition and conference centre with many splendid shops and extraordinary eating places. One can sit in the middle of the complex and see many different restaurants. Some serve prawns and others serve Vietnamese food, Indian food or French food. I recommend Darling harbour.
The Sydney monorail faced immense opposition but now it is a success. It fails slightly in the sense that it does not link Circular Quay or Wynyard station, which is the link for the north shore. Nevertheless, it is fairly accessible. If people want to get out—as my wife and I did—it does not take very long to walk down the street to Wynward station to take the train to the north shore or the bus station. Sydney is a fine city. The monorail does not interfere with the traffic. It is neither unsightly nor noisy. As my noble friend Lord Montagu mentioned, this type of system is totally free from pollution, as the Southampton scheme will be. I can describe myself as a typical Pommie. I have been to Sydney three times and I believe that the monorail enhances the city.
The second reason for supporting the Bill is that the elected representatives on Southampton council have supported it strongly on two occasions, including once this year on a free vote. That vote endorsed a resolution which, among other things, stated that the system was not to be subsidised by the ratepayer. That point was put strongly by my noble friend and I am happy with it. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will be happy with that now. Perhaps he is not.
My third reason for supporting the Bill is that the system will be a tourist attraction. Unlike the scheme in Sydney, this one will link up the station, the docks and the shops. I agree with my noble friend that one may have to go downstairs; but there may be a lift. My noble friend said that Southampton was not an historical, medieval city. It has absolutely splendid walls. However, whoever thought that Wigan would be a tourist attraction? George Formby may have helped with his song about Wigan pier. People flock to Wigan. People flock to Liverpool. I shall not say very much about Glasgow because the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will extol the virtues of that city very shortly. Tourism comes not only to ancient and historical cities. People are interested in industrial exhibitions and museums.
The scheme has some shortcomings. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned Nursling, Totton, Bassettand other places. I am not totally unfamiliar with Southampton. A good deal has to be done to deal with traffic congestion. It may be possible to link various stations with other monorails at a later stage. From that point of view the system is flexible and pliable. I sat down in the Library of the House and was told by one or two noble friends that the scheme is not circular but circumvents certain areas to avoid going through a pretty park. That is a mistake and should be considered again. At this point in the scheme poles could be erected and then painted rather attractively. The train will be shaped rather like a bullet and will not exude fumes.
462
The poles might have to go through certain flowerbeds or various shrubs. If he were here my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale would be able to tell us whether moving a magnolia or other shrub would cause damage. One could use a good heap of dung when replanting them. Unfortunately, my noble friend is not here. If the scheme were circular it would be very much more economical.
I really do not have very much more to say save that I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading tonight. Various petitions against it are coming in all the time. However once the Bill has been to the Select Committee of this House there will probably be fewer of them. One wishes this scheme well and other like schemes in other cities in this country.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for the way he introduced the Bill. Indeed, other noble Lords have commented upon the fact that he did so with a great deal of completeness and that he displayed a great knowledge of the area. However, it is. also only fair that the House should recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who was born in Southampton, obviously has a knowledge which most of us—certainly myself—do not have. He too raised many points which cannot be totally ignored. However, having read the literature, I believe that most of those points can be answered and will not be ignored. I think that one can say that the noble Lord spoke with a certain subdued passion about the whole business. In my view, one of his main points was obvious when one looked at the plans; namely, that it is not a circular system. That point has also been mentioned by many noble Lords tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made one of the really important points—I believe it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—for all those who are interested in transport. He said that there are many ways to overcome urban traffic problems. Undoubtedly urban congestion is a national and an international problem and many methods will need to be used to resolve it.
This scheme put forward by Southampton City Council seems to me at this stage—although obviously we need to await the results of the Select Committee—to be one which causes the least problems to the area and which in fact gives the best benefits to the area. There is no doubt that it is widely supported by the local people. I have only been in Southampton once—perhaps twice—and therefore cannot consider myself, by any means, to be someone who knows the geography of the area. However, I have a certain training in map reading. I think that the scheme covers a fairly important part of the city. Further, I must accept the fact that those who live in the area would not be pushing such a scheme if it did not at least superficially appear to solve some of the traffic problems.
I turn now to the question of whether the city is a cultural centre. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot,

463
suggested that it may be. He mentioned the point about Glasgow. All I shall say about that matter—indeed, I really cannot resist it—is that the City Fathers of Glasgow opened our circular railway on 15th December 1895. In those days it went under ground so we are slightly ahead of Southampton in that respect. They showed a great deal of foresight. However, it moved by cable then. It was later electrified and modernised. It went through a bad period—and this is something we should think about in connection with Southampton—when the city began to be cleared and there were new developments going on. From being an incredibly successful money-earner, the Underground in Glasgow began to deteriorate. But, it is now on its way up because the city is living again.
One sometimes gets these ups and downs in transport. There was even talk about whether it was worth continuing with. However, nowadays, no one would think of getting rid of the Glasgow subway. It consists of only 15 stations, but it is extremely successful, and, having had that experience of the city and knowing that cities all over the world are having great problems in this respect, I think the very least that the House can do is to allow this Bill to go forward to a Select Committee. I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said will be well examined in that committee. Moreover, many other points will no doubt be made for and against the scheme. Nevertheless, I hope that this time your Lordships' House will allow the Bill to go forward, and perhaps we may have a wider and more knowledgeable debate on the subject once we have the Select Committee's full report.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:My Lords, it may be helpful at this point if I intervene to give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill.
This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light transport systems in our major cities. Potentially these systems have many advantages: for example, where segregated from other vehicles, they achieve faster speeds than buses; they also have the flexibility to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways.
The Bill promoted by Southampton City Council seeks powers to construct and operate the proposed system. I understand that it is intended to be financed by private developers. We welcome the involvement of the private sector in the provision of innovative passenger transport systems.
The Government traditionally stand neutral on private Bills, and we have no objection to the principle of the Bill. My department is satisfied that aspects of public safety are to be adequately dealt with. We have a few minor points outstanding with the promoters, but expect to resolve them satisfactorily.
It is of course for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. There are, as has been mentioned, 16 petitions against the Bill from affected landowners, and those who object to the Bill on general and environmental grounds. They will have the
464
opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are this evening to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I hope therefore that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed, in the usual way, to committee for this detailed consideration.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially those who supported the Second Reading of the Bill. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said. He has great knowledge of Southampton. I hope he will forgive me at this late hour for not answering his points in detail. However, I can assure him that I, or the promoters, will be in touch with him shortly to do just that. I certainly take issue with him about Southampton not being a tourist centre; indeed it is improving all the time. Further, he forgot to mention the famous and fine art gallery which the city possesses. However, having said that, I am sure that all such matters like the question of a company are covered in my speech. Indeed, if the noble Lord reads my speech, I think he will see that I explained why I believe a company is necessary.
However, at this late stage. I should just like to say that I believe and am confident that the Bill will authorise a system which will be convenient, comfortable, accessible to all, quiet, pollution-free and space and energy efficient. In my view such a reliable, frequent, low-fare paying public service will be of benefit to the residents, visitors and commercial interests. It will provide transport for large numbers of people in what is now a fast expanding city centre. I believe that the proposal will have positive effects and benefits to trade and employment opportunities in Southampton.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 7.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 6, line I, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Offence of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter at which we have already looked. We have the incredible situation that, if a licence holder transgresses, it is possible for him, on conviction, to be sent to prison for a term not exceeding two years. There will be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of football club directors who will have to consider their position carefullly. We have argued about who should be the licensing authority. The present position is that it could be the FMA. We sought to have the local authority in whose area the ground was located considered. We have on ice the Minister's views that if the local authority associations wish to discuss with him, or the FMA, the proposal that they might be more appropriate, that is up to them. That is a satisfactory situation.
Clause 8 relates to a licensee who is alleged to have allowed into the ground spectators who should not be allowed into the ground. The defence of the licence holder, which in the corporate sense must be the club (directors will be responsible), could be that the spectators who committed the offence were admitted without his consent and/or he took all reasonable precautions. The clause then states:
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

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

I invite the House and those outside the House who read the proceedings with care to note that we are now creating an offence. The directors already have the Minister's permission to consider a guest card scheme which would allow a range of people into the ground without their being members of the scheme. If those people misbehave themselves and someone holds that the directors have not exercised due care and diligence, it will be possible under the Act for the crime committed by the directors to be punished by a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years and a fine. That type of crime, if crime it is (the Government are making it a crime) does not deserve a term of imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment for what is, by any objective standards, a relatively trivial offence is preposterously draconian. Whenever we discuss legislation and query high maximum sentences we are reminded, sometimes by the Government, sometimes by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, or other noble Lords with legal experience and expertise, that they are after all only a maximum. We are well aware of that fact, but the existence of a high maximum cannot but help push up the average sentence imposed beyond what might otherwise have been imposed were the maximum lower.
466
We are notorious for having the highest prison population in Europe except for Turkey,. For heaven's sake let us not add to it by creating an additional prison sentence for what is after all a totally non-violent crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the offence and its proposed maximum penalty are important to ensure that those who are responsible for the running of football grounds and clubs abide by the law and therefore allow the scheme to work. The courts need to have the power of a maximum penalty of imprisonment for use should they ever be faced with a case of repeated and flagrant disregard for the law. I believe that we can rely upon the courts' judgment to restrict the use of that power to those serious cases which warrant such a severe punishment. In Committee I gave the example of the responsible person who is in charge of the football club who deliberately and perpetually breaks the law on the basis that, "Anyhow, the club will pay the fine". If that were to be the case, the courts would need to have a more serious sentence at their disposal.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lard Winstanley, asked me whether the penalty of imprisonment was available to the courts in respect of those responsible for running a football club who were found to be in breach of fire or safety regulations. The fire and safety regulations are a separate issue, but the same penalties are available for those matters as are proposed for these. It is reasonable to keep the two the same. As I have explained previously, the only purpose of such a high penalty is for those people who are repeated and deliberate offenders.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he suggested that we should rely upon the courts' judgment as to what was the right sentence to impose. That is fine, but why are not the Government prepared to rely upon the courts' judgment in respect of the length of suspension which we discussed when we debated Amendment No. 53?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I might have the leave of the House, I believe, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was transgressing the rules by making a second speech. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have sat down. The fact is that that is a separate matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I carefully noted that the Minister said that a term of imprisonment for the alleged crime of allowing people to contravene the terms of the licence was needed for repeated, flagrant and deliberate violations. I imagine that the people who are licence holders will be very jealous of their licence. After all, it is their livelihood, it is their club and they will not be able to operate without a licence. I acknowledge that the Minister and his advisers have been very careful to spell out that, in giving a list of exemptions, the clubs would have to carry the responsibility for issuing whatever is issued in order for the disabled or the accompanied children etc. to be exempt. The clubs have great responsibilities to sponsors for their club facilities. They ought not to take those responsi-

467
bilities lightly. They should make sure that when there are visitors from overseas—foreigners who will be able to get into the ground—the clubs will not risk their licences lightly.
I say, and I believe that anybody else would say, that we are not talking in general terms of the hooligan, the yobbo or people of violence. We are talking about respectable business men and women who have trusted people to behave themselves but in the event they have been let down. I imagine that it will happen once, if at all, and then the clubs will tighten up their rules and regulations. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about the state of our prisons and the pressure on our courts, and of trying to get the proposal off the ground in a reasonable sense, to talk of such a penalty is absolutely amazing. However, I do not intend to press the matter at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Licenses to admit spectators: general]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 27, 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.
Clause 10 [Licences to admit spectators: revocation and suspension]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 23, after ("in") insert ("paragraphs (d), (e), (h) and (i) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 62. The amendment deals with adjusting the schedule. The full schedule includes a wide range of minor offences, and even if these are held to be relevant to a withdrawal of membership of the scheme, the imposition of restriction orders on the same basis appears unnecessarily harsh. The requirement to report an agency whenever specified would be a punishment added to that imposed for the offence and would involve recurrent restrictions on freedom of movement.
What we are talking about here is to limit the offences which are relevant to restriction orders to those involving violence or the threat of violence. That of course is slightly in line with an earlier amendment regarding the punishment of losing membership. This amendment relates to whether a restriction order will be imposed. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the first of these amendments seeks to limit the range of football-related offences in respect of which a court might make a restriction order to those of violence only.
468
It would exclude offences relating to alcohol under the public order Act. The second amendment raises the test to be applied by the court before making an order so as to require the court to be satisfied that imposing such an order would help to prevent violence or serious disorder at designated matches. Taken together I believe that they would seriously diminish the effect of the provision from that intended and threaten to undermine a scheme, the principle of which I believe is widely supported by your Lordships.
It is necessary to remember, painful though it may be, those ugly scenes of hooliganism in Germany last June: the pictures on our television screens every night of hordes of Union Jack-clad youths involved in drunken brawls and on the rampage on the streets of Düsseldorf and Frankfurt. Carefully planned policing ensured that there were few incidents of violent crime and serious disorder, but the disgusting behaviour witnessed there was totally unacceptable by any standards. It is a repetition of such shameful scenes that the Government are seeking to avoid by the restriction order provision.
If these amendments are accepted, the courts will be powerless to act against those whose behaviour is so offensive—the drunk, abusive and threatening louts who have unfortunately become synonymous abroad with England's football supporters. In the same way that Part I aims to exclude all our convicted hooligans from matches at home, so should they all be prevented from inflicting themselves on other countries. With this intention in mind, the courts should be required to be satisfied that the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at matches abroad, including both serious brawling and drunken and insulting behaviour. I see no need to raise the threshold to serious disorder, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will see that the provisions as they stand in the Bill are really best left unamended.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope the Minister can help me. I genuinely plead ignorance here. Is there a definition of the word "serious" in this context? Can he tell the House what constitutes disorder as opposed to serious disorder? We have drawn attention to serious disorder because we believe that there are different levels of offences. One must look at these in context. It appears to me in the light of what the Minister has said that there are matters which, although they certainly may not be pleasant or welcome, could be caught by this provision. Who determines what constitutes disorder? Is that left to the individual policeman or the individual police officer in charge of an area?
The Minister pleaded the case which he and his noble friends have pleaded so often, which is that one needs to be punitive in words and in intentions in order to apply the strictest deterrent. I hope that he understands that participating in football, whether at home or abroad, is a very exciting, emotional, noisy and often exhilarating experience. None of those aspects of participation in football causes violence and, in my view, within limits they do not cause disorder.

469
Does the Minister acknowledge that football needs to continue, not just as a spectator sport but as an experience for those who take part in it? I use the word "partisans" in the best sense of the term, but the partisans at a football match get very excited and shout and scream. They become very heavily involved in the match, but that does not constitute disorder. Spectators walking around in the streets are not necessarily causing an offence because they are encouraging themselves on and getting hyped up. I am not talking in terms of their taking drink but in terms of spectators hyping themselves up because they know they are going to take part in a great experience. Will the Minister tell me what the difference is between serious disorder and disorder?
Earl Ferrers:My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct when he says that football must continue to be enjoyed by people. We are of course all entirely at one with that. However, I know the noble Lord will realise that no restriction order will be placed on a person unless he has committed a football related offence. It is not for a policeman to decide whether that offence constitutes a serious disorder or whether it constitutes merely a disorder. The interpretation of the act that has been committed is left for the courts to decide. It will be for the courts to decide whether the act of which the person is accused is one which has created serious disorder.
It would be quite inappropriate for me to try to define what constitutes disorder and what constitutes serious disorder. I would not seek to do that, but the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows perfectly well that when a person appears before a court and is accused of something, it is up to the courts to interpret the law as it stands.
If one uses the term "serious disorder", it invites a distinction between some disorder which is acceptable and some disorder which is more serious and therefore is unacceptable. I think that would be a dangerous thing to do because, as I explained a few minutes ago, no restriction order will be placed on a person unless he has created a football related offence. Such an offence is an offence which of itself would have involved disorder.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Restriction orders]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Effect of order]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("five years") and insert ("two to five years at the discretion of the court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63, I shall also speak to
470
Amendment No. 64. The amendments are further attempts to reduce the severity of the punishments.
This is a good opportunity for me to tell the House what my colleagues and I have said repeatedly. Part II of the Bill in general is very welcome. It could be implemented overnight and in parliamentary terms have a speedy passage. That is because Part II deals with offences committed by people outside this country which have caused us shame and are a blot upon the good name of British football.. However, although we are at one with the Government in trying to deal with those who commit acts of hooliganism abroad, we believe that the punishment should be realistic.
Clause 14 deals with restriction orders and the length of restriction orders. Restriction orders are not new. They are delivered by courts in this country every week. I have witnessed with sadness the attempts by the Government to suggest not only that football clubs have done nothing to put their own house in order but that they are incapable of dealing with hooligans inside and outside their grounds. One can read—as I have even more carefully in the past few weeks—of instances in which British courts have dealt with hooligans. Twenty-five people were dealt with in the courts in Wolverhampton. A case is being dealt with in Manchester. Undoubtedly football clubs are familiar with the way in which courts deal with offenders and also with restrict ion orders.
The Bill states that the period for which a restriction order has effect is:
"in a case where he was sentenced in respect of that offence to a period of imprisonment taking immediate effect or of detention in a young offenders' institution, five years".
We say that a blanket sentence of five years is too severe, restrictive and inflexible. Instead of five years the amendment suggests that the sentence should be two to five years, at the discretion of the court.
I hope that the Minister will understand that it is possible for magistrates' courts to consider the same offence and to reach a different conclusion as to the appropriate sentence to be passed. It happens every day. It happens throughout the country. One has only to see how the magistrates in Rotherham and Epsom, or in Bristol or Manchester, deal with the same offence. Given the same offence magistrates, who are trained and sensible, decide on a different punishment. The Bill says that everyone who is guilty of a relevant offence shall be treated in exactly the same way. We know that there will be some people who are vicious and there will be some who have merely been caught up in a situation, We are seeking to introduce some flexibility, and that instead of five years the restriction order should apply for between two and five years.
The Bill states that in any other ease, namely in any other case in which the offender has not been imprisoned or sent to a young offenders' institution, the sentence should be two years. We suggest that it should be between six months and two years. I hope that the Minister will be more lenient in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the amendment. When we debated Amendment No. 57 the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, advised us to trust the

471
judgment of the courts in matters of sentencing. I think that that is good advice, and I commend it to the Government in relation to Amendments No. 63 and 64. I hope that they will be logical and consistent, and accept this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in Part I of the Bill we have provided a straightforward framework for disqualification from membership following conviction for a football related offence. The standard period of disqualification under the Bill is five years where the offender is sentenced to a period of immediate imprisonment or of detention in a young offenders' institution; and two years in other cases. The court does not have to decide whether, under the first limb, four years would be better than five; or, under the second limb, whether one year would be better than two years. It is laid down in the Bill. It is clear and straightforward for the court, for the offender and for the Football Membership Authority, which has to operate the scheme and enforce the disqualifications imposed under it.
It seems sensible, therefore, to have a similarly straightforward arrangement in respect of restriction orders, and one that matches those orders in Part I. Otherwise, we shall have a situation under the first amendment where, for example, a person who had served a sentence of imprisonment for a serious football related offence would be disqualified from membership for five years, but subject to a restriction order for only two years. So we would stop him from attending matches in this country for the balance of the three years, but would permit him to go abroad during that time, with all the risk of trouble that we were not prepared to bear ourselves. I do not think that that would be acceptable and I should understand, as I am sure other noble Lords would understand, if other countries asked us questions about the basis for the different standards. It is reasonable and proper that the standards should be the same both at home and abroad.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the Minister that countries abroad will not ask that question because they do not have such a daft Act on their statute books as we seek to put on our statute book. The Minister says that, given the list of punishments in Part I—with which we disagree—ipso facto, to be consistent, one should have the same punishments in Part II. He may well say that that is logical, but we are equally logical in saying that we disagree with the totality of the punishments and their immovability. Will he tell us why, with regard to this aspect of law application, the Government believe that it should be rigid and not allow the courts any flexibility? He knows that in many other offences—both less serious and more serious—magistrates, judges and other elements of our penal system are given discretion when making the punishment fit the crime. Will the Minister help me and tell me why that is so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to reply, I shall do so by asking the noble Lord whether—assuming the Bill is enacted and that the amendment is accepted—it is reasonable for a
472
person who has been convicted of an offence of such gravity as to disqualify him from attending matches at home for five years to be allowed to go abroad to attend matches. We must bear in mind the fact that that person has committed an offence which we find so heinous that he is not to be allowed to attend matches at home. That is why we believe it is right to keep the penalties the same for abroad as they will be at home. It would be quite unrealistic to suggest otherwise.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect, that was not the question. The question was: why do the Government feel that, in this situation, there should be fixed penalties in both Part I and Part II of the Bill? It is a strange proposal.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not want to abuse the procedures of the House, but, with leave, I shall speak again. I believe that the answer that I gave was the correct and proper one. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asks why we do not give the courts discretion. We agreed that there should be a fixed limit in the first part of the Bill. If we have agreed that there should be a limit for offences committed at home, it would be quite unreasonable to allow the courts to fix a different limit for offences committed abroad. We should simply permit those hooligans who are of such a bad disposition as to have been disqualified from attending at home to go and ply their trade abroad. That is why the offences must be the same in both parts of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I imagine that magistrates would be far more sensible than the Minister and his advisers in this respect. I believe that, in practice, given the flexibility, magistrates will not use it to apply two different periods to the punishment, one in regard to the deprivation of membership and the other in regard to the ability to travel abroad. I believe that they will exercise their responsibility and make the punishment for the offence applicable to both aspects equally. As the Bill makes progress through another place I hope that the opportunity will be taken to trust the magistrates in the way that we are prepared to do. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Functions of agencies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 15, line 11, leave out ("in the case of an offence under subsection (10),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to remove a reference to subsection (10). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Functions of agencies: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Restriction orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 16, line 41, at end insert ("paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am surprised that Amendment No. 67 was not grouped with Amendment No. 68 because they are alternatives. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss the two amendments together.
I was initially attracted by what is now Amendment No. 68 and almost added my name to it. On examination, however, I thought that it went a little too far. I understand and share the desire to confine the provisions of Clause 20 to cases of violence or threats of violence. However, one can visualise a sitution in which a British fan at a foreign match shouted "Fire!" at the top of his lungs and started a panic in which people were trampled underfoot and possibly seriously injured or even killed—in other words, a Heysel-type situation. Alternatively a fan might shout the phrase "Dirty dagoes" when attending a football match in Spain, thereby precipitating a riot. In neither case would violence have been used or threatened, yet the consequences could be just as serious as if it had been. In contrast, drinking at a match or on the way to a match is a trivial offence, as is attempting to get into a match without a permit, if the equivalent foreign offence can be found. Therefore, I suggest that we exclude those three paragraphs. I think that they should not come within the ambit of Clause 20. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendments exclude fewer corresponding offences. I listened to what the noble Lord said. We would be restricting corresponding offences to offences of violence at foreign matches.
The first amendment includes offences corresponding to certain public order offences. It also includes—this is important—all such offences on a journey to or from a match. The amendment will exclude offences corresponding to Clause 2(1) or Clause 5(5) and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 in appropriate circumstances.
I am unable to point to any existing offence abroad which equates to the two spectator offences, if one can so call them, under this Bill. However, that is not the issue. When the Bill is fully in force one can imagine other nations bringing forward similar legislation. I think that it is not unreasonable at least to provide for that possibility in the Bill. Were a corresponding membership scheme to exist abroad, I do not see that in principle courts would not be able ever to impose a restriction order on someone who committed a criminal offence to cheat it. Perhaps we can bear in mind that such arrangements would be likely principally to be because the other country saw a membership scheme similar to ours and it was necessary to take a sufficiently strong stand against football hooliganism. Similarly in the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act that
474
applies to very specific circumstances involving alcohol in the context of football.
Section 2, covered by paragraph (b) of the schedule to the Bill, concerns entering or trying to enter a ground under the influence of alcohol or of bringing or trying to bring alcohol into a match.
Section 1, which is covered by paragraph (f) of the schedule, concerns carriage of alcohol on coaches or trains to or from such events. These are well-established parts of our law with which our supporters should be familiar. It should come as no surprise to them if they were to find similar offences in other countries. If they fall foul of those provisions and are convicted abroad, I do not see why there is a weaker case for imposing a restriction order than for many other offences. That would still be possible with this amendment.
I hope that in the light of that, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I cannot believe that an offence merely of consuming alcohol at a match or on the way to a match, unaccompanied by any violence, threat of violence or public order offence, is so serious that it justifies imposing a restriction order upon an individual. It is a pretty draconian penalty for something so mild and relatively trivial, I should have thought.
However, no other noble Lord has spoken to this amendment so far. There are perhaps only a baker's dozen or so in the Chamber. For the moment therefore— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if he is looking for a friend in the cause that he is fighting, he has one here. He has witnessed the manner in which equally sensible amendments that I have moved have been treated by the Government, and he has been treated in the same way. We have been attempting to make the Bill not only more acceptable but more realistic. That is why I did not rise to my feet. I certainly agree with everything that he has said.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord, with the leave of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that there was nothing wrong with a person drinking alcohol on a train. I think that he has forgotten the fact that he has to be convicted of a football-related offence. The football-related offence is covered by these items in the schedule. It is only if he is convicted of an offence, one of which may be that he has been misbehaving because of alcohol on a train, that the position would arise. He has to be convicted of the offence. The noble Lord seems to have forgotten that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not forgotten that. Whether or not it is related to football, merely drinking alcohol is a trivial offence if the consumption is unaccompanied by violence, threats of violence or disorder of any kind. It is still technically an offence but not one which warrants the full, harsh provisions of Part II coming into force.

475
However, as I said, attendance in the Chamber is thin at the moment. I should like to study what the noble Earl has said and possibly come back to this at a later stage. At the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Further provision about, and appeals against, declarations of relevance.
.—

(1) A court may not make a declaration of relevance as respects any offence unless it is satisfied that the prosecutor gave notice to the defendant, at least three days before the first day of the trial, that it was proposed to show that the offence related to football matches.

(2) A person convicted of an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance may appeal against the making of the declaration of relevance as if the declaration were included in any sentence passed on him for the offence, and accordingly—

(a) in section 10(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeals against sentence by Crown Court), in paragraph (c), after the sub-paragraph (iv) inserted by section 13(7) above there shall be inserted "or (v) a declaration of relevance under the Football Spectators Act 1989;";

(b) in section 50(1) of that Act (meaning of "sentence"), at the end there shall be inserted the words "and a declaration of relevance under the Football Spectators Act 1989"; and

(c) in section 108(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (right of appeal to the Crown Court), at the end there shall be inserted the words "and also includes a declaration of relevance under the Football Spectators Act 1989."

(3) A restriction order made upon a person's conviction of a relevant offence shall be quashed if the making of a declaration of relevance as respects that offence is reversed on appeal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I shall not be supporting Amendment No. 70. This new clause gives effect to an undertaking that I made when we were discussing the provisions concerned with mandatory disqualification from the scheme following conviction for a relevant offence.
Under the Bill as drafted, certain offences are to be treated as relevant for the purposes of disqualification only if the court declares them to be relevant. The offences concerned are those which occurred when the accused was on his or her way to or from a match, rather than at one. In such cases there may be room for doubt as to whether the offence concerned is relevant to football. We have therefore built in the need for a declaration of relevance. The points I accepted in Committee, which the new clause addresses, are that the defendant should know in advance if the prosecution intends to seek a declaration of relevance in his or her case. The defendant should have a right of appeal against a declaration once made.
The new clause provides for the prosecution to give notice at least three days before the first day of the hearing. It also amends the appropriate statutes to allow for appeals against declarations of relevance.
In introducing the new clause, I should also address the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris of Greenwich. That amendment seeks to substitute five working
476
days for three days' advance notice. We considered very carefully what might be the appropriate period of advance notification. On the one hand, the defendant must know about the prosecution's intentions sufficiently far in advance of his hearing to enable him to prepare his arguments as to why a declaration of relevance should not be made, if that is his position. On the other hand, the longer the advance notice that we stipulate shall be given, the more we delay the administration of justice.
Noble Lords know that the Government are committed to the principle of swift justice. Cases involving incidents of football hooliganism may be particularly appropriate to that principle and we do not want to set the rules in such a way that such cases cannot come to court quickly. Three days seems to strike the right balance between these considerations. It is precedented by the Criminal Courts Act 1973, which allows the courts to impose sentences on persistent offenders above the maximum prescribed for a particular offence in cases where the defendant has been given three days' notice in advance that this may happen.
I commend the new clause standing in my name to the House and I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 70:
Line 4, leave out ("three") and insert ("five working").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the amendment forward, because it takes care of a point of dispute as to whether the offence is relevant and provides the ability to argue. The Minister says that he wants justice to be swift. How often have we heard here and in other situations the plea that there is no time? It must be done, otherwise administration will be slow. Surely a better maxim is that it is far better to get it right than to get it swiftly.
Let me take the noble Lord through the practical application of what he has said. If the court is to deal with the matter on a Monday, what will constitute the three days' notice? One day is Sunday, two days is Saturday and three days is Friday—are we really saying that notice given, but not necessarily received, on a Friday is held by the Government to be adequate? I do not want to hear about other precedents which apply in other places. We are considering this Bill. Surely the House and the football world will be aghast if the Minister appears to be giving a concession but that the concession is worthless.
The reason we ask for five working days is that, substantially, that is a week. In other words, if the court is to hear a case on Monday it will have to give notice on the previous Monday, five working days. The court might sit on the Tuesday and one of the working days might include a Saturday. I want the Minister to recognise that we are grateful to be given the right but, if the right turns out to be worthless and spurious, surely that will bring this part of the Bill into disrepute. Will the Minister think again and acknowledge that what he has given,

477
in the event, may turn out to cause more aggravation than it is intended to deal with?
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is not very much in this. It is a difference of two days— —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am constantly staggered at his stance in this matter. The Government state three days and we are asking for five working days. If the Minister will confirm that "three days" means "three working days" the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, according to the practice of the courts and the way in which such issues are interpreted when in statutes, it means "working days". If we work on that hypothesis, there is not much difference. It is only two working days.
Today we have the aid of the telephone. Let us suppose that an offence is committed at a football match in Nottingham by a man who lives in Norfolk. Let us also suppose that he has a solicitor from Norwich and a barrister from London. Presumably the notice will be received by the solicitor rather than by the defendant in order that he can deal with it. I hope that my noble friend can clarify that. It will not be difficult for the solicitor to telephone the barrister's chambers in London and tell him what is contained in the notice. That will give the barrister a couple of days to ascertain whether the notice is feasible.
In view of what was said by my noble friend Lord Hesketh about trying to avoid delays in the administration of justice, and in view of the aid of the telephone which is used a fair amount by both branches of the profession, three working days is adequate. However, if I am wrong and they are not working days, I believe that the Minister should consider making them so.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly. I am slightly disturbed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, brushed aside the example of precedence, which is a matter of great importance in the history of the laws of this country. However, because this is the last amendment that we shall discuss tonight, I am willing to meet him half way. We can move to five days but omit the word "working". I believe that that is a fair consideration between the two of us.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, as regards precedence, it is not a matter of searching the law books to find a case in which three days' notice is valid and say, "That is a precedent and it shall apply to this case which is entirely different from the other". Surely the doctrine of precedence does not have the enormous importance which the Minister is trying to give it.
While I am on my feet, I must ask whether when we are dealing with amendments to amendments, is
478
it not a better practice for the mover of the amendment to state his case and not try to pre-empt the argument for the next amendment, and for the mover of the next amendment then to make his case? It does not help to try to anticipate the argument for the next amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for what has been said. We are left with the interesting point that "five days" may mean "five working days" because that is the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the Minister says that he envisages the practice of courts ringing the people involved in cases rather than putting matters in writing— —
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not say that— —
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Can the Minister tell us that by agreeing to change three to five, although it is not five working days, that is what it means?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it means five days.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if it means five days, and the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that in practice it means five working days, we are almost there are we not? I believe that the Minister has given a concession. If the Minister starts by giving us a concession by tabling this amendment and then says that he will extend it, I should be churlish not to acknowledge that, and I am not churlish. Whether the interpretation is as I believe it to be or as the Minister believes it to be can be sorted out later. As the Minister says, this is the last amendment which I shall move this evening and I believe that that is a very good note on which to terminate this part of the proceedings. On the basis that an amendment to the Minister's amendment will be moved on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 69 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Citation, commencement, consequential repeal and extent]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 74:
Page 18, line 31, after ("Sections") insert ("2 and 8 and").
Page 18, line 33, after ("otherwise") insert ("Part I and").
Page 18, leave out lines 34 to 39.
Page 18, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 82 not moved.]
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

  TIBET
  TIBET
  TUBERCULOSIS: RISK TO LIVESTOCK
  TUBERCULOSIS: RISK TO LIVESTOCK
  SALMON POACHING
  SALMON POACHING