Sitting of 14 April 1989

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

    Chiswick (Road Proposals)
    9.34 am
    Sir Barney Hayhoe: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 11,793 people living, working and visiting in and around the Chiswick area of my constituency who are vehemently and determinedly opposed to the damaging, new major road proposals for this lovely part of west London.
    I pay tribute to the dedicated work of Michael Robinson, Nigel Birch, Steve Brook and others, who have gathered these many signatures from those stating:
    That we are opposed to any new proposals which include major road building in Chiswick and in particular to the new major roads proposed in options 3, 4 and 7 of Stage 2a of the West London Assessment Study.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Right Honourable Paul Channon MP, the Secretary of State for Transport to dismiss from further consideration all proposals for major road building through Chiswick in the light of the destruction of homes and major damage to the environment and local community life these new roads would cause.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    I hope that the House will note, and the Secretary of State will act in accordance with, the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Orders of the Day

    Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the two verbal amendments in the name of the hon Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and it will be convenient to discuss them together.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual for the Third Reading of a Bill, for which amendments are printed, to appear on the Order Paper. For the enlightenment of those of us who are riot well acquainted with such matters, will you explain this?
    Mr. Speaker: These are verbal amendments—of words. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendment paper he will see that they are small amendments to the words in the Bill and do not affect the sense of the Bill. This is unusual, but not unprecedented.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will we be allowed to speak on the verbal amendments when they are announced—which will, I assume, be at the start of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, of course there will be a debate on the amendments. However, the hon. Gentleman will see from the Order Paper and the amendment paper that it will be a narrow debate.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that these amendments involve changes of words, but I thought that all amendments were changes of words. I took it for granted that if someone put down an amendment to a motion, it would change a word or delete some words. Do I take it that, in future, if someone wants to amend Bills on Third Reading—this is purely for the benefit of future exercises—they will be able to amend them on the basis that they are merely changing a few odd words here and there? Is that in order?
    Mr. Speaker: Of course, I look at any amendments on the amendment paper carefully and it is not unprecedented to have verbal amendments. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) asked for an explanation. I used the word "verbal" meaning "of a word" rather than "by the mouth". Is that clear?
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, right.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, M r. Speaker. This is important—you mentioned that this would be a narrow debate. In fact, it will embrace the Clean Air Acts, and, therefore, could be a wide-ranging debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (M r. Skinner) asked about submitting amendments—we are on Third Reading and I assume that we shall discuss the debates which have taken place prior to this.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may have a somewhat wider debate when we come to Third Reading, but the first debate is on the Question, That the amendment be made. I think that we should now move to that.

    Title
    9.39 am
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: I beg to move, amendment No. 1, in title, leave out 'repeal' and insert 'amend'.
    I understand that I may also speak to amendment No. 2, in title, leave out 'to amend'.
    Perhaps I should explain that the only controversy about a vote on the Bill has been whether its modest objectives constitute the repealing of the Clean Air Acts or their amendment.
    The debate has swayed backwards and forwards. When the Bill was drafted I was advised that it was a repealing measure. Subsequently, informed opinion decided that the modest contents of the Bill amounted to an amending of the Clean Air Acts. No matter of substance arises from the amendments and I commend them to the House.
    Ms. Joan Walley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, it is extraordinary that we should have reached this stage of a Bill with so little debate. It is a small Bill but it is an important amendment to existing legislation. There has been no discussion of the Bill until this stage, and it is only now that it has come to light that the amendments are necessary. That is because the Bill, as it has been compiled by the parliamentary draftsman, or whoever, overlooks the fact that it deals with the amendment rather than with the repeal of legislation.
    I look forward to the Third Reading debate because the Bill is important in the context of air pollution. Until now, we have had only a few words of discussion about the Bill in the House. It is extraordinary that the Bill has got so far without the House examining it in more detail. Hansard deals with the Bill in seven lines:

    CONTROL OF SMOKE POLLUTION BILL
    Bill read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hunter.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    To be read the Third time on Friday 14 April."—[Official Report, 3 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 571.]
    It may well be that all legislation is important in terms of the speed and urgency with which it comes to the House. However, I wish that the Secretary of State had the same sense of urgency about bringing forward the green Bill and dealing with the many very important related issues of air pollution. I may not be here at the end of the debate because I have other urgent engagements. However, I have brought these matters to the attention of the House. In case I am not here when the Bill is passed, I should now like to congratulate its promoter on having introduced it. I regret that such an important, albeit minor, change to existing legislation should have got so far without debate. I urge the Government to treat the whole matter of environmental protection with much greater urgency.
    9.45 am
    Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your assurance that the amendment is in order. However, I am still somewhat mystified about how on Third Reading we can get such a drastic change in the wording of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is:
    "To repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and to amend section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968."
    1160
    The amendment seeks to amend section 16(1)(a) of the 1956 Act and to repeal section 1 of the 1968 Act. The original intention of the Bill was to delete section 16(1)(a) of the 1956 Act and to leave something in section 1 of the 1968 Act after the legislative process. We are now told that that was not the intention, but that it was to leave something of the 1956 Act and to delete section 1 of the 1968 Act.
    How on earth is it possible for a Bill to come before the House and go through all its legislative stages with such a decisive and fundamental flaw? Did no one discover that nothing would be left of section 1 of the 1968 Act? Has that only just been discovered? We ought to have some sort of explanation, if only for the satisfaction of the legal draftsman.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I am still rather confused about how amendments could have been allowed to be tabled. I do not have the legal knowledge of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and I should like to be assured that the amendments are entirely in order. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you have examined them in detail.
    Amendment 1 seeks to leave out "repeal" and insert "amend". There is a profound difference in the meanings of the two words. If we repeal something, we take it away, but if we amend it we merely add to or subtract from what is already there. Those of us who have studied in great depth the Clean Air Acts and the repercussions of any repeal of their clauses or amendments to them, realise that that needs to be thoroughly examined. This morning we have been presented with two verbal amendments—a term that I have not heard before in the House. We have always had amendments that we can study in conjunction with the Acts to see their repercussions. It appals me to think that on a Friday we are discussing such far-reaching effects as are to be found in the Bill.
    Smoke has always been prevalent in my area, because it was a mining area. In 1979 there were 7,000 to 8,000 miners in my constituency, all of whom were entitled to receive an allocation of free coal. That meant that coal was the fuel used throughout my constituency. When one stood on Bwlch mountain and looked down over the four valleys of my constituency, on a lovely morning such as this one could see smoke coming from practically every chimney. I arrived in London at the tender age of 17 and lived in Minet drive in Harlesden. I worked at Old Oak common in Acton and used to walk to work, because even in those days I could not afford to take the tube. No one was worried about riding in the tube in those days.
    I am not all that old, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I am a little older than you. In those days, many of us who had come to London used to tie a strip of gauze around the nose and mouth when we were going for a walk and when there was smoke or fog about in London. When I arrived in Acton, which was only about a 20 or 25-minute walk from Willesden and Harlesden, I would find a smear as black as coal on my mouth and on the gauze across my nostrils. That was caused by the pollution in London at that time.
    We know, too, of the effect of pollution on this building. We cannot see a number of the statues at Westminster Hall because they were destroyed by pollution. It is therefore essential that at this stage we get right any measures that control air pollution. That is why

    1161
    I strongly object to amendments being thrown in on a Friday morning without Members who have taken an interest in the matter being able to look at them in detail.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: As my hon. Friend will know, I am a new Member of the House. I heard it said that this was an unusual procedure. Can my hon. Friend tell me how many times this procedure has been used and when was the last time that amendments have been presented in this way?
    Mr. Powell: I cannot reply to that point, but I posed the same question in a point of order before I started my speech. I realise that my hon. Friend might have been delayed because he was seeking out the amendments to the Bill. I missed Prayers, in fact, because I was informed, as I was coming into the Chamber, that there were amendments to the Bill. I appreciate my hon. Friend's problem, and probably you, Mr. Speaker, can inform him of what has happened.
    Mr. Skinner: My information is that the last time that this was done was 18 years ago, but it was done in completely different circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has been explaining, we have before us today a Bill whose several stages were rushed through at the end of business one Friday. The Bill was probably planted on the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I am not too sure about that, but all the signs are that a Government Whip went along and said, "Shove this forward for a particular Friday in order to block something else." That is what usually happens and, therefore, those very weird circumstances have taken place. It is conceivable that the hon. Gentleman himself was not sure what the issue was all about. It went through on the nod and the result is that we have a Bill that in many ways is so cock-eyed that it should have been taken back.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore is on to a very good point. I am certain that the way in which the Government have pushed through the measure has been an embarrassment to the authorities of the House.
    I think, too, that there is another reason for us having this mess, which is that the Prime Minister went green—or mouldy, as some would say—some time ago, and she had to prove that she meant business. So what better than to say, "Let's look as though we are going green on the Clean Air Act and beef it up a bit"? A Whip therefore looked for a participant on the Tory Benches and said to him, "Here you are, we can make it look as though the Tory party is carrying out its green proposals." However, because it is not really a party that is in favour of collective green action, the Government got the whole thing wrong.
    Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand what he says about the progress of the Bill from stage one. However, I do not know whether I could go as far as to suggest that Whips on either side of the House would have been involved in such matters. I very much doubt whether they would have been involved in any sort of intrigue. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, will accept that Whips would not become involved in such actions.
    I shall return to the first amendment, concerning the word "repeal", and what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said about the Prime Minister. What appals me is the fact that my secretary and agent—who is a councillor of some 35 years' standing and a justice of the peace, who has received an MBE and is well-respected in my
    1162
    constituency—was appointed to the national Clean Air Council. She is a miner's widow. She had a great interest in pollution and she regularly attended the meetings. She reported to me regularly about the discussions at those meetings.
    Then in 1979, there was an election and the green goddess got to number 10—although she was not as green as she is now. She walked up the yellow brick road and she got to number 10 Downing street. Overnight, the right hon. Lady abolished the Clean Air Council. She dismissed the services of my secretary and agent, Councillor Mrs. Muriel Williams, MBE, JP, with her 35 years' experience in local government and in other areas.
    Now, 10 years later, because a big conference was to be held in London, involving 124 representatives from all over the world, the right hon. Lady has become interested in the Clean Air Act 1968. It is a pity that she was not interested in 1979 or 1980 and she did not retain the services of my secretary-agent of 70 years of age to look after the interests of the people in my constituency and in Wales.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not a fact that, because the Government—for example, under planning laws—have made it much easier for people to develop in areas where previously it was not acceptable, that there will be more pollution rather than less? This sort of amendment will have a direct effect on the quality of life of all our constituents.
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there are some considerable problems. I shall illustrate one planning problem and the difficulties caused to some Members of Parliament. We are looking—especially in parts of Wales—for industrialists to come into our areas to invest, because we want industry and we want jobs. Whether they come from Japan or anywhere else, we seek them out to provide jobs in our areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), has a problem, because she has a phurnacite plant in Abercwmboi, which produces smokeless fuels. However, the production of those smokeless fuels, causes a tremendous amount of pollution.
    Mr. Speaker: The amendment concerns the changing of two words. I believe that what the hon. Gentleman has said is more appropriate to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is related precisely to the wording. It appears that "to amend", which in this case is a verb without any qualifying wording, could create considerable difficulty for the House. I should have thought that the parliamentary draftsmen, who are so careful about the use of the English language, would have told us that such a verb, without any qualification, could create considerable difficulty. Is it not the case that "to amend" must by implication give some indication of the manner in which, how and to what extent it amends? A verbal amendment of this kind will lead my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, for example, who is developing specific points about smoke control, into considerable difficulty if he does not know in which way the Bill is to be amended and to what extent.
    Mr. Speaker: The House sometimes finds itself in difficulties when a Bill goes through all its stages without any debate. The House will know that the Chair is in difficulty, and that it deprecates that practice. However,

    1163
    such a difficulty has arisen today and that is why, exceptionally, the House must consider amendments on Third Reading.
    10 am
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would never dream of arguing with you, as I know that you are only following precedent—that you will have been given advice and will be aware that such a precedent has been established. The difficulty lies in debating a narrowly drawn amendment that seeks to substitute only one word, but that will basically change the Bill without the House knowing in what manner the Bill is to be changed. While I have no desire to argue with the Chair, the amendment creates enormous problems. If the debate on the amendment is narrowly confined—obviously the Chair will want the right hon. and hon. Members to keep well within the rules of order—the House will have to agree or disagree to the amendment without being perfectly clear as to its exact meaning. The problem is not the amendment itself but the enormous implications that it has for the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: I say again that we are in this difficulty because of what happened. However, the House must observe the rules of order. The debate on the amendment is narrow, but the Third Reading debate is much wider.
    Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, and to my introductory remarks, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, have been placed in a very difficult situation. Obviously there is no way in which the situation can be redeemed in respect of the Bill and of the whole issue of smoke control and related matters of air pollution. However, I wonder whether you could discuss the situation with whoever has responsibility for such matters, to ensure that the House will face a similar situation again. Then at least something constructive would come out of the Government's clear attempt to ensure that the Prime Minister has some sound evidence to show the nation that she has gone green.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not unprecedented for a Bill to go through all its stages on a Friday. However, I repeat that that practice is always deprecated by the Chair. Even small measures should never go through the House of Commons without debate.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. Normally, it would be difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to speak at range over the whole compass of the Bill. However, the Bill passed through all its previous stages in a shabby fashion several Fridays ago, because it was planted in the fist of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) by the Whips, and he did not know what he had been given. That is the bottom line. That meant that the Bill could not be debated.
    Mr. Speaker: That is in the hands of the House. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it requires only one right hon. or hon. Member to object, and a Bill cannot immediately proceed.
    Mr. Skinner: If I had been present, an objection would have been made. The fact that the hon. Member for Basingstoke has not spoken to the Bill at any length today creates another problem. He has given little or no
    1164
    indication of the Bill's purpose, which leaves the House in a predicament. On the first occasion that the hon. Gentleman is given an opportunity to speak to the Bill, he hardly opens his mouth. As a consequence, the House is left in a quandary.
    In the absence of proper discussion, you, Mr. Speaker, would be correct to be more liberal in your interpretation of what can be said on this occasion, as compared with the situation in which full and frank discussion had earlier taken place. In the absence of full and frank discussion, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore must surely have the right to expand on his argument as to what effect the amendments would have in certain circumstances. In that context, my hon. Friend travelled down a reasonable path.
    Mr. Speaker: We are all bound by Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman in his other incarnation, when he has the difficult responsibility for chairing meetings, is bound by his standing orders.
    Mr. Skinner: I get things through on the nod as well.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a very wise thing to do. I may point out that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has the right of reply.
    Mr. Powell: On only one occasion, at midnight some years ago, have I ever failed to respond to your ruling from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I well recall the incident, because within two minutes I was going through the front gates. I do not want to do that this morning.
    The first amendment seeks to leave out the word "repeal". The argument I was developing about the phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi is important in that respect, because if we repeal the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968, that will have wide implications for the Cynon valley and for the plant. It will allow developers to take certain action which, if we amend the legislation rather than repeal it, they would not be allowed to take. Those are the reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why points of order were earlier raised and developed.
    The products of the phurnacite plant are designed to protect the environment, so any amendments to the Bill would directly affect that plant. I presume that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, share the views expressed earlier as to how the House should deal with the two amendments, and as to whether right hon. and hon. Members are in order to develop further arguments about the Clean Air Acts and about the Bill itself. I appreciate that we are not having a Third Reading debate, so I shall not prolong the arguments. Nevertheless, because of the amendments' far-reaching effects, and until such time as the Chair brings me further to order, I shall cite one area of complication that affects my own constituency.
    The Rockwool factory produces insulating fibre used in lofts and walls, which has a direct effect on energy conservation in the buildings in which that product is used. The factory produces a lot of smoke. In the Heol-y-Cyw and Pencoed areas, the community council, Ogwr borough council and the county council have been all involved in numerous objections about smoke emissions. That factory produces fibre that is used in energy conservation.
    One of the dilemmas that face Members of Parliament, whatever their constituencies, is whether to join forces with the community and the borough or county council in objecting strongly to the pollution of an area or whether, in order to safeguard—in this instance—some 400 jobs, to

    1165
    try to pacify some of the objectors. Those of use who are concerned about clean air take care to ensure that industrialists who come into such areas at least receive guidance.
    All possible precautions have been taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) will have taken action at community level to try to stop the pollution in the area——
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is developing a reasonable argument about smoke and pollution. He may not yet have made up his mind about whether he favours "repeal" or "amend", but if we get on to that ground we shall, I think, be able to discuss the matter at some length and try to ascertain the truth. The crucial issue is whether my hon. Friend is in favour of the amendment or against it. I should like to hear the answer from him, because I am still in some doubt. Once we have heard whether he considers this a good or a bad amendment, we shall be able to dig a few tons of coal.
    Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) finished his speech?
    Mr. Powell: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot take an intervention on an intervention.
    Mr. Powell: I accept what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). This is an important point.
    I have considered the matter carefully. Having tried at the same time to arrive here, read the amendments, listen to the objectors from the league of representatives on the Conservative Benches and be guided by them, by Mr. Speaker and by the Clerk of the House, and having then participated in the debate, I have found it difficult to decide between "repeal" and "amend". You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with all your experience in the Chair and on the Front Bench, will know the problems with which we are sometimes confronted at this time on a Friday morning. I have decided, however, that I do not want the Act repealed, so I shall support the amendment.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am a little worried by what my hon. Friend has just said. I went out of the Chamber just now because I was concerned about the narrowness of the amendment. Having obtained a copy of the Oxford English dictionary and looked up the definition of "amend", I think that we are going to get into some difficulty.
    The definition gives the French and Latin roots of the word, which I cannot use because, in using a foreign language, I should be out of order. It goes on, however, to explain the various meanings:
    "to free … from faults, correct … convert … To rectify … To emendate. 1483"—
    I had not encountered that. The dictionary also defines "amend" as to make alterations in a Bill before Parliament, to repair, to restore, to heal the sick, to improve, to better and to make amends for an offence.
    That seems clear enough, until we begin to consider exactly what is meant here by "amend". Are we to amend specific parts of the wording? Are we to change or make
    1166
    better, and if so in what manner? Before my hon. Friend accepts the amendment and its implications so readily, will he consider that?
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. She said that she could not give definitions in French or Latin because she would be out of order in doing so, but perhaps if she had given a Welsh definition that would have given me some guidance.
    10.15 am
    Mr. Skinner: I do not accept the point often made in the House that hon. Members cannot speak in other languages. The Prime Minister has several different languages of her own. She has changed her voice so many times that it is unbelievable. When Gordon Reece came along, he said to her, "You have got to lower your voice", so she came in here one day—not long after she had become Prime Minister—with a different voice. Then there is her stentorian-type voice.
    As for foreign languages—for I see that you are shuffling in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—lawyers often use Latin in here.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as this is an intervention on an intervention. Do not the rules of the House lay down that any language used here must be understood by other hon. Members? In that case, a foreign langage would not be ruled out. A language such as Welsh——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the practices of the House are sufficiently well known for us not have a debate on them. We are in danger of having a debate about the use of language rather than about the amendments. Can we get back to them?
    Mr. Greenway: I am asking for information.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults "Erskine May". That is why we put copies out.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) should use the phrase "ultra vires". The whole thing is ultra vires.
    Mr. Powell: All this discussion has come about because something has happened that I understand has not happened for 18 years. I was not a Member 18 years ago, but I am sure that other hon. Members will recall the incident. In all probability, if we looked it up in the Official Report we should find that there was just as lengthy a debate then on the introduction of "verbal" amendments on the Floor of the House.
    We have been placed in this position because someone thrust these amendments in front of us five minutes before we came into the Chamber, stopping us from attending Prayers. It makes me wonder whether the House should have been adjourned for 10 or 15 minutes for us to consider whether to insert "amend" or retain "repeal". My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had the chance to go out and seek advice, and then to pass on that advice to us, for which I am grateful. Having listened to her interpretation of "amend", I am in a dilemma as to whether to accept her advice.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I think that the problem is even more difficult to solve than the hon. Gentleman supposes.

    1167
    Clause 1 clearly amends section 16 of the Clean Air Act 1956, whereas the wording in the title speaks of repealing it. It seems to be common sense, therefore, to change "repeal" to "amend". After all, clause 1 says:
    "there shall be inserted the words".
    That is clearly an amendment rather than a repeal.
    However, clause 2, which we are invited to say is a repeal, simply states:
    "In subsection (1) … after the words … there shall be inserted the words".
    Clearly, that is an amendment, not a repeal. In other words, those who are bringing forward these provisions have got them the wrong way round in any event. Whereas one could agree that clause 1 is an amendment to the principal Act, one cannot agree that clause 2 is a repeal of the other principal Act. The wording by itself is an amendment, and that is our difficulty.
    Mr. Powell: I have now been advised by a professionally qualified legal representative from the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Orpington, and I think that the Chair should be asked to consider this matter. I accept entirely what has been said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has been concurring with that. If what has been said means that the wording should be turned around and, as on our arrival this morning we found these verbal amendments, perhaps we can seek advice from the Chair or the Clerks to see whether the amendments could be put the other way round. In view of what the hon. Member for Orpington has suggested, if we "repeal" as he suggested and "amend" as in the first amendment, would there be any opportunity for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider whether we would then be in order—or would we be more in order if the amendments were to be reversed? Perhaps the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) who promoted the Bill will agree to the amendments being reversed so that we can get on with debating the amendments. I ask for your guidance on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I continue with my speech.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the amendments had not been in order, they would not have been selected.
    Mr. Powell: We accept that if they had not been in order, they would not have been selected, but it has been pointed out to us that, to be in order and to carry the meaning that I believe the promoter of the Bill intended, they should be reversed. Is it possible for them to be reversed at this stage as they were tabled only this morning?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me a question rather different from the one that he posed in the first place. It is the question not whether the amendments are in order in terms of their admissibility under our Standing Orders and the usual test, or whether they would improve the structure of the Bill. The second point is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it would be procedurally possible, the answer is that it may well have been possible at the outset of our proceedings, when the amendments were first brought to the attention of the House. Hon. Members may have sought then to seek to amend the amendments, but
    1168
    the choice now before the House is to accept or reject the amendments. That is what we shall have to do at the end of this debate.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is grateful for that clear statement of the position and, of course, we would not dream of arguing with your superior knowledge. However, the problem that we face is that on all Bills one of the first jobs of all hon. Members is to consider the title. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the wording of the title is very precise for all Bills and is of considerable importance to the main section of the Bill. That is why any attempt to alter the title must inevitably have consequential effects not only upon the amendments on the Order Paper, but upon the Bill as it is debated. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) highlighted the fact that this problem has a direct effect, not just upon the wording, but——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady making a point of order to me or a speech?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to know from you whether, if we proceed to debate the amendments in the order in which they have been presented to the House, in effect we shall not only be taking a major decision, but reversing our decision by discussing the second amendment—in other words——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady feels that she should advise the House that the amendments would have a far reaching effect on the remainder of the Bill or on parts of the Bill, it is up to her to seek to deploy that argument and so persuade the House. The question whether the title should have been as it is printed or as it is proposed to amend it was the question before the House when, in its wisdom or otherwise, it decided to give the Bill a Second Reading, which it did. The House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and the Bill has been dealt with by the House in Committee, and these matters could have been dealt with then. We now have an amendment on Third Reading. Nothing is out of order.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: With respect, I was not in any way suggesting that it was technically out of order; I was simply saying that the problem has arisen because these are verbal amendments. If they had been printed amendments in the normal fashion and if the House had had the opportunity of recognising the real technical difficulty that is incorporated in the way in which the two amendments have been tabled, undoubtedly we should have——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very similar to a point of order that was raised with Mr. Speaker at the outset of our proceedings when Mr. Speaker dealt with the question of admissibility or otherwise, and whether the procedure that we now have is reconcilable with our practice and with Standing Orders. Mr. Speaker has ruled on that. We should now get back to discussing the merits of the amendments. I call Mr. Ray Powell.
    Mr. Powell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing in detail and the amendments their effects. As you suggested, if the House feels that we should not accept either amendment, we should reject them.
    However, could you advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether, if we reject them, we would have a vote in the House on rejecting them, and on whether, if the vote were

    1169
    carried by just one vote, we would accept that and reject them all? Hon. Members who are not in the Chamber now to hear the debate because they are in their offices carrying out their parliamentary work, will have eight minutes from the time that you call a Division for us to explain the amendments to them. We have been here since 9.35 am discussing their merits and whether they should have been tabled in the first place. If we accept your advice and call a Division on this, how would we explain to 649 elected representatives what they were about to vote for? That is the dilemma that some of us face. We should look at this in far more depth and detail.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether we should have to wait for other hon. Members to come in to the House. Not many are here on a Friday because it is a bit of a dead day and many Tory MPs are in the law courts. Some of them were to have been demonstrating, but the Government have caved in, in contrast to the way in which they have behaved with the dockers. As there will not be many hon. Members here, we shall be able to approach them individually and, like shop stewards or Whips, we shall have to say something like, "There was a cock-eyed situation in Parliament this morning. An hon. Gentleman brought forward a Bill that had never been discussed before. It had been shoved in his hand by one of the Tory Whips. He was not too sure what it was about and not only had he got it all wrong, he had got the title wrong." That situation is relatively new in Parliament. Although this Government are capable of doing anything, it is a bit much that they have got the title wrong. After all, this is really a Government Bill——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Skinner: I am trying to explain this because it is an important issue. Indeed, it is an important issue for people in your area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is all about smoke and pollution.
    I suggest that we say, "The Government have brought in this measure but they do not know A from a bull's foot. We have tried to explain to the few colleagues who were in the Chamber what it was all about and they are aware of the circumstances. Although you might be in favour of the generality of the Bill, there is good reason to consider whether we should vote the matter down because the whole thing is technically absurd." A question arises on——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member could contain himself until perhaps he catches my eye. Then he could make the speech that he is seeking to make now in an intervention. Interventions should be brief.
    Mr. Skinner: The matter is important. This is not just any ordinary day. Mr. Speaker explained that it was very unusual. He went even further: he said that he did not like it. Then he left. Now you have got it. To be honest, I think you are in a predicament. Whereas normally Members of Parliament vote on the principle of a measure——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The predicament is the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Perhaps he will save some of it up for when he catches my eye.
    10.30 am
    Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a point of substance here. It is, with respect, one for resolution by the Chair. If we are being asked to say that a section of an Act should be repealed when in fact we are only amending it, what is to cure that obvious error at this stage?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. The word "repeal", which is in the Bill as it stands, has already been approved by the House on Second Reading and it has not been challenged until now.
    Mr. Stanbrook: On Second Reading, the wording was the other way round. We are being asked to change the order of the wording.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill that is before the House was approved on Second Reading. It says that it is a Bill
    "To repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and to amend section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968."
    The amendment that we are debating is to leave out the word "repeal" in the original Bill and to replace it with the word "amend." The word "repeal" was in the Bill that was before the House on Second Reading and it was approved by the House.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I have listened to what appears to be a substantial degree of confusion. My starting point is that legislation in haste and without adequate notice is often legislation for which later one has some cause for regret. I assume that there is no particular need for emergency legislation in this case. The current legislation has lasted a long time.
    My question—a simple question of guidance—to you is this. Having come before the House with amendments that are of some significance, of which there has been little or no notice, would it be possible—out of courtesy to the House and to ensure that every hon. Member is able to examine and, if necessary, to take advice from whichever outside sources are relevant and that have an interest in the matter—for the promoter of the Bill——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the beginning of our proceedings. Had he been here, he would recall that what he is saying now is similar to points of order that were raised with Mr. Speaker and that were dealt with by him. Mr. Speaker pointed out that, although what we are doing may be unusual and that he might regret it, none the less it was in order. The amendment has been selected as being in order. The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion. It may be an opinion that I share, but that is not a matter for me to decide. The opinion that the hon. Gentleman has expressed is one that the House must make its judgment on, not me.
    Mr. Anderson: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not the point that I am seeking to make. I am sure that your views, although very cogent for some of us on the substance of the Bill, are not relevant. The point is surely this: since Mr. Speaker made his ruling, events have moved on. The amount of debate shows that hon. Members feel some concern. The simple question is this: is it now technically possible, in the light of the debate that has taken place since Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, for the

    1171
    promoter of the Bill, out of courtesy to the House—because, as you can see, this is, at the very least, a highly unusual issue and we have to be wary of creating precedents in this or any other matter—to say, "I will pull up stumps at this stage and seek to adjourn the debate and come back, after due notice, to the House?" Given the nature of the amendment, it may even be that due notice is seven days or 14 days, but——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he was raising a point of order, but he is now making a long speech. I think that I can deal with the matter. Of course it will be open to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) who moved the amendments to seek the leave of the House to withdraw them, but that would be a matter for the House, not for the Chair, to decide. Alternatively, if the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is saying that, for whatever reason, hon. Members, both inside and outside the Chamber, have had insufficient time to consider the implications of the amendments, that is a matter for argument and debate. It may be an argument that the hon. Gentleman will seek to deploy later in an attempt to persuade the House that it should reject the amendments until further consideration can be given to their effect.
    Mr. Anderson: I concede that perhaps I strayed into the realms of argument and that that is a matter that I can properly deploy in the Third Reading debate. May I ask a simple question? If, in the light of the debate, the mover of the amendments were to come to the conclusion that he should withdraw now and pull up stumps, or whatever the appropriate expression may be, would he be able to bring the Bill back to the House for further debate after due notice?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. We should then proceed to debate the Third Reading of the Bill, and it would be for the House to decide whether to give the Bill a Third Reading. We are all familiar with the fact that Bills that have been the subject of comment in the House but that have not necessarily, for whatever reason, at that point been amended, can be amended in another place, or their Lordships can be persuaded to consider amendments that may be tabled in another place.
    Mr. Powell: I am becoming not only confused but bemused and aggravated. I am very worried. What worries me most of all is you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a point of order was raised by the hon. Member for Orpington, you had to consult the document to amend your ruling. That illustrates to me——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not amended any ruling.
    Mr. Powell: Then the observations that you were making on it. We have all had to do that this morning—even you, with your knowledge and expertise in the Chair. What we ought to be doing now is a very worrying problem. It is causing embarrassment to the sponsors of the Bill and those who are discussing it. Even Mr. Speaker this morning was not, I assume, eager to suggest that the amendment should be accepted on a verbal basis.
    For the benefit of those hon. Members who have joined us since 9.30, you highlighted the fact that first word of the
    1172
    Bill—"repeal"—is to be amended and that the word "amend" is to be inserted instead of the word "repeal". We have to consider the effect of the Bill as a result of the insertion of that one word. That is the reason for the dilemma. The whole thread and trend of my speech is now in shreds. I am having great difficulty in trying to pull all the threads together in dealing with the amendments.
    I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) half an hour ago that I had not made up my mind whether I wanted the word "repeal" to be accepted or the word "amend." Now I am not sure whether either word should be accepted, or even whether we should be debating the matter any further. Perhaps we should reject the Bill altogether, and that creates another dilemma. As a Whip, I know that when hon. Members arrive at night directly from meetings, they ask, "In which corridor shall we go—left or right, Noes or Ayes?" and we have to advise them, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Skinner: A few weeks ago, when the title of the Bill was different, I would have advised hon. Members to go into one Lobby, but since a different Bill has been pesented to us this morning, a Bill that went through on the nod in a different fashion, I would advise the opposite. That shows the nature of the Bill. Within a few weeks, that Bill has not been amended but has been totally and utterly changed. That is the burden of my hon. Friend's argument.
    Mr. Powell: What my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has said is extremely important. Imagine the scene when you call a Division on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members are herded into the corridors and say, "In which Lobby shall we vote?" As it is a private Member's Bill, there should be no Whip advising them. There is certainly no Whip on the Opposition Benches.
    Hon. Members will come in, all confused and ask where to go, and be told, "You can vote Aye for a repeal, you can vote Aye for amendment, or you can go into the No Lobby." They will ask, "What are we doing in the No Lobby?", and be told, "We are voting on two verbal amendments that have been tabled this morning.".
    That will all happen in the space of eight minutes, in which hon. Members have to get here from their offices which may be in Norman Shaw or Abbey gardens. They will run in with their shoes untied and their ties undone to get here in eight minutes to be confronted with a dilemma as to which way they should vote. Are we to send them into the Lobby to vote on one amendment or both amendments, and how will we explain to them the effect of that on the entire Bill which, in all probability they have not seen because it was hurriedly put through?
    Mr. Anderson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work as a Whip. As an hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, I have never had any doubt as to which Lobby to choose. I have never needed to ask my hon. Friend for an explanation, I had only to look at him. I recall coming in from the bath, scantily clad. I did not ask my hon. Friend for advice, I simply looked at him. The advice he invariably gave me since I first entered the House as, "When in doubt, vote Labour." I have faithfully followed that advice. One never need ask for explanations from my hon. Friend, one just looks at his eyebrows, which have been eloquent enough.
    10.45 am
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes very kind remarks, but on this occasion, if a Division is called, my eyes will have to be cast to the floor because I would not be able to advise hon. Members by giving them directions with my eyes because I do not know whether they should be going into the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby.
    I shall get on with my speech, but I do not feel that I can make the speech that I wanted to make about the amendments; I will have to wait for Third Reading because the remarks that I want to make may be interpreted as out of order. I represent a mining constituency. In 1979, it had seven collieries employing some 5,000 miners. The mining industry in Ogmore employed some 7,000 people in total. All the collieries were closed, so all the miners' homes which used to have smoke coming from their chimneys because of the allocation of free coal—although the free coal has stopped, tradition dies very hard in Wales, especially in my constituency and people still burn free coal—may be affected by the Bill as those people might be breaking the law if smoke is emitted from their chimneys.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend has probably received a number of representations about the problem of free coal. Because of the way in which British Coal is amending the scheme, it is becoming less likely that miners will convert their homes to gas or other completely smokeless fuels, but will continue to use their free coal allocation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating that. We are debating whether a word should be deleted from the Bill and replaced by another word.
    Mr. Powell: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. It is very relevant to whether we replace the word "repeal" with the word "amend" in the title of the Bill as that will have a considerable effect on the Clean Air Act 1956, and section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968. Those of us who have studied those Acts in depth and in detail because we are genuinely concerned about the environment—unlike the green goddess at No. 10—were concerned about the Clean Air Act long before 1979, and were affected by it even before the legislation was introduced in 1956 and 1968.
    I illustrated that by describing my walk from Willesden to Acton at the tender age of 17 in all the fog and smog in London. I should be claiming from someone for the continual bouts of bronchitis I have suffered, not because I worked down the mines but because I have had a chest complaint ever since I was 17.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I should be happy to advise my hon. Friend about a claim for pneumoconiosis should he wish to claim some compensation for his chest complaint. I, too, am quite concerned about the Clean Air Act, as I also represent a mining constituency. If we vote against the amendments, we should be left with the Bill in its present form. Would that mean that section 16 of the Clean Air Act 1956 would be repealed, or would it remain in place within the Bill? Having listened to most of the debate, I am in something of a dilemma as to whether the Bill in its present form will repeal or amend section 16(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956.
    Mr. Powell: That is the dilemma. I see that my hon. Friend is equipped with a book containing perhaps 1,000
    1174
    pages of interpretation. He has obviously had time to study the matter. He may well be far more informed than some of us who have been participating in the debate since 9.35 this morning. Having read the documents perhaps he will be able to advise us.
    Mr. Skinner: I am prepared to vote in order to produce that dilemma, because there is nothing wrong with the Opposition attempting to destabilise the Government. However, there is another way of attempting to find an answer to the problem. Unfortunately, that is difficult now. We could have consulted a barrister but they are on a go-slow—cacanny as they say in Scotland. There would be no point in approaching a run-of-the-mill solicitor because they have fallen out with the barristers. In fact, they will not sit with them on the Tory Benches. Therefore, there is a dilemma, and we should look at it from a layman and a laywoman's point of view.
    Mr. Anderson: Layperson.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes.
    We should use our native gut instinct and vote the amendments down. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) could then read his Bill—he has not had a chance to read it because the Whips shoved it into his hand. They took it from the Government shelf. We could then have a fresh crack at it and support a measure which is environmentally and technically clean.
    Mr. Powell: I accept the advice of my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, we should debate which way we should vote. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite all the advice afforded us by both you and Mr. Speaker, we are still in a dilemma. If we were to stop the debate now and say that we will vote on the basis of the discussions we have had so far, we would not know which Lobby to enter. We would not know whether to insert the word "amend" or leave the word "repeal". I return to the same argument I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the repeal of section 16(1) of the 1956 Act would be rather strong.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It is sweeping.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, it is sweeping. I do not think that the environmentalists who have turned up to debate the matter would be eager to see that. Therefore, we are in a dilemma as to whether "amend" is the right word. We are facing great difficulties even on advising people on amendment No. 1. The difficulties have resulted from the way in which the amendments were thrown at us at 9 o'clock this morning.
    Mr. Anderson rose
    Mr. Powell: I want to get on with my speech. I have been delayed by interventions and I have a speech to deliver on this important issue. If we can resolve the dilemma, I could ensure that my speech is recorded.
    Mr. Anderson: The most important point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is the way in which the amendments have been thrown at us. I am trying to think of a compromise——
    Mr. Skinner: I hate that word.
    Mr. Anderson: I shall try to think of another word to satisfy my hon. Friend. Perhaps "middle way"?
    Mr. Skinner: Solution.
    Mr. Anderson: I am trying to think of a solution which might satisfy both sides of the House. Since the Bill improves the environment, albeit in a limited way, it would be wrong to block it.
    If the Bill were to be withdrawn now and within a reasonable time there were to be adequate environmental and technical explanations of the need for it, on its reintroduction would my hon. Friend give the Bill a fair wind so that it can be enacted by the end of the Session? Would that not be a fair way of meeting both sides in this matter?
    Mr. Powell: I accept my hon. Friend's point. If the amendments were to be withdrawn, we could get on with the debate on the Bill itself.
    As an environmentalist, I am concerned about pollution. However, there is another Bill on the Order paper for which I prepared a speech—the Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill. I had hoped that we would have reached that by now, because I stayed up late last night preparing for it. I am also interested in the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, but, because of these amendments, we have been thrown into a dilemma and have been delayed for an hour and a half. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, we may have been able to call on the other place for advice. However, as a result of the Government's attitude and policies to the health workers, railway workers, transport workers and now the judges and the Law Lords, everybody is in dispute. The country is in turmoil, and on arriving here at 9·30 on a Friday morning to discuss the control of smoke pollution, we find that the House is in turmoil.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend has mentioned the turmoil being caused by the Government. He omitted to mention that the proposals for the National Health Service are causing turmoil in the medical profession. My hon. Friend also mentioned the severe chest problems from which he suffers as a result of pollution. Therefore, there are far more substantive issues with which we should deal, but we cannot do so because of the way in which the Bill has been presented to us and the mistakes that have been made.
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. If we can prevent smoke being ejected from industrial and domestic units, it would clean the air and should stop some of the health problems with which we are faced now and the expense of curing them. We should be looking at that closely.
    I was considering this matter last night and was in a dilemma as to whether I should seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on this Bill or whether I should wait for the Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill. I am sponsored by the union representing shopworkers and therefore, I have an interest in that Bill.
    Hon. Members have sought your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what to do with the amendments. We have received certain legal advice from the hon. Member for Orpington, but we are still in a dilemma. We shall not make progress unless the hon. Member for Basingstoke withdraws the amendments; until he does so, the matter will not be resolved. Hon. Members have said, in points of order and interventions, that that is the only way out.
    1176
    11 am
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned health hazards caused by smoke pollution, which affect us all. I look forward this afternoon to driving down the M4 or catching a train from Paddington to the fresh air and beauty of Wales. In Wales, I do not have to wear an oxygen mask, which some hon. Members use in London. There is a particular need for smoke control in cities. Hon. Members are concerned about pollution, and had the amendments not been thrown at us this morning we would probably have made short speeches in support of the Bill, which we believe could be effective and helpful to people. I want more smokeless zones and less smoke emitted into the atmosphere.
    We should be debating smoke emitted not only by domestic homes or industrial units but by farmers burning stubble, where black smoke is emitted and——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the amendments.
    Mr. Powell: I am loth to question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the title of the Bill is
    "To repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and to amend section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968."
    We are debating smoke emission from chimneys, industrial units and other places. I am questioning whether we should repeal or amend——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about smoke emission from farmers burning stubble.
    Mr. Powell: I was talking about the extension of the offence of emitting dark smoke from industrial or trade premises. Some farm units are industrial units. I have been on trains when dark smoke has blocked the entire railway track. Indeed, I have travelled on the M4 when the same has happened as a result of industrial waste being burnt on farms.
    Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend has mentioned one of the most important sources of dark smoke. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Third Reading, I should like to deal with the definition of dark smoke. Some major polluters have been omitted from the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) should consider whether there is anything sinister in that. Has there been a conspiracy to omit from the Bill major polluters and to deal only with——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate these matters on the amendments.
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right. The Bill should define black or white smoke.
    When one travels on the train to Didcot, one sees electricity power stations that have large chimneys. When white smoke is being emitted, it does not look too bad, but sometimes they emit black smoke. The difficulty is how to define black or grey smoke. Who will define it? Are there sufficient inspectors to ensure that offences are not committed? I have a 40-page document——
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Read it out.
    Mr. Powell: I shall not read it all. It is produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and clearly shows a

    1177
    reduction in the number of inspectors. I do not want to aggravate matters because I can see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, shuffling in your chair.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the difference between black and white smoke, which is fundamental to the Bill. The wide-ranging effects of the amendments encompass——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing in the amendments that varies the colour of the smoke that should be subject to the legislation.
    Mr. Greenway: May I make my point? I was——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard sufficient of the hon. Gentleman's point to understand it.
    Mr. Greenway: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
    Mr. Greenway: I am not——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade the House of his argument he should try to catch my eye in the usual way instead of persisting with an intervention that I have said is not compatible with the rules of order.
    Mr. Powell: The way in which the amendments have been moved this morning has aggravated hon. Members. We are all on tenterhooks because we do not know whether we are in order. We must therefore be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to get on and deal with the Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) made an important point. If we pass the amendments, the Bill will become different. There is also the issue of the inspectorate. What is the point of passing the Bill in its amended form if we do not have the inspectors to ensure that the Bill is carried out? Even if the Bill is passed unamended, we shall need more inspectors. If the amendments are carried, there is an argument about whether we need more or fewer inspectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) should give us some facts and figures about the inspectorate, so that we can determine the best way to proceed.
    Mr. Powell: The penultimate paragraph of the explanatory memorandum says:
    "The Bill has no financial effects or effects on public service manpower."
    I have read and re-read the Bill and it is obvious that there must be more inspectors to draw to the attention of the people concerned the extension of the offence of emitting dark smoke from industrial and trade premises. In such circumstances, I assume that the people involved would be prosecuted. My hon. Friend has made a relevant point. If we do not have more inspectors, the inspectorate will not be able to carry out its obligations under the Clean Air Act 1968.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the desirability of repealing section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956? If it was repealed rather than amended, we could produce
    1178
    amendments to incorporate the Ringelman scale which, as my hon. Friend knows, is the scale used to test whether an offence has been committed when smoke is emitted from steam locomotives. As my hon. Friend knows, I have some considerable experience in these matters. I hope that my hon Friend will dwell for a little while on the argument about whether repeal would be better. I have the Clean Air Act 1956 in front of me; section 16 provides no definition of black, white or grey smoke. Some adequate definition should be inserted.
    Mr. Powell: I am glad that my hon. Friend is here to give us that advice. If he had been here earlier, he might have been able to resolve our one-and-a-half-hour discussion. We could have listened to his advice and we could then have talked about amendment or repeal. He has convinced me that we were not clear about which it should be.
    I have had some experience of British Rail. I talked before about walking to Old Oak common railway depot in London, which serviced most of the western region of British Rail. Some hon. Members have said that I have always pushed a pen, but in fact I used to use a 2 ft shovel on British Rail to shovel coal into an engine from a tender which had a 28-ft firebox. The smoke that used to come out was black when we were at Paddington, but it would be white on the way down to Penzance and Plymouth. If we were to repeal section 16, we could table many amendments to provide a definition. That would please you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we would then clearly be in order in having a full debate on a proper definition of grey smoke, black smoke and white smoke.
    Mr. Anderson: I want to bring my hon. Friend back to the amendments, which will please you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has done well to keep within their constraints. He pointed out that it is rather implausible to believe that the Bill will have no financial effects on public service manpower. That bald and implausible statement related to the Bill in its original form. We have not heard from the Government or any other source whether the amendments will, in themselves, have repercussions on the need for public service manpower.
    If the Bill is a coherent whole, to alter one part may lead to the alteration of other parts, so the whole exercise this morning is misconceived. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the point about the implausibility of there being no financial effects on public service manpower and also the possible differences of amendment or appeal on the need for public service manpower.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Powell: That is a relevant point because, as I quoted earlier, the Bill suggests that there will he no financial effects on public service manpower.
    Mr. Anderson: That is nonsense.
    Mr. Powell: I agree that that is nonsense.
    Ms. Walley: I feel that somehow or other the House will have to find a solution to our present predicament. There is the question how, if there were to be a Division, we would explain to those Members who are either away from the Chamber or who have not taken part in the debate how they should vote on the two amendments. We have no way of knowing how the amendments will change the details of the Bill and we do not know the implications for

    1179
    manpower—or personpower, I should say. We have just had a sanitised annual report from the inspectorate of pollution—and I hoped to refer to it on Third Reading —which gives details of the way in which the inspectorate is under-resourced, demoralised and unable to carry out its work on air pollution.
    We are in a dilemma. How are we to tell other hon. Members what is happening? How will the general public know what is happening when they hear our arguments on "Today in Parliament"? Our confusion and dilemma are indicative of the Government's confusion on environmental issues. For that reason, I urge Opposition Members to do all that they can to establish a proper environmental protection agency—which a Labour Government will do—and I urge the Minister or the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) to come forward with specific proposals.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is supposed to be an intervention.
    Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend—I should have said my hon. Friend, but she will be my right hon. Friend before long—has made a timely intervention, which is a request for some help from the Government to resolve our dilemma, if it is possible to obtain help from the Government when the House is placed in a dilemma on private Members' Bills. It was not only an intervention but a plea made in the hope that——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is seeking to catch my eye. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consider bringing his remarks to a conclusion so that the Minister can do as he asks.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that there is no preferential treatment for Ministers. This is essentially a day for Back Benchers and I should not like to see any preference given to a Minister, as often happens.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was expressing the hope that the Minister would give the House some guidance. In case the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had not noticed, I was merely pointing out that the Minister was seeking to do exactly what the hon. Member for Ogmore wanted. Whether he terminates his speech to allow the Minister to intervene is a matter for him and the Chair.
    Mr. Powell: I am glad that you said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since I started my speech on the amendments, I have been trying to get the Minister to intervene. I do not wish to delay the House any longer. I hope that I will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Minister has spoken so that I can give my speech on Third Reading.
    Mr. Alan Meale: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying matters. He mentioned the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Perhaps he will comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and show that it is pointless for legislation of this kind to proceed while the Government are in such a mess over the air division. During the recent debate on the Consolidated Fund, the Minister admitted that there was disarray and that the chief inspector of air pollution and other senior
    1180
    inspectors had resigned. Reorganisation is proceeding in the air division and there is absolute turmoil. Perhaps my hon. Friend will refer in detail to the document which he mentioned earlier, thereby enlightening the House as to what needs to be done.
    Mr. Powell: I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has a copy of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, about which I could go into some detail. On reading the report last night I found that one senior inspector had resigned. Mr. Brian Ponsford was responsible for the report's preparation. Its implications for the Bill will be profound. Scales of promotion, remuneration and qualifications have been reported upon and a number of qualified inspectors will no longer enjoy their former conditions of service. I do not understand how they can monitor what is happening at present, let alone in future, if their work load is increased.
    Ms. Walley: In view of the issue as to how smoke control can be monitored, I am happy to have an opportunity to show the crisis that exists within HMIP. On air pollution legislation, the sanitised version of the first annual report says:
    "Inspectors made 9,134 visits to or in connection with scheduled works in 1987–88 (8,723 in 1987) compared with 9,391 in 1986."
    It is plain that there has been a substantial decline in the number of inspections. The report continues:
    This is in line with the targeted figure of 9,000. In several districts shortage of Inspectors or the need for introductory training for new Inspectors meant that some works did not receive a visit during the year."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Briefly.
    Ms. Walley: I shall be brief, Sir. Even more important, an unsanitised version of the report, in which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will be interested, states——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief and relevant.
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend's points were relevant, as is the unsanitised version, which she has passed to me, because it covers the whole inspectorate. I read that document last night because I thought that I might be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak not on the amendments but on the Bill in general. The document refers to the reorganisation of HMIP and new legislation which will increase the inspectors' workload. It states:
    "The proposed reorganisation provides only six middle management field posts to do the work which at present is being performed by sixteen people; comparison with Scotland where there has been a staff inspection within the last two years shows that, even without the additional work resulting from the new legislation, eighteen middle management posts would be realistic."
    That was only the second paragraph. The third states:
    "The long term objective of having all inspectors working from three Regional offices in Industry Groups would result in inefficiency from excess travelling and give less inspection at a given cost, at the same time there would be less liaison with Local Authorities and a lack of the local knowledge which exists at present."
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I am reluctant to intervene. I have listened with great care to the hon.

    1181
    Gentleman for the past hour and three quarters. It may help him to move towards the conclusion of his important remarks if I clarify the point that the Bill has no effects for HMIP; it would be environmental health officers who would be involved. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman to move to a conclusion so that I have the opportunity later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Anderson: I should like——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There should be no interventions in interventions.
    Mr. Powell: Yes——
    Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Powell: I give way.
    Mr. Anderson: I should like to follow that point. Although there is a crisis in the national inspectorate, the amendments relate specifically to domestic smoke and domestic pollution. As the Under-Secretary of State has properly said, the people who, without any additional manpower or expenditure, will be reluctant in this context, are not the members of the hard-pressed national inspectorate but the environmental health officers at local government level. My hon. Friend has had extensive experience of local government and is more aware than all of us of the crisis among environmental health officers at local government level. We hope that the proposals will have no effects on manpower, yet the environmental health officers, who already have additional burdens placed on them by other Government measures—that is right—will be expected to do the work without additional remuneration.
    Mr. Powell: I accept my hon. Friend's important point. If we were considering the third Bill on the Order Paper, the Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill, we would be considering a similar problem for environmental health officers—how to monitor if there were Sunday opening of shops. It is ridiculous to imply that extra staff will not be needed. We reject that idea.
    Ms. Walley: I feel obliged to return to what the Under-Secretary of State said—that this matter has nothing to do with HMIP but is for environmental health officers at local level. For the Minister's information, I recently tabled a series of parliamentary questions asking about the cuts in training which are causing a national shortage of environmental health officers. The Minister is nodding because, no doubt she remembers those questions. It is clear that we have a national shortage of environmental health officers throughout the country and that this problem is exacerbated by the cuts being implemented by the Department of the Environment.
    I also asked a series of questions of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers so that it could show me where there is a shortfall between the numbers of posts it has on the establishment and the number which it has employed to carry out this vital work. In many cases there is as much as a 30 per cent. shortage.
    Not two miles from this place, in the London borough of Lambeth, there is a shortage of environmental health officers. How on earth will it be possible for each and every local authority throughout the country to take on board the implications of the Bill, which we do not even understand because of the way in which verbal
    1182
    amendments have been brought to the House this morning? That is beyond my comprehension and, I repeat, is indicative of the Government's misunderstanding of the environmental issue and the crisis facing the country today.
    11.30 am
    Mr. Powell: I have been interested to see in the House over the past few years the knowledge and extreme capability within the Opposition, particularly on our Front Bench. The short intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) shows the House and the country the knowledgeable people we have in the Opposition—especially the women. I am grateful for that intervention and for the knowledge that my hon. Friend expounded to the Minister.
    I shall not excite your wrath further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I desperately need to powder my nose. Therefore, I shall give way so that the Minister may catch your eye and speak on the amendments. I hope that you will be kind enough to allow me to speak later on Third Reading.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is no doubt right that the House should have debated these amendments at such length. We all appreciate the possible sacrifice which has been made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) if it proves to be impossible for him to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss a subject which is obviously of great concern to him.
    This is an unusual way to deal with amendments, and there is no doubt that it is right that the House should give proper scrutiny to these procedures. I was not going to address the substance of the Bill in these brief remarks—hoping that I might be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we moved to Third Reading.
    The Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has the support not only of my Department but, on the basis of consultation held over some time, of virtually all the local authorities from which hon. Members present come, even if they do not all represent them. The Bill has a wide measure of support and there is no doubt, from this morning's debate on these amendments, that there is much interest in the subject. There is also some misunderstanding about the terms of the Bill. No doubt my hon. Friend, if his Bill reaches Third Reading, will explain precisely what his measures involve.
    It is a source of great regret that, frankly, an error was made in the long title of the Bill. The amendments merely change the long title and do not change the substance of the Bill or its effects on section 16(1)(a) of the 1956 Act.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that a Bill with a major defect in its title has been brought before the House in a suitable form? Is it not true that any legislation put before the House—particularly such as this, which was rushed through on Friday with no debate—should be perfect and not warrant criticism of its wording? How could highly paid parliamentary draftsmen make such elementary mistakes?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is a source of considerable regret that this error occurred in the long title. However, it does not in any way change the content of clause 1. As it stands, there is a conflict between the substance of the long title and clause 1.
    Mr. Anderson rose——
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall finish answering the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who talked about the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke secured the earlier stages of the Bill, which was unusual. There is a general understanding that there will be an opportunity for full debate to discuss the detail of this important measure on Third Reading. If the House decides that the Bill should be given a Third Reading, it will be possible to give this important measure the full scrutiny it requires.
    Mr. Anderson: The House is always charitable and understanding when a Minister or any hon. Member says that a fault or error has occurred, as on this occasion. I do not wish to carry out a witch hunt, but it would be helpful to know whether this was merely a technical error by a draftsman or whether the fault lies with the Department, so that we may better understand the source of the error. Who committed the error?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot reply to that specific point. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), if he studies the Bill, will appreciate that its substance is entirely unchanged.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish to make it abundantly clear that the House would be remiss to allow this legislation to go through without a vote. If the amendments were accepted, some people would argue that the Bill was not a bad measure, despite the fact that there is no allocation for manpower, which means that this would have to come from somewhere else. Staff would have to be taken off other jobs to look after those affected by the Bill.
    It is pretty clear that a few weeks ago the Government decided to get a small Bill on the statute book that could be described as green. The Prime Minister has made various speeches up and down the country and it was obviously decided to use Parliament and a private Members' day to pass a so-called green Bill. Little or no attention was paid to the content of the Bill—merely that it should be passed.
    Therefore, several Fridays ago, a Bill was taken off the shelf—it was not looked at properly, and was handed to a Back Bencher. It has reached Third Reading, and it is disgraceful that, having reached this stage, the Bill's proposer, in cahoots with the Government, had to table Third Reading verbal amendments to clean up the Bill. There is no question but that such proceedings should be totally refuted by hon. Members.
    Mr. Anderson: In answering the question about whether the Bill's origin was in the Department of the Environment or with a private Member, are we not finding an answer to my question about who was at fault? If this were really a Bill conceived by a private Member, we would understand the error because we are not experts. However, the Bill was taken from the dusty shelves of the Department of the Environment, and the Minister should say, "I am at fault—please understand it is me." Is this a private Member's Bill or a Bill from the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt, and perhaps the indications given by the proposer of the Bill suggest, that my hon. Friend is correct. The proposer of the Bill said
    1184
    very little when he moved the amendments. In all the confusion, he threw no light at all on the matter. It is not the first time that that has happened. It happens quite often when Governments go to Back Benchers and say, "Do you want your name in the history books? Here is a chance. You can get this Bill through on a Friday. It is an innocuous measure and will not cause any trouble. Most Opposition Members will support it." If the Bill had been put in the proper form, that would have been the case.
    The Government are now totally confused and are taking on the doctors, the Health Service, lawyers, dockers, almost every group of people in the country—and Parliament. The Prime Minister and her junior Ministers and others were not sure of what was taking place. They think that on a Friday not many people will be here and that they can get the Bill through because there will be no Opposition Members to examine it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has done a good job this morning. After a long argument not only with the Government but with the authorities, including the Chair, we, and especially my hon. Friend, have been able to establish that this procedure should be stopped.
    Mr. Cryer: Has my hon. Friend noted that there are no members of the Liberal, SDP or other cauliflower parties here exercising the parliamentary scrutiny that they often claim is their priority right? Does he agree that one of the reasons for the procedures of the House being abused on a Friday by this seedy little conspiracy, which tries to get some sort of "green" Bill through, is that the Government are stuffing Parliament to its gills with legislation, such as the Water Bill, which will reduce anti-pollution standards? That means that they have no time to allow proper consideration for minor legislation such as this Bill. If they had any decency, they would withdraw some of the nasty big Bills and give proper time to small Bills such as this.
    Mr. Skinner: That would not be a bad idea. It could be quite properly argued that the Government have caused all this confusion and heaped it on one of their Back Benchers. I do not regard him as the guilty party. There is a good argument for saying that the Bill should proceed on Monday and that the Bill for the repeal of the dock labour scheme should be dropped. That is another Bill that has been devised in haste. Perhaps the dockers should receive the same treatment as the lawyers and judges. When they threaten action at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Government run a mile and say, "We shall have to find a way out for them."
    It is correct for us to make a stand on this issue. It is clear that the House has been abused in a way that I have not witnessed in all the time that I have been here. The last time that a Bill was verbally amended on Third Reading was 18 years ago. According to the authorities of the House, that was a minor correction. These amendments seek to change the title of the Bill. The Bill brought before the House several Fridays ago was quite different from this one. It was not different in style or in a few words. The title was different.
    11.45 am
    The Bill that had its Second Reading and went through its Committee and Report stages was not this Bill. It was a Bill to repeal a section of the Clean Air Act 1956, whereas the Bill before the House today seeks to amend

    1185
    the Act to improve it. There is a mile of difference between a Bill that will repeal sections of an Act and one that seeks to amend Acts to make them better.
    What would happen if I went to the Chair on Monday and said, "By the way, I have a verbal amendment that was not printed in Friday's Order Paper. I want to change the nature of Monday's debate about the dock labour scheme. Instead of repealing the scheme I want to amend it." Perhaps we should try that and seek to extend the scheme to the non-scheme ports. I wonder whether the Chair would accept that. Perhaps on Monday I can say, "Here I am, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of minor amendments. They change the title of the Dock Work Bill but they change only one word."
    Mr. Anderson: Would that not have the additional benefit of avoiding strife in the ports? The dockers' leaders have made clear——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter while we are debating the amendment.
    Mr. Skinner: It may not be in order to speak about that, but if I am to convince some of my hon. Friends to make a stand on this issue I have to draw analogies between what is happening today and what could happen on other days. To all intents and purposes, this is a Government-sponsored Bill on a private Members' day and that is an abuse of the procedures of the House. The Opposition came to that conclusion in the early part of the morning. We came here to talk about something else and suddenly discovered that the Bill placed before us was totally at variance with the one that had gone through three or four Fridays ago.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend has spoken about verbal amendments and their dangers. He has also spoken about how the procedure might be used on Monday for the Dock Work Bill. If the precedent is set here——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not talking about the docks. We had better leave that until Monday and stick to Friday's business.
    Mr. Cohen: Perhaps we could table a verbal amendment to this Bill to say that the Employment Bill which shackles trade unions that might have an interest in smoke pollution should not apply. Perhaps that could be a precedent for the Dock Work Bill.
    Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker is a bit concerned. I know that he has been placed in a serious dilemma this morning. I was here at 9.30 and saw him come in. I saw him shaking his head and I know why. He follows the constitution perhaps more keenly than some others. It looked to me as if the Speaker was saying, "They have got me in a fine mess this morning."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I thought that we had come to debate a tiny straightforward Bill on smoke control, but discovered that it was completely different. Unusually, Mr. Speaker had to make a statement saying that this was almost a precedent. It has not happened for 18 years. He clearly seemed to have a problem. He said that he deprecated the use of this procedure. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and I,
    1186
    he also said that he understood why my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore might have to argue on a wider basis than on the narrow terms of the amendment. It is fairly easy to understand why that is so. If someone went to the Vote Office a few days ago and thought that the Bill there was the one going through and then found that it was not, it is clear that he would have a problem.
    If on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report the promoter of the Bill had aroused a discussion and there had been a debate about the previous Bill, hon. Members and the Speaker could have argued for a narrow debate today. However, not a word has been spoken on the alternative Bill and it is obvious that the Speaker and the authorities realised that they had played a blinder.
    Therefore, we must now seriously consider whether we can—I am speaking now to Opposition Members and any Conservative Members who are interested in the constitution and the House—support the amendments, albeit that the Bill in its entirety might be fine when produced properly. Should we allow, for purely constitutional purposes, the amendments to go through? Would it not be right and proper for somebody to make a stand and divide on the amendment so that we can demonstrate to those outside the House that we did not allow the Government-sponsored chicanery to pass without making a stand?
    Mr. Cohen: I am still concerned, because, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, the Bill went through Second Reading and Committee without any word being spoken about it. That was presumably because, without the amendments, the House accepted that it was a good Bill. However, the amendments fundamentally alter the Bill, because, for example, section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 exempted chimneys that produced smoke that was deemed to be a statutory nuisance. Under the unamended Bill owners of chimneys creating a nuisance would no longer be able to get away with it, but because of the words "to amend" they can continue to create a nuisance. The problem is that there has not been a statement about that during the debate and no one has explained why they should be allowed to continue to create a nuisance. Does my hon. Friend consider that that is a serious point?
    Mr. Skinner: It is a serious point, because when the Bill was presented it was not debated, and when it was brought here today it was not explained. Now the Minister has been on her feet and, because she wants to be careful about her rising up the greasy pole on the ministerial Bench, she would not commit herself completely on the issue. Why? The watchword is: "When confusion reigns, keep your trap shut." That is why the hon. Lady did not explain—this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) tried to explain—the difference between "amend" and "repeal". Because Opposition Members are concerned about the constitution, we want to know what the words would have meant and what they now mean in their new context.
    Mr. Anderson: Is not another possible explanation for the Minister's reticence and surprising brevity that, if she had spoken longer, she might have revealed all? She would have revealed the fact that the Bill is in fact a Department of the Environment Bill and not a private Member's Bill. She was keen not to go beyond the strict confines of her brief so as to avoid revealing the Bill's true origin.
    Mr. Skinner: I do not doubt that. Just imagine her going to see the Secretary of State for the Environment and saying, "I have had a tidy time in there today and I am afraid that I made a slight error." He says to her, "I have not been around. I have been in my own back yard. I am not sure what has been happening this week. I have been dealing with planning matters in the north and in Gloucestershire. I have been trying to ward off all those people who want to invade my privacy, even though I shall vote against those Bills next Friday." She then says, "I am afraid I went too far. We had a Bill off the Government shelf that dealt with the environment which we thought would please the Prime Minister who has this new green image." As I said earlier, some people in my area said it was a mouldy image, but that is another story. She says to the Secretary of State, "What happened was that we brought forward a Bill that was upside down and, rather than explain it to the House, I thought that I had better keep my mouth shut."
    Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
    Mr. Skinner: I think that my hon. Friend wants to embroider that point.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not my hon. Friend understand that what happened was much simpler than that? The Minister is the only woman in the Department; she is intelligent and she knows what she is doing. They have mucked the Bill up, and the Government have given it to her to straighten out.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend used to be in a Government Department and I am prepared to accept what she has said. It is just conceivable that she has taken one off the shelf before.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: No, I have not.
    Mr. Skinner: It is just a possibility. My hon. Friend, however, knows the way in which the machinery works. There is no doubt in my mind—it has been confirmed now—that the Government are behind all the confusion. I think that we must lay it at their door.
    Mr. Cohen: On the question of drafting, does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the Minister has this horrible job this morning is that the Department of the Environment realises that it has made a great mess of it and it has given the woman the worst job, as is always the case in this life? Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment had a role in this matter, because, after all, he was responsible for the Housing Bill? The Secretary of State is reported to have said, when that Bill was before the House, that he thought that it was a wonderful Bill because he had drafted it himself. However, because it was such a mess, it had 400 to 500 amendments made to it before it passed through Committee. Could it be that he had a hand in drafting the Bill?
    Mr. Skinner: There are many ways of looking at it, but I think that there are two main ones. The Bill was drafted with him hanging over it and the fag ash dropped on the wording. That is how we got the wrong wording. It was obliterated by the fag ash. The other alternative was that he was out one day in the park picking up litter. The Prime Minister was at his side and he had a bag. They were putting litter into the bag in St. James's park and, as he
    1188
    was rummaging through the bag, because his fag had dropped into it, he pulled out a bit of paper—it was the Bill. That is where it came from. I tend to think that it was probably the first proposition. However, despite all the hilarity that might be caused, a Government-sponsored Bill was presented to the House calling upon us to repeal the Clean Air Act, but, when we came here today we were told, "We did not mean that; we only wanted to amend it."
    I have been discussing this matter with some of my hon. Friends, and we believe that it would be worthwhile considering voting against the amendments. That would not be on the basis of whether they are good or bad, but it would be a way in which we could register our disapproval at the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. If we do not do that, the history books will record that we took part in it and, in all the confusion that reigned, it will be recorded that we connived and allowed the Bill to go through when we all know that it would be better if the Bill were presented in its proper form on another day.
    I believe that no one who has spoken or intervened would not give a fair wind to the general idea that is contained within the Bill if it came back to us properly drawn up, either next Friday or the Friday after. There are several more weeks to go before the end of this Session. It would still have time to go through its procedures—in the sleepy den in the other place—that is if it can get rid of the football passes Bill—and then become law. If we allow the Bill to go through without registering disapproval of the amendments, we shall have been a party to the same kind of connivance into which the Government have entered with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
    12 noon
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that Parliament ought not to have double standards—one for the Government and one for Back Benchers? If we accept this precedent without objecting or voting, should we not try the same trick on Monday? The Government's standard would surely not apply to Opposition Back Benchers. If we wanted to amend the Dock Work Bill on Monday, we would not be allowed to table amendments then. If there is to be consistency, right hon. and hon. Members should reject the Government's shabby manoeuvre.
    Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) puts his finger on an important point. If, contrary to our inclinations, we give way and are not true to our role, perhaps the Government will give way on Monday and accept a similar amendment not to repeal but to amend the Dock Work Bill.
    Mr. Skinner: From time to time I have been involved in negotiations with others in the House, but it is a bit of a tall order to ask me to make it my job between now and Monday to negotiate with the Government about repealing the dock labour scheme. On Monday, it will be our job to attempt that through the Authority of the Chair. The Chair should be warned that some right hon. and hon. Members may try that procedure.
    It is not a bad idea to alert those of my hon. Friends who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, and who are more closely allied with the issue, of what happened today and that a new system has developed. They should be informed that, contrary to the

    1189
    practice of the past 18 years, one can now change the title of a Bill, and that instead of repealing legislation, one can amend it. We should alert our colleagues.
    Mr. Anderson: And raise points of order.
    Mr. Skinner: There is no question that we should raise points of order. We shall call upon the Chair to accept amendments to the Dock Work Bill when it is debated on Monday. If we did that, the Bill could be modified to include all non-scheme ports, which would ensure that everyone enjoyed the same conditions of work in ports throughout Britain. As there has been no industrial trouble at the ports over many years, the chances are that there would be relative—I say relative—industrial peace throughout the industry. In that way, we would serve a very useful purpose.
    The more that I think about it, the more I am convinced that this change of procedure can provide us with great opportunities in future. I am beginning to think about all the Bills that are to come before the House, and in particular-——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sufficient has been said about docks. Right hon. and hon. Members should concentrate on the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Skinner: When considering whether I agree to repeal or amend a Bill, I can only do so on the basis of whether that is right for the Bill before the House and whether it is correct parliamentary practice. I cannot look at it in any other way. I must ask myself, "Is it right for those acting on behalf of the Government to take such action?" We all know that the Government are behind the Bill, otherwise they would have denied it. In the new parliamentary straits in which we find ourselves, it is right to consider whether this new procedure would be appropriately adopted not only on Monday but on many other occasions.
    Shortly we may have before us what is known as the other private Member's Bill procedure. I want to know whether under that Bill it will be possible, once the Bill has passed through all its other stages, to amend or repeal the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker knows something about that subject because he comes under the general auspices of Chairman of Ways and Means. Perhaps he can give an answer off the top of his head. However, in view of what happened this morning, he may have to study the books. I shall not develop that point but will throw it in as a sprat to catch a mackerel on another day.
    Mr. Cohen: Could not the same procedure be used for the Dock Work Bill as is being used today? Instead of repealing the dock labour scheme, it could be amended by enhancing trade union rights and increasing pay.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must wait until next week to do that. We cannot debate next week's business today.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is getting pretty excited at the prospect that I hold out. Those right hon. and hon. Members who have served the House for the past 18 years have never seen such a procedure used before. Some of us study "Erskine May" but obviously we have missed some bits. However, I have since discovered that on the last occasion that the procedure was used it involved a
    1190
    non-controversial measure and did not involve totally changing that Bill. The last time that the verbal amendment procedure was used the measure concerned was, by comparason with the Bill before the House, of a comparatively minor nature. However, the amendments now before the House would turn the Bill upside down. A wide procedural gate has been opened, and those of us who take account of parliamentary procedures will exploit it in future.
    Ms. Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend refers to the problems of dealing with a private Member's Bill that is basically a Government Bill in disguise. Shortly we shall be debating a similar private Member's Bill concerning weights and measures that also appears to be a Government Bill in disguise. When we come to consider the amendments to that Bill, can we be sure——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House cannot debate now a Bill that appears later on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, and her remarks are not really out of order when one considers them against the background of the Government-sponsored Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, which my hon. Friend knows has changed. She arrives at the House this morning primarily to debate weights and measures and suddenly finds herself embroiled in a constitutional wrangle or crisis. Naturally she asks herself whether the same arguments apply to the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill. I can give my hon. Friend another piece of news. I have heard that the Government told the Conservative Member responsible for the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill to bobby off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] I know that I am not supposed to speak to that Bill, but I mention in passing that we first find ourselves debating a completely different Bill, and then encounter, in respect of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, another example of chicanery. The Conservative Member who was to speak to that Bill entered the Chamber, looking active and as though he was ready to progress it, but after a few minutes the word carne through the grapevine of this gentleman's club——
    Mrs. Dunwoody: There are also some good women in it.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, on this side of the House.
    Mr. Anderson: Be charitable.
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady has been quiet: she will not tell us what the amendment is all about.
    In this other bit of chicanery, the hon. Gentleman has been told to go away because the Government are happy to see this happen. I do not think any of the amendments will be discussed, and no doubt I shall be proved right.
    Mr. Anderson: I know that my hon. Friend is always very understanding of Conservative Members. Having criticised the hon. Gentleman who withdrew his Weights and Measures Bill, will he pay tribute to the other side of the coin—the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who must have been subjected to the same Government pressure but who has stood his ground? That, surely, is tremendously to his credit. Despite all the blandishments, the possible preferment, the greasy pole, the knighthoods—whatever he may have been offered—the hon. Gentleman is determined to bring forward his Bill.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been suggested several times that the Weights and Measures Bill has been withdrawn. So far that is only a rumour, but I wonder whether as a matter of courtesy to you—and hence to the House—the promoter has given formal notice of withdrawal? I raise the question as one who has taken the trouble to put down several amendments in the expectation of debating them. What action can you take, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the Bill's Second Reading is not moved and the promoter has simply drifted off in contempt of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no formal notification. We may be indulging in speculation and feeding on rumour. We had better wait until we reach the relevant Bill and discover whether the promoter is here to move his motion.
    Mr. Skinner: According to some authorities, they have been informed that at the appropriate time today an attempt will be made to move the Bill to another day.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) wanted me to compliment the hon. Member for Basingstoke on having stood his ground. I think that my hon. Friend should look beyond today.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke is sat patiently with this Government Bill in his hand—well, a different Bill from the one that he had the other Friday—and I think that there is a possibility that he will be made a Whip. I have seen this happen before on a Friday. I have seen Conservative Members talk out a Bill and be promoted. I could name a few. They come into the Chamber late and talk Bills out; the next minute they are in the Whips' Office. Whether that is a promotion is neither here nor there. Hon. Members may finish up bringing in the snooker cue once a month with a message from the Queen. Is that a better job? It is certainly better paid, but I would regard it as something of a hack's job. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Basingstoke is really after that sort of promotion, but no doubt he will get his due reward.
    Mr. Cohen: I take my hon. Friend's point. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will, however, have to compete with the hon. Gentleman who should have moved the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill. Perhaps he has drifted off because, like the Prime Minister, he did not know that a "large white" meant a loaf of bread. Surely that is why the Weights and Measures Bill should be considered—to ensure that a "large white" is a proper loaf of bread, not chalk, for instance.
    12.15 pm
    Mr. Skinner: I do not know about the Prime Minister and the large white, but I know that when she used to serve in Alderman Roberts's shop in Grantham she was so keen on making a profit that she used to cut up the dolly mixtures to make sure that they were not over weight. Once someone gets down to that sort of thing we know that they are into making money. [HON. MEMBERS: She has been cutting ever since."] She certainly had a lot of practice then. People would come in for 2 oz of dolly mixtures and she would put them on the scales and if they were a bit over weight she would cut them in half.
    When I went to Grantham I said to an old fellow there, "Do you remember her?" He said, "Oh aye, we all knew about Snobby Roberts." Of course, we are all fashioned in
    1192
    our childhood; we are all products of our environment. If someone has spent her time behind a shop counter slicing the bacon so thin that people can see through it and cutting dolly mixtures in half, is it any wonder that when she becomes Prime Minister she is prepared to cut services? Is it any wonder that the NHS is under attack?
    Mind you, she is not cutting the money at Downing Street. It is costing more than £5 million a year to keep it going—more than for Buckingham Palace. That is why the Queen gets so upset. But I shall leave that subject altogether, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am more concerned about the constitutional propriety of changing "repeal" to "amend".
    Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend mentioned that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) might be looking for promotion to the Whips' Office, and might be walking in with his billiard cue. He also mentioned the amount of time that the hon. Gentleman had spent on the Bill.
    Earlier this week we heard about the amount of time that had been spent on other Bills—hours and hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for instance, had spent 162 hours considering the Electricity Bill. How much time was spent on this Bill? Was it two minutes, one minute, three and a half minutes? That is how much time the hon. Member for Basingstoke, who is expecting a promotion to either the House of Lords or the Whips' Office, has spent on it.
    Mr. Skinner: That is the kernel of the argument. My hon. Friends and I expected a proper explanation after Mr. Speaker had told us what had happened. We raised points of order because we could not believe what we were hearing—that two "verbal" amendments were to be discussed on Third Reading.
    That is so unusual that I was wondering whether the Mace would have to be removed. I was not sure of the exact procedure, and wondered whether the Serjeant at Arms—or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown)—would have to come and take the Mace away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Heseltine."] The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would really be more appropriate, because he waved the Mace around his head. I thought that that might happen, because it happens when a Bill goes into Committee. It was an interesting little parliamentary scene for the connoisseur. I thought that because the Mace had not been taken away we were not in Committee and then I thought, "What cheek. The Government are amending a Bill that has never been debated in the House of Commons."
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke who has promoted the Bill on behalf of the Government—we all know that that is what this is all about—was expected to explain, amid all the confusion, why suddenly a Bill to repeal the Clean Air Act is now a Bill to amend it. That can mean that it might improve it, whereas in the context of the ports Bill "repeal" means to destruct and to destroy. It was only to be expected that a full and proper explanation would be given, especially since there has not been discussion on this before. Well, we did not get much of an explanation——
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We did not get any.
    Mr. Skinner: No, we did not get any explanation and the Minister then made a brief appearance at the Dispatch Box. However, as she wants to safeguard her future, she

    1193
    was not prepared to put her foot in it. If somebody is to start making charges, the Minister does not want it on her doorstep. It would be better in Ridley's backyard rather than in hers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about planning permission?"] That is the position that we are in and it is a tidy old mess.
    Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend mentioned the Minister and perhaps he will recall that I was in full flight in my comments on the amendments but because I thought that the Minister would make a statement to solve our problems, I stopped—[Interruption.] Obviously, the Minister would not have been able to do that in a point of order or an intervention. I stopped halfway through my speech. I still have my speech with me and there is at least one hour's contribution left. Although I gave way to the Minister, she did not resolve the problem or get us out of this dilemma and that is typical of the way in which the Government act towards Opposition Members——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Powell: However, what is coming out now is something even worse because we know that some of our hon. Friends have prepared for the next debate but have now found that that Bill is to be withdrawn because yet again the Government have decided—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. I call Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: When my hon. Friend said that he would draw his remarks to a close, I was listening because I thought that as my hon. Friend is a gentleman he would give way——
    Mr. Powell: My father was a miner.
    Mr. Skinner: I was waiting to hear what the Minister would say in explanation and in answer to the many points that have been put forward. I knew that my hon. Friend had not dealt with everything because I remembered my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) asking him whether he had read the document on pollution control. It was a fairly weighty tomb—no, tome. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps it should have been a tomb as well—a tomb to put the Government in.
    I wondered why my hon. Friend was not speaking at length, or at least to some extent, about the document. I thought that my hon. Friend was anxious to hear the Minister explain the predicament caused by the Government which has landed on the shoulders of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. He is carrying the can. We have been able to remove part of that weight from his shoulders. It is true that he is acting in good old party fashion, but why should he carry all the blame? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore had cut short his speech so that the Minister could rise to explain what had happened. However, she played it craftily—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, aye."] She said I want to reserve my comments for the Third Reading debate. She was cleverly trying to escape from explaining why the Government were pushing through a Bill via a Back Bencher, which is totally opposite to the Bill that went through the initial proceedings. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore bring his remarks to a close, but he did not get the answer that he expected.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Was it not worse than my hon. Friend has made out? The Minister said something revealing when she said, "If we are allowed to proceed without any further discussion to the Third Reading, I will make my remarks." What is happening with this Bill is what has happened with so many other Bills. Bills that look as if they are private Members' Bills are introduced, the Government having decided that they want them to go ahead. If we had not debated the amendments—as we are doing—then, and only then, would we have heard the Government's attitude.
    Mr. Skinner: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Anderson: And worse, had we fallen for the stratagem of the Government and allowed the amendments through at this stage, surely the Government would have argued on Third Reading that there was a fait accompli and said, "After all, you agreed it." Is that not indicative of the serpentine way in which the Government are trying to move?
    In passing, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my Welsh hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on playing the House of Commons role in this matter——
    Mrs. Dunwoody: He is not the only hon. Member from Wales.
    Mr. Skinner: I liked my hon. Friend's description, "the serpentine way". Perhaps he was trying to say that the Government are lower than a snake's belly. At least, I thought that that was roughly what he was trying to say, but I know that he is a lawyer and that they do things differently.
    Before we go any further I want to put on record the fact that this is no longer a private member's day. That has been established beyond peradventure this morning——
    Mr. Anderson: Lawyers would say, "Beyond reasonable doubt."
    Mr. Skinner: We thought that we were here to deal with private Members' business, but we have found out that this is really a Government Bill which has been shovelled towards a Back Bencher. Indeed, it was drawn up wrongly in the process. We also know that another private Member's Bill has been taken off the Order Paper—that is, if the Library authorities are correct.
    I do not want anybody, especially the press, to suggest for one moment that there has been an attempt to scupper a prized private Members' day. What we have been doing this morning, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, is stopping the Government in their tracks. Nobody should have any doubt any longer that this Friday is about private Members' business.
    This has been one of the most obnoxious pieces of chicanery and conspiracy from the Government since they have been in power. Not content with having Monday to Thursday for getting through their own business, the Government have decided to use Friday as well. Let nobody say any different because we are not discussing Bills that were drawn out in the top six in the private Members' ballot. We are discussing Bills that have been slipped through with Government connivance. We should have no fears or worries about spoiling a private Member's

    1195
    day because this week the Government have collared Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and now Friday for their own business.
    The Prime Minister decides to go green. She wants a little green Bill to go through and she leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment. He produces a Bill that is upside down, so he passes it to a Tory Back Bencher. Then the Government do not have the guts to explain why confusion reigns.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I owe my hon. Friend an apology. Earlier he suggested that this could have been arranged by the Whips' office. I have been a Whip. I was brought up in chapel, so I said that I did not suspect that the Whips on either side, or the usual channels, could be involved. That is why I made that comment, but I withdraw it and apologise, because my hon. Friend has proved beyond doubt that the Government and the Government Whips must have been involved in the process.
    12.30 pm
    Mr. Skinner: The truth is that the Government Whips operate differently. My hon. Friend is a member of what I would call a loose federation in the Labour Whips' Office. When one is in the Government Whips' Office, however, one is a Minister and part of the collective responsibility, unless one is the Secretary of State for Wales. Then one does one's own thing. If one is a Government Whip, one has to toe the line. What happens is that one of those Whips comes along and says, "Pass the Bill down the line." There is always a pair of waiting hands in the gully or at third slip.
    Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the Government taking all the business of the House to themselves and not giving any of it to Back Benchers. To refer to my hon. Friend's earlier analogy, would he describe the Prime Minister as having given up cutting the dolly mixtures? She now wants all the dolly mixtures in the parliamentary timetable for herself. To elaborate on that analogy, does my hon. Friend agree that it does not extend to the liquorice? Instead of cutting everything, she has given a lot to the wealthy. It does not apply to the all-sorts. The wealthy have got more from this Government.
    Mr. Skinner: I just cannot see the Prime Minister in the role of "Hello, Dolly." She does not conjure up that image for me. I have said before that she does not conjure up for me, either, the image of being one of the greens—in an anorak and wellies and carrying a bowl of rice.
    It is just as well that we sussed this out. It has been good for Parliament. We do not change a great deal here. Dramatic changes take place outside Parliament. Most Opposition Members believe that, but we have to use Parliament as a sounding board and for passing legislation when dramatic changes are effective. Since we are here, however, we have got to do a job.
    This morning—albeit it is a small beginning—we have been able to explain quite vividly that Parliament is being hijacked. What is worse, the private Member's Bill day is being hijacked. People talk about filibustering. That never occurs here. We hear about hon. Members debating a private Member's Bill and preventing other hon. Members from getting their Bills through. That is not what has
    1196
    happened today. The Government had plans to get their own little Bill through, even though it came from a Department that got four other Government Bills wrong.
    In the last few years the Department of the Environment has introduced Bills that had to be drastically changed. On at least two or three occasions it had to go to the law courts to get them changed as a result of action taken outside this place. On other occasions, the same Department had to introduce retrospective legislation to put right previous legislation. This is another example. On this occasion it said, "There won't be many there on Friday. We will slip it through on Back Benchers' day." That is what the game is all about.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend recall that in her brief remarks the Minister claimed that local authorities had been consulted about the Bill? She said that there had been wide consultation. She claimed that hon. Members would have been involved in consultations with the local authorities in their constituencies. Is it not outrageous that, after the huge panoply of consultation that the Minister claimed had taken place, the Government should have produced a shoddy Bill such as this instead of adopting the proper procedure—a public Bill in Government time?
    Mr. Skinner: We always hear about consultation. I find it rather strange that next Thursday we are to discuss procedure on some other Bills. Why are we to do that? Because over the years people have discovered that there is an inherent weakness in the way in which those Bills are proceeded with in the House in that the Government have gradually invaded what used to be private Bills. Those private Bills, which were generally of a very minor nature, have suddenly become much more political, and it has become so bad that next Thursday we are to debate changing the procedure for private Bills because the Government have allowed and have even encouraged the private Bill procedure to have a more overt political tone.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that, certainly in transport Bills, the Government are using the private Bill procedure as an alternative means of getting planning permission? They are pushing through the House major Bills which are taking the place of normal planning procedure. They are getting them on the statute book to bring about what they could not achieve by using the agreed procedures.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to expand on that point. Let us stick to Friday, this Bill and these amendments.
    Mr. Skinner: I must answer that because, although you have to guide us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few of us were here this morning and we witnessed a parliamentary scene of confusion that we have not witnessed in all the years that we have been here and Mr. Speaker used words——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I have been here in spirit since 9.30 this morning, I have heard almost every word that has been said, and the Chair is indivisible in these matters.
    Mr. Skinner: What was initially a motley crew has now developed into concerted, collective action. On private Members' days we do not have Whips and we do not

    1197
    accept one person's point of view on any particular issue. From the explanations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and others, it is pretty clear that there has been a conspiracy by the Government, on the Bill.
    You have to sit in the Chair on many Fridays, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You also sit there from Mondays to Thursdays, and you expect a different argument on Fridays. But today it is the same argument. It is a Government Bill which has been produced by the Government and parcelled off to a Tory Back Bencher who has to take the flak. We are discussing specifically whether the amendments to replace "repeal" with "amend" are acceptable, and to reach a conclusion on that we have to find out why the word "repeal" was used in the first place. We have to find out where the murky trail began. We have discovered that it did not begin at Basingstoke. We found that it began in Downing street, in the Cabinet, and in the Department of the Environment. That is where the trail led us, and once we had discovered that we had every right to consider the amendments against the background of Government interference in a private Member's day.
    We have no alternative. We are now engaged in a battle against the Government and that is not normal practice on a Friday. Although I find it hard to take my Opposition hat off on any day, most of us try to consider Fridays in a different light. That is what we are doing here today and Opposition Members are fully apprised.
    Ms. Quin: Is it not the case that by introducing amendments at this late stage the Government are avoiding the consultation that they should be having with the many interested parties? Is it not also the case that, by introducing a Bill in this way, they are avoiding consultations which would be of great value to both sides of the House?
    Mr. Skinner: A properly drawn up Bill dealing with the environment including these measures, would be supported. Such a Bill should be drawn up after proper consultation with local authorities—not the type of consultation that the dockers have had—and with hon. Members. In this age, more and more people are concerned about the environment and everyone knows that we cannot patch the hole in the ozone layer by using some sort of Tebbit-like entrepreneur. We cannot clean up the environment by allowing market forces to proliferate. Imagine saying to somebody, "We've a hole in the ozone layer and we are leaving it to an entrepreneur on an enterprise allowance to patch it up." It is nonsense.
    We all know that if the environment is to be cleaned up, it has to be done by collective action. Once we start talking about collective action, we are talking about society, and that is a word that the Prime Minister does not like. Only people who are prepared to back philosophically collective action can sort out the problems surrounding the amendments. It cannot be done by the operation of market forces. I can see the twinkle in the eyes of many of my hon. Friends now that we have moved into this territory.
    Mr. Ray Powell: We should be considering what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will say about all the comments that have been made on this issue. What part has he played in the conspiracy? When he walked down Whitehall to obtain his instructions, was he told, "You will be all right because we will not reach the second or third Bill on the Order Paper"? If that is the case, all the
    1198
    preparation for the debates on the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill and the Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill will be wasted. By the time the hon. Member for Basingstoke gives the House his explanation there will he no time left.
    All that is engendered by a Government conspiracy against us and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is taking place on a private Member's day. It will affect Bills other than those on the Order Paper today. Some hon. Members have sat up all night preparing for the introduction of a Bill under the ten minute rule. They have now found out that if the Government want something, they conspire to ensure that an hon. Member will obtain it for them, but when they do not want something they are prepared to stop private Members' Bills. That is what we should be looking at.
    Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth saying that later today the Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill will be moved. I offer a challenge now to the Government: when the Bill is moved at 2.30 pm, do not object to it. If they believe in looking after old-age pensioners by giving them proper aid and assistance, they should not object to the Bill. If they can destroy a private Member's day by bringing forward their own considerations, they should not stop Bills of that nature. Hon. Members have queued up to obtain an opportunity to introduce a Bill under the ten-minute rule.
    Why were verbal amendments moved? Why did the amendments arrive only this morning? As the Bill passed its previous stages several Fridays ago—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may have been in the Chair when that happened—why was it not revealed that the Bill had been given the wrong title? Three or four weeks is a long time for legislation. The Government could have said, "Do you know what we have done? We have given the Bill the wrong title. Instead of giving it a title to amend the Clean Air Act, we have given it a title to repeal it."
    12.45 pm
    Three or four weeks have elapsed, yet nothing has happened, which means that the mistake was not spotted by civil servants. Let us assume that civil servants knew and that, rather like "Yes, Minister", Sir Humphrey or his equivalent said, "Hallo, hallo, hallo, look at this lot. The Bill will repeal the Clean Air Act instead of amending it. I said that it should be amended before I told you to find an hon. Member who would introduce it." Let us assume that Sir Humphrey or his counterpart said to the Secretary of State for the Environment, "Here is a good Bill. It has a green image and will be like a glow-worm in Downing Street. It will show that the Prime Minister means business."
    I think that I know what went wrong in those four weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) hinted at the answer at 9.40 am. I think that the Government were aware of the mistake but hoped that it would escape attention, as it did on the first occasion. They thought, "We have made a mess of this and we will probably place the Chair in a predicament", which was the case when Mr. Speaker had to make a statement about the new 18-year development. They thought that they would slide the Bill through and get on to the next one.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it possible that Sir Humphrey knew the effect of the error from the outset but that the Government, as with other matters, refused to listen?
    Mr. Skinner: Normally, we see civil servants shuffling papers back and forth to the Minister. I have been here all morning, but I have not seen any paper going back and forth. Labour Members have asked many questions and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised several constitutional matters. One would have thought that if what we were saying was untrue a little bit of paper would have come from the Box.
    Mr. Anderson: Confetti.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, confetti. There has been no paper from the Box.
    Labour Members sussed out the Government early on. I am not prepared to accept lectures from the Government about private Members' Bill time. They have hijacked a private Members' day to pass a Bill that was wrongly drafted.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the answer may be that my hon. Friend the Minister is so competent that she does not need to be briefed and has all the answers waiting for the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady has not been here all morning. I suppose that she was down at Wimbledon, getting ready for the ticket touts in June and July. Had she been here she would have heard the minister speak briefly, because she has been handed the difficult job of trying to explain away why it is that the amendment seeks to make the Bill wholly different from what it was before. The minister dodged the issue. If the hon. Lady had been here, she would have thought that it was funny that the Minister should get up to explain yet explain nothing although she would have kept her mouth shut because she would have thought, "She is one of ours". She would also have thought, "There must be some reason for the Minister's reticence." I did not hear the Minister explain or give any answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. The Minister wanted to intervene, but did not give the answers. If the hon. Lady had been here, she would have known the answer. As she asked, I have given her the answer.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Bill was obviously drafted by the Department, which would have used parliamentary draftsmen. They are specific in their instructions to Ministers that the English used must reflect accurately legal interpretations. Is it not a shame that they handed over to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) a document that is so deficient in its drafting? The draftsmen not only missed their own incompetence, but had to bring in a rarely used procedural measure to do something about it. They should apologise to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, who has been put in an awkward position.
    Mr. Skinner: Although the Minister made only a brief statement, she could at least have done what my hon. Friend has suggested. She could have said to her hon. Friend the member for Basingstoke, "I am not going to say much about the amendments because they are a bit of an embarrassment to me. We have placed you in something of a predicament." The hon. Gentleman has had to sit here all morning. I imagine that they told him beforehand that the Bill would be through quickly and he may have expected
    1200
    it to be all over by 10 am or 10.30 am. That may have been the signal he was given. The Minister should say, "We are sorry that the Bill was wrongly drafted. I apologise for all the trouble and embarrassment caused." Even at this stage the Minister could intervene and apologise for the trouble that she has caused him. We do not need apologies. In many ways, we have scored a parliamentary triumph today in thwarting the Government's activities.[Laughter. Some Tory Members laugh. Had they been here earlier and listened to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who spoke briefly on the matter, they would have known that what I am saying is said against the background of a Conservative Member fully understanding the muddle that the Government have created. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he more or less said that in typical, Tory coded language.
    Mr. Cryer: The Walker code.
    Mr. Skinner: It was a bit more overt than that. The hon. Gentleman was astounded that such a procedure was being developed. He wanted to know how, when and why. He did not go on at length, but he made his point and he did not receive any answers. We have not had any answers either. The hon. Member for Orpington might explain to his hon. Friends who were not here at the beginning how the new procedure was brought in. We have sussed out the truth. We are trying not only to deal with the Bill and the amendments, but to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again. I hope that the Bill will go through. We have tried to ensure that such a mistake does not happen before with the Department of the Environment. Other Bills have been taken up in court and have caused the introduction of retrospective legislation. We have said, "Don't do it again." Then the Secretary of State has done it again. They have got the legislation wrong five times, and this makes it six.
    Why should we just say, "We are sorry that you have got it wrong. You have brought in a bill that is totally wrecked compared with what it was at the beginning"? We must put it on the record that we shall not allow Parliament to be abused in this way or for private Member's day to be taken over by the Government to get their Bills through rather than use the opportunity on proper Government days to introduce proper environmental measures.
    Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has suggested that the decent thing for the Minister to do would be to apologise for the abuse which the Government, through this shabby little conspiracy, have heaped upon the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that expecting an apology from the Government to a democratic institution is like asking for snow not to melt in spring? The Government's hallmark is what Lord Hailsham described as the elective dictatorship. When the Labour Government were in a minority and, ever since, with a majority of 100 on the Conservative side, the Conservatives have tried to trample on the rights of the House. They have used that majority and Lord Hailsham has never uttered a single criticism of the true elective dictatorship with which we are faced.
    Mr. Skinner: It is not just that. We do not expect Lord Hailsham to defend the rights of working class people. It has been left to Labour Members to sort out this constitutional and parliamentary chaos. It is significant that throughout the debate—it is now nearly 1 o'clock

    1201
    —not a single member of the rag tag and bobtail parties has been present. Those Social and Liberal Democrats go round the country talking about Parliament. We hear the leader of the officials and the leader of the provos on television. They talk about the need to reform Parliament. Where are they today? We have seen neither hide nor hair of them. They are not concerned about the way in which parliamentary procedures are trampled upon. They have not turned up for work. It has been left to Labour Members to discover the way in which the Government have taken over this Friday for their purposes.
    Those Members who should be here have gone missing. I suppose that they are down in the Vale of Glamorgan —some good that will do them! I have been told that they have a meeting with Michael Meadowcroft because he has started another party. They are spawning—it is like mushrooms in a field. Every time I pick up a newspaper, there is another party, so we cannot expect those people to be here advising on the parliamentary chaos when they have so much chaos within their ranks.
    Mr. Cryer: They are experts.
    Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt about that. In the last election they were going to appeal to the electorate by saying, "Leave it to us. We will work with anyone." They are not working today, are they? They are not here. I knew that for a lie at the beginning. During the 1987 election, I saw one of the leaders get on one bus and another get on another bus. I said to a mate, "Did you notice that? They are supposed to be together but they are on different buses!"
    We do not want those people to tell us about how to make sure that Back Benchers' rights are protected against a Government who are prepared to trample all over those rights and to bring in a Bill using all sorts of methods so that it can weave its way through Parliament. It is nearly 1 o'clock.
    Mr. Cohen: I have followed the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the way in which the amendments and the Bill have come about. I agree that they may have emanated from Downing street. An even more sinister possibility which my hon. Friend should consider is that the Bill started out repealing the exemption from the statutory nuisance provisions. If the amendment is passed, people will be able to create a smoke nuisance.
    1 pm
    The sinister aspect is that, perhaps the Government meant "amend" in the first place but put "repeal" because they wanted to defuse any opposition so that the issue would not be raised. Now, at this late stage, the Government have come up with this new procedure—verbal amendments—to stick in the word "repeal". They avoided doing so earlier when there could have been criticism and a proper debate on the matter. Will my hon. Friend consider that sinister possibility?
    Mr. Skinner: That is a more sinister argument. What my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton says is interesting and quite possible. We should examine what he is saying, which is that when the Government first introduced the Bill they deliberately put in "repeal" to put people off, so that they would say, "This is not a matter for us." Then on Third Reading, they changed it. That is really sinister.
    1202
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has been right on such matters before. If this sort of procedure is to take place we should try it regularly on every Bill put before the House. We are to start discussing the Dock Work Bill on Monday and we have already discussed the possibility of changing its title so that instead of repealing the docks scheme we will amend it.
    Imagine the sort of measures that could be carried through when we are in Government—my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton might be a junior Minister like the hon. Member for Surrey, South West (Mrs. Bottomley)., or even in the Cabinet, and he could quietly say to me and one or two others, "Don't worry about the Bill on Friday—we don't mean to do what it says because we are going to change its title; we only put it in to keep the Tories o ff." It would be an interesting development to bring in Bills which were the opposite of what they were intended to be. Talk about a circus—the Government have done some tricks in here from time to time but if this is what they are up to now, we shall need the sharp eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton on all these Bills. I shall certainly go through them all from now on. Most of the Bills that are being fetched off the shelf and handed down to Tory Back Benchers for a bit of kudos could mean the opposite of what they say, so we shall have to come here every Friday from now on.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I want to vote for some of them.
    Mr. Skinner: We shall have to have two briefs. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) says that she will come to vote. It will mean a bit more work, but we shall have to prepare a brief in favour of the Bill and one against it in case it is amended at the last minute. We have no alternative.
    Mr. Anderson: During the past two decades the Government have been bound to set out the way in which Bills affect finances and manpower, and the European Community. Will it be possible for the Government to add a third consideration—whether the Bill should be taken seriously at its face value?
    Mr. Skinner: Imagine what the papers would say if the Labour party was doing this—what would have happened if a Labour Government had shovelled this Bill to a Back Bencher? The headlines in the Tory press the next day would have read, "Labour in complete bungle." We have not seen many members of the press in the Gallery today. The press would have said, "Total incompetence". The newspapers would have used all the epithets that they could think of, but I bet that they will not do that on this occasion. We shall have an opportunity in future to examine the matter, but we had better be careful about all the provisions in this Bill.
    I have spoken for a long time because we are dealing with a constitutional matter. We thought that today's debate would be about a minor smoke pollution control Bill, but it has not been about that at all. When I discussed the Bill earlier with my hon. Friends, we thought that it would finish fairly early—we did not know that the Government were up to some dirty work, but we have found them out. Having found them out, we explored all the possible reasons as to why they had hijacked this private Members' day and brought it under their own control.

    1203
    In the past three hours or so we have made a protest, not just because of the Bill but because we have to stop the evil practice of turning the titles of Bills upside down in the course of their preparation. We have to stop the nonsense of Bills going through on the nod without proper debate. Today's happenings will make us wary about that in future.
    For all those reasons, I am happy in the knowledge that my hon. Friends now understand the matter more clearly. As we approach the end of today's business, we are more aware and better understand the way in which the procedures of the House have been bludgeoned by the Government. That has to stop. For that reason, on every Friday in future while the Government remain in office we shall closely scrutinise all Bills to find out whether they mean the opposite of what they are supposed to mean and to make sure that this is the last time the Government can hijack a private Members' day for their own purposes. That is what we have learnt this morning.
    Mr. Anderson: I should like to develop the theme of elective dictatorships. It has emerged forcefully during the debate that a tribute must be paid to my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on carrying out a magnificent House of Commons job.
    When we take parties of schoolchildren or others through the Members' Lobby, we show them the statues of Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee. There is also an empty plinth. In future, it may have on it a statue of either my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover or my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, because today's debate has shown them to be great House of Commons men. We congratulate them on their forensic skills. What appeared to be a sprat of a Bill was proved by them to be something far more significant. My two hon. Friends have followed the clues in a fine forensic way from Basingstoke to the very steps of Downing street, and that in itself is a tribute to their skills. They have shown the way in which the Government are able to manipulate private Members' time.
    I generally feel sympathy for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for your colleagues in the Chair when you are subjected to difficulties posed by the Government. The Minister is greatly respected by all hon. Members, and because of that she has been landed with the baby—if that is not a sexist term. She has been forced to take the flak in quite an undeserved way. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), to whom we all pay tribute, in all innocence accepted the Bill. From a legal viewpoint, I would like to know the terms of the contract that the hon. Gentleman concluded with the Government. What were the promises and undertakings made by the Government about the time that the hon. Gentleman would be engaged in the House on the Bill? He was probably told, "Look, here is a little Bill off the shelf. We promise that it will last only a couple of minutes and you can be back in your constituency opening a fete"—or whatever one does on a Friday. "We give you our solemn promise as a Government that it will not take long." However, because of a mistake made by the Government, it is just after 1 o'clock and the poor hon. Member for Basingstoke is still here.
    1204
    The Minister began by saying it was an error. She refused to say whose error it was, because—if she had been smoked out—if she had been frank and had said that it was an error, either of the parliamentary draftsmen or of the legal advisers in the Department of the Environment, she would have let the cat out of the bag. We would have known straight away —as we all know in reality—that it is a Government Bill that masquerades as a private Member's Bill on a Private Member's day.
    That happens all too frequently. When I entered the House in 1966 Private Member's Bills were just that. So long as the first eight Members put forward a reasonable and not eccentric Bills, they would expect to get their Bills through, and other Bills, too—given a fair wind—had a chance. Now, effectively, the Government have taken over Private Member's Bills procedure and even the first six in the ballot have no chance of making any serious progress with their Bills, unless they have the full authority and the concurrence of the Government.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is my hon. Friend not understating his case? We have seen on a number of occasions Bills of hon. Members in the first six in the ballot not succeeding if the Government have not liked them. An example was the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), to assist the handicapped. Even when a Bill is high up in the chain, it often suffers from the payroll vote of Members who are present on a Friday and can defeat crucial and major parts of it. Nowadays, unless a Private Member has a Bill in which the Government acquiesce, all sorts of devices are used to block it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is still on his preamble and is making some general remarks, but I am sure that he will now anchor his remarks to this Bill.
    Mr. Anderson: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak before we proceed to Third Reading. I am joining my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in exposing what has increasingly been Government practice—that is, to obliterate what used to be the intermediary bodies between Government and citizens. They have done it across the board. They have done that with the trade unions, with local government and with all bodies that used to filter and alter the views of Government. We have in Parliament an exact example of what Government have done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it is a form of elective dictatorship.
    When Lord Hailsham used the phrase "elective dictatorship" against the Labour Government, I confess that I had a certain sympathy with him. I would now consider his views with greater esteem and consider them to be more credible if we had had even a peep from Lord Hailsham about what is happening under this Government. It is clear that, when he criticised an elective dictatorship, he was doing it in a one-eyed, selective and partisan way.
    Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend may not be aware that Lord Hailsham said this morning that the present Government were sitting on their head and thinking with their bottom.
    Mr. Anderson: That was only because it concerned an area in which Lord Hailsham has a special interest—that

    1205
    of the law. When he sees the other major inroads into private liberties—the other major demands made by this authoritarian Government—and says nothing, we can hold certain views on Lord Hailsham.
    I leave elective dictatorship there. I commend my hon. Friends for the tremendous work that they have done on behalf of the House. I look forward to developing my points on Third Reading.
    1.15 pm
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When I entered the House this morning, I expected a completely different sort of day from that which I have so far experienced. Earlier this week, I was advised that the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill was uncontroversial and would go through with little debate, but that the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill would excite some discussion—and I prepared myself for that possibility. Having listened to what will probably go down as some of the most eminent contributions in defence of Back Benchers' and private Members' rights, I discover that the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill will not be debated. Instead, I find myself in the midst of a constitutional and procedural crisis. Moreover, it is a crisis of which the generality of right hon. Members are unaware.
    Arriving at the House this morning, I detected a whispering hum in the Tea Room about the verbal amendments to the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill that were to be debated this morning—the like of which had not been seen for 18 years. Only right hon. and hon. Members who happened to be present in the House this morning were aware of those amendments.
    I still hope that the Minister or the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will tell the House who drafted the Bill. At one point, my sympathies lay with the hon. Member for Basingstoke for having been handed such a measure by his Government. However, his continued silence throughout the debate makes me wonder whether he expects some kind of preferment afterwards for being so stoical in accepting without comment all the remarks that have been made.
    The explanatory and financial memorandum makes the Bill's intentions fairly clear. However, the repeal of the long title is quite against the legislation's intentions as described in the explanatory and financial memorandum. I hope that an acceptable agreement will be reached that will allow the small but worthy improvement to the environment that the Bill would provide—at least as reflected in the explanatory and financial memorandum—to be made as if the Bill had been allowed to progress with its original title.
    I look forward to a proper explanation of how major errors came to be made. Will the civil servants concerned be exonerated? Will the hon. Member for Basingstoke take it upon himself to accept the blame, or will that be done by the Minister? Or will the blame be accepted by the Secretary of State for the Environment who has not been prepared to come to the House today and face the flak?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that, in an invisible state, you have been involved in the debate since 9.30 am, and will appreciate that our debate has been about the two amendments. The dilemma facing hon. Members has resolved on those two amendments, but we should now like to bring the debate to a conclusion. With your assistance, Mr. Deputy
    1206
    Speaker, I am sure that we shall be able to do so. Perhaps we will be informed by the Minister of the Government's response to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members.
    I hope that this point of order will be helpful. If we are given some kind of assurance—perhaps that the amendments will be withdrawn so that they can be dealt with when they have been properly tabled—we may be able to resolve the matter this afternoon so that we can get on with the next debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have noticed that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) is trying to catch my eye. He would, of course, need the leave of the House to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister."' I now understand that the Minister may wish to speak, again with the leave of the House, so I shall call her.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley rose——
    Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister speaks, may I make a brief point? Perhaps she can tell us the status of the part in summary on the face of the Bill which refers to the removal
    "exemption from the statutory nuisance provision of…smoke from certain domestic chimneys".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point for debate. It would be helpful for the whole House—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for his suggestion—if we were now to hear the Minister.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Being mindful of the fact that today is a private Members' day, I have done my best to be rather restrained in my remarks. I thought it proper to debate the amendments, particularly in the unusual circumstances—it is 18 years since anyone tried to move a verbal amendment. That seemed an appropriate use of parliamentary time.
    I had hoped to speak at much greater length on Third Reading about my experience of these matters. Much concern has been expressed to the Department—whether in Bolton or Barnsley, in Bristol, Scunthorpe or Sheffield—about the burning of buses and the pollution that it causes, let alone the problems emanating from domestic premises, where non-dark smoke causes offence and nuisance to neighbours who are powerless to obtain redress.
    Let us examine the history of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) is known by everyone in the House to have been a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment. He has a considerable knowledge of environmental matters and indeed of air pollution: he contributed to the Select Committee's report on air pollution. I am surprised that hon. Members should even suggest that he is not a man of great experience, with clear views on the way in which he wished to use his private Member's slot.
    My hon. Friend, graciously and kindly, consulted the Department about whether there were matters of concern to him, with his knowledge of air pollution, which would also be popular and acceptable and would play an appropriate part. I ceased only recently to be a Back-Bench Member—a week ago the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said I had been a Minister for only

    1207
    five minutes; it is another 10,000 minutes since he said that—but it is important, if a Bill is to meet with success, for it to fit within the general framework.
    I said earlier that it was a considerable source of regret that this error was not spotted. The fact is that clause 1 stands fairly and clearly. The substance of the Bill is perfectly straightforward, but for one reason or another its long title did not contain a small substitution. As I have said, it is a source of regret.
    It might help the House if—this measure will meet with great popularity among the constituents of all hon. Members——
    Mr. Bermingham rose——
    Mrs. Bottomley: No, I would rather not give way.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke may feel that in the circumstances the best way forward would be for him to seek to withdraw his amendments so that progress could be made on the Bill and it can be considered in another place.
    Mr. Hunter: With the leave of the House, may I say how deeply I regret accepting the advice to table the amendments? I apologise to the Chair and to Opposition Members for any embarrassment that this hassle may have caused. I meant no discourtesy.
    It has been an interesting and lengthy debate. I stress that there was no conspiracy. It was a monumental blunder. Obviously, as the Bill bears my name I must accept responsibility for it. The original draft of the Bill was changed long before Second Reading. It transpires that the blunder was committed at that stage and that the title of an original draft Bill was not changed. I did not reaslise that at the time of the Bill's Second Reading on 3 March. It was brought to my attention only at the beginning of this week, shortly before the Select Committee on the Environment went away for two days, which meant that I was not in a position to seek advice about it. Therefore, in a hurry, I agreed yesterday to table the amendments.
    I accept the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I believe that these matters can be resolved in the House of Lords and, with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    1.26 pm
    Mr. Hunter: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
    If the past few hours are put to one side, the fact remains that this small Bill is an important contribution in the battle against pollution.
    Clause 1 seeks to bring certain smoke emitted from domestic premises within the statutory nuisance provisions of part III of the Public Health Act 1936 or, for Scotland, of the Public Health Act (Scotland) 1897. In clause 1, the category of smoke emissions is that of non-dark smoke from dwellings that are not in smoke control areas. So far, that aspect of smoke control does not exist. It is a loophole in the existing legislation and the Bill seeks to close it.
    The Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 essentially declare three points. First, there is the prohibition on dark smoke—the most pollutant smoke—from any building except in
    1208
    special circumstances under the regulations introduced by the Secretary of State. Secondly, within the smoke control areas, there is a prohibition on dark and non-dark or clean smoke from all premises. Yet again, there can be exceptions and some were specified when the original smoke control orders were issued. Others have been specified subsequently by the Secretary of State. The third essential aspect of the clean air legislation is that——
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my hon. Friend refers to non-dark or clean smoke, does he include washed smoke?
    Mr. Hunter: I do not have the precise details, but I know that the public wealth Acts refer to the Ringelman scale by which the cleanliness or otherwise of smoke is gauged. I imagine that it includes the category that my hon. Friend has in mind, but I cannot be absolutely sure.
    The emission of non-dark smoke can in certain circumstances be deemed to be a statutory nuisance. Clause 1 seeks to extend the categories of smoke emission that can be deemed to be a statutory nuisance to include non-dark smoke from dwellings that are not situated in smoke control areas. The existing statutory provisions do not apply to smoke from dwellings that are situated outside smoke control areas. They are limited to industrial premises. The purpose of the clause is to extend the existing statutory provisions that now apply only to industrial premises to domestic dwellings.
    The Bill is the result of a consultation process. Opposition Members unfairly ridiculed that suggestion when it was made earlier. In December 1986, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh office published their review of air pollution control in Great Britain. They published a follow-up paper in December 1988. It was a lengthy consultation process. Local authorities, local authority associations, trade associations, companies, firms and individuals took part in the process. The recommendation that is embodied in clause 1 was made by the Government and it was supported by 64 representations. Four were against. There was overwhelming support for the recommendation.
    Clause 2 has two subsections. Subsection (1) refers to the "occupier of the premises." A loophole in the existing legislation has been exposed. The Clean Air Act 1956 and the Clean Air Act 1968 make the occupier the person who is legally responsible. The Acts specify "the occupier". It may be, however, that people other than the occupier in law start a fire that emits the offending smoke. The object of subsection (1) is to make not just the occupier but any person "who causes or permits the emission" responsible. It is a neat tidying up of that loophole.
    Local authorities have faced problems over securing prosecutions. It has been difficult for them to establish when combustion has taken place illegally, particularly at night, and the precise nature of the smoke emitted. Subsection (2) is designed to close that loophole and to make prosecutions easier. During the consultation process there was overwhelming support for the proposal that such a change in the law should be made.
    The Bill encompasses little but it would achieve a lot if it were passed. I regret that this morning and during the early part of this afternoon we have had to spend, quite rightly a great deal of time on an important matter. I hope that that will not cloud hon. Members' judgment when

    1209
    they consider the Bill in its own right. I commend the Bill strongly as I believe it will close loopholes and will be a vital part of our legislation against pollution.
    1.35 pm
    Mr. Bermingham: I shall be extremely brief in asking the Minister for a number of assurances. First, once more parliamentary draftsmanship has led to great delay. Let us be open and honest and admit that it is not the first time, and probably will not be the last time, that that has happened. The basic problem is that "amend" and "repeal" have different meanings.
    Secondly, clause 2(2) should be re-examined as it does not cover the problem that has arisen on a number of occasions on demolition sites. A demolition site is said to be a site where a trade or industry is being carried on. The Minister will be well aware that much demolition is taking place in the north of England to rejuvenate inner cities and other areas. That demolition is often carried out by contractors, not local authorities because the local authorities own the land or the premises to be demolished. I know that there have been a number of serious emissions of dark smoke from demolition sites without prosecution because of certain loopholes.
    Will the Minister also consider the problem that occurs when explosives are used to demolish buildings? A dust cloud is still a cloud, and can be a very dark cloud which causes great nuisance to the owners of adjoining land. That problem does not appear to be resolved by subsection (2).
    Finally, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the burning of vehicles, which is what might be called the Barnsley and Bolton problem, which I am aware of from yesteryear. In particular, buses and their tyres are burnt. That is often done outside smoke-control areas on sites or land belonging to people who do not give permission for the burning. Will the Minister consult her officials so that when the Bill is considered in another place—I certainly will not impede its progress—the wording of clause 2 can be altered to deal with that problem? The owner of the land is not a willing party to those practices, particularly to the cutting up and burning of buses which causes great offence in the Peak park areas and parts of Lancashire.
    I trust that the Minister will undertake to look at those points which should be considered in another place.
    1.38 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall be brief, although I have had the pleasure of listening to some long and remarkable speeches this morning.
    I am very interested in the Bill as I welcome legislation which closes loopholes on pollution, particularly smoke pollution which is perhaps the most noxious in that it induces severe illnesses such as congestion of the lungs, very bad throats and bad colds. I well remember the London smogs of the late 1950s and early 1960s, which were largely caused by smoke. Walking through those smogs, one could not see one's hand before one's face, and as one walked along hoping that one was going in the right direction, bits in the air would hit one in the face. It was a very unpleasant experience. For that reason, smog masks were introduced to protect people's noses, but their eyes could not be protected. In the school where I was teaching at the time a great many children became extremely ill due
    1210
    to that smoke pollution. A great deal of it came from domestic chimneys across London and in many cases there were aggressive fires.
    I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my hon. Friend the Minister what the penalties will be for those who are caught by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke spent no time—I know that he had other things to say—explaining what will happen to a person convicted of an offence under the Bill. It would not be right for the House to agree to the passage of any measure without knowing what penalties are involved.
    Clause 1 seeks the
    "Removal of exemption from statutory nuisance of smoke from certain domestic chimneys."
    That means that private individuals will be subject to the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Hunter: What happens under the existing law to the owners of industrial premises which emit offending smoke will now happen, theoretically, to the domestic dweller. In the first instance, an abatement notice is served requiring the nuisance to cease. If that is not complied with, the local authority may apply to the magistrates court for a nuisance order and finally—theoretically—the matter may go to the county court.
    Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for that enlightenment. We need to pay attention to the fact that procedures currently enforced against industry will be enforced against individuals. It is extremely important for the House and particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the Minister to say that they would expect any court to deal with an individual householder more leniently than an industrial concern. It is a serious weakness in the Bill that attention is not paid to that important matter. If my hon. Friend the Minister can give the House an assurance as to how she expects the courts to act in relation to individuals, we shall be grateful.
    There seems to be no difficulty about the definition of dark smoke and non-dark smoke, although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that for centuries the election or non-election of a Pope has been signified by the appearance of white or dark smoke above the sistine chapel. The process for producing dark smoke has not always worked and the wrong colour smoke has sometimes appeared, so there can be difficulties about the definition of dark smoke. That should be borne in mind. The burning of very green wood in any household will produce dark smoke, but it is not dirty smoke. That, too, should be dealt with by the promoter of the Bill and by my hon. Friend the Minister.
    1.43 pm
    Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief because we want to move on to the next debate. But for the two amendments, I could have delivered my speech—which took hours last night to prepare—in a reasonable time. I assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your advice would be to save my speech so that if the Bill comes back from another place I shall not have wasted my copious notes.
    It has been an interesting debate and the House, the Government and people who make blunders have been taught a lesson. I must tell the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that we all make blunders on occasions and take decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, we realise that we should not have taken. I

    1211
    assure the hon. Member for Basingstoke that his efforts have taught hon. Members and the Government a useful lesson. I shall be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and other hon. Members want to deal with the next important debate, but when the Bill returns from the other place we shall consider it closely.
    1.45 pm
    Mr. Cryer: I travelled this morning from home in Bradford, having attended a constituency meeting last night, to talk about the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill.
    The debate has been important. The fact that the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill—another privatisation measure that the Government attempted to sneak through the parliamentary procedures without proper scrutiny—has been withdrawn is a minor victory. I am pleased that the two amendments to the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill have been withdrawn.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) courteously took all the flak directed at the Government by Opposition Members. That should be recognised in the record, because if anyone is to blame it is the Government. The Government have a vast army of civil servants and expert parliamentary draftsmen. Nevertheless, the error was made.
    Opposition Members are pleased that the amendments have been withdrawn. The reason why there will be no Division on the general principle of the Bill is the understanding that the amendments will be restored in another place in a better, clearer and less hasty way. We shall be looking out for that when we consider Lords amendments to the Bill. If amendments are not made in the Lords, the Bill will be confused and untidy because it will have repealed section 16(1) (a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and there will be nothing to amend. It could be argued that that need not be so, but we must always ensure that when legislation leaves both Houses it is as clear as we can make it. We do not want useful legislation to be subject to protracted and expensive challenge in the courts. I therefore expect amendments to be made to make the Bill read sensibly.
    I hope that the promoter—especially following the debate on the drafting error—is satisfied that there is a definition of dark smoke in the Bill. He mentioned the Ringelman scale, and those of us who have fed coal into fiery locomotive furnaces know what that is. I am the only hon. Member who has carried a copy of the Ringelman scale in his pocket. As a fireman, I put coal in the locomotive and checked whether emissions conformed with the Ringelman scale or whether they were on the darker side, which could mean prosecution. A widely used degree of definition is available. It is used by environmental health officers to check whether a prosecutable offence has occurred. I assume that in some way or another—I have not checked—there is a link in either the 1956 Act or the 1968 Act with the Ringelman scale, so that a prosecution can be certain.
    I look forward to further scrutiny of the Bill. If there are omissions, the scrutiny should be long so as to encourage diligence by the Government. However, I support the general principles of the Bill.
    1.55 pm
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I can only say again that it is a source of regret that the drafting error concerning the word "repeal" rather than "amend" in the long title has meant that we have not had sufficient time properly to scrutinise and to discuss all aspects of the Bill or the important effects on individual concerns and grievances in many constituencies.
    The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred to Rockwool, in his constituency. I can assure him that we have extended the powers of air pollution control and that the fibre works will be within the province of the inspectorate of pollution.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) speculated, rightly, that the Clean Air Act 1956 gives a clear definition of dark smoke and refers to the Ringelman chart, about which the hon. Gentleman has a particular knowledge. The smoke has to appear to be darker than shade 2.
    The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) can be reassured about vehicle burning. Instances of vehicle burning have caused great difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) also spoke of vehicle burning as being a great danger. It is not only the sooty particulates and the lead, but chlorofluorocarbons from the blown foam and the dioxins from the plastics that are dangerous. The Bill hopes to address such problems.
    It is possible to burn matter on demolition sites as long as one can demonstrate that there is no other reasonable, safe and practical method of disposing of the matter. The burning must be carried out in such a manner as to minimise the emission of dark smoke and must be under the direct and continuous supervision of the occupier of the premises.
    Our Clean Air Acts have been a monumental success. The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to his early days in Acton when he had to wear a mask over his mouth and could scarcely move about in the smogs of winter. They are a thing of the past. Visibility in London has increased from one and a half miles to four miles over the past 40 years. Central London enjoys twice as much sunshine in winter now as it did then, and that is a dramatic success.
    I regret that time constraints have made it impossible for me talk about the other issues of air pollution such as the steps to promote the use of unleaded petrol, the move to remove CFCs to save the ozone layer, the gas desulphurisation programme and the introduction of Low-Nox burners, which will tackle the problem of acid rain. The Government are busy and are committed to reducing air pollution in a number of ways.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has chosen to tackle two particular aspects of air pollution of local and immediate concern. Quite properly, many hon. Members have raised such matters over the years on behalf of their constituents. I should like wholeheartedly to congratulate my hon. Friend on his success.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend spend half a minute in dealing with the penalties for private individuals?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke outlined the position precisely. The maximum penalty is £2,000, and there is no difference between cases of burning generally and domestic nuisance cases.
    My hon. Friend has done a great service to the House in bringing forward the Bill. A great deal of care has gone into its preparation, and I wish it well in its further stages.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill
    Order for consideration in Committee read.
    1.54 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: With the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), I beg to move, That the Bill be considered in Committee on Friday 28 April.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a Bill is taken out before half-past 2, does that need the leave of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The first Question that is always put is that on when consideration of the Bill is to proceed. It is for the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, or someone else on his behalf, to name a day. The hon. Member for Wycombe named a day, and that procedure is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that. That is the procedure which is followed after half-past 2. Does it apply before half-past 2?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The same procedure applies before half-past 2 to any Order of the Day.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Therefore, before half-past 2 it is possible for the motion on the Bill to be moved and for a debate on any stage to proceed. Apparently, it is in your hands, Sir, to put the Question to the House as to when next the Bill will be considered. That is a different matter entirely.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member in charge of the Bill can decide whether he wishes it to proceed. Precisely the same applies to Government Bills. What has happened today on this Bill has been in order.
    Mr. Stanbrook: What form of authority from the Member in charge of the Bill is required to enable another Back Bencher to proceed with it? Is there any formality about the passing of that authority?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: On these occasions, the Chair is always prepared to accept the good faith of an hon. Member when he says that he is speaking on behalf of another hon. Member. The Chair accepts that automatically.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to move, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Bill on Monday to repeal the dock labour scheme be not proceeded with.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member had better wait until Monday and see how he gets on then.

    Sunday Trading (Reform) Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    1.57 pm
    Mr. Steve Norris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The problem with the position in which I find myself is that one prepares for a speech of not more than three and a half hours and not less than four minutes and, invariably, the latter transpires. Because of this morning's efforts—no doubt well meant—we have about 35 minutes to talk about this important subject. I shall endeavour to truncate my observations and allow other hon. Members to participate. I hope that those hon. Members who follow me will, in the same spirit, allow as many colleagues as possible to speak.
    I am sure that I need not remind the House that the present Sunday trading law is essentially that regulated by the Shops Act 1950 and a number of subsequent small amendments. The Shops Act is riddled with anomalies and
    does not reflect in any sense modern social patterns. Schedules 5 and 6 show that that is nonsense. Schedule 5 provides:
    "Transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open in England and Wales for the serving of customers on Sunday".
    That includes
    "meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold, but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop".
    One can have one's fish and chips, but not from a fish and chip shop, as anyone born north of the Trent knows, is the only place at which one should ever eat fish and chips. As was the spirit in those days, one can buy "intoxicating liquours" and "tobacco and smokers' requisites". One can buy "flowers, fruit and vegetables". In particular, according to schedule 5, one may include mushrooms in that purchase. That is an important addition, which has vexed many a council for many a day. One may buy
    "milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise;"
    I shall pass over what clotted cream in tins is like, but, if it can be found, one may buy it.
    In the spirit of schedule 5, and in order to allay the fears of those ecologically-minded hon. Members who care about such matters, if they want to travel here by horse on a Sunday they may buy
    "fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys"—
    if they happen to come by donkey—
    "at any farm, stables, hotel or inn."
    If people want to buy fodder for a donkey, they should do so not from a roadside trader because that would be illegal, but from an inn, which would be legal.
    If I had time to make a three-and-a-half-hour speech, it would be mildly amusing to go through the list in greater detail. However, I shall summarise it by saying that the present law allows one to buy fresh but not dried milk, newspapers but not toilet paper, car batteries but not torch batteries, and fan belts but not ladies' tights. Everyone knows that if a fan belt breaks, by far the best way of restarting the car is to buy a pair of ladies' tights and use them as a fan belt.
    My hon. Friend the Member for——
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Billericay.
    Mr. Norris: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has been there long enough to remember the name of her constituency. She has probably used the odd pair of tights in that way and should know that she can buy a fan belt on a Sunday but not a pair of tights.
    I am sure that this will not affect my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but she can buy gin but not a baby's bottle, Easter eggs but not fresh eggs. She can buy car oil but not cooking oil. The present legislation is a complete and absolute nonsense. I need go no further with schedules 5 and 6 or the Shops Act 1950. It is an extraordinarily patronising piece of legislation which Conservative Members should be prepared to see the back of once and for all.
    In addition, patterns of life have changed considerably over the past 40 years. I shall pass over the question of the standards of religious observance. Clearly, there are higher living standards, which have created a higher demand for leisure activities, particularly gardening, and repairing and improving homes. The DIY boom is important in connection with the Bill. Much DIY activity involves going to stores to purchase the goods, which involves breaking the law.
    There has also been a change in women's approach to work. In 1951, only 26 per cent. of married women were in employment. Now the figure is 61 per cent.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook rose——
    Mr. Norris: In order to give as many hon. Members as possible the opportunity to speak, I shall not take interventions.
    The enforcement of the present law is not merely nonsense. The list on its own can be funny, and seen as one of those amusing hilarities such as the existence of the death penalty for witchcraft. However, enforcement of such law is outrageous. There are about 420 enforcing authorities in England and Wales, and it is estimated that about 20 per cent. of them bother to enforce the law on Sundays. It is not only extraordinarily unreasonable that whether one is fined or injuncted and restrained from selling on Sundays depends in which local authority area one happens to live, but grossly unfair.
    I know from my experience as the hon. Member for Oxford, East that a shop on one side of the road under a a local authority that was keen to enforce the Act had to compete with a shop on the other side of the road in the area of another local authority that said, "We do not give much of a damn and have neither the resources nor the inclination to enforce the Act." About 26 per cent. of turnover can accrue to a business on a Sunday in these selected trades, and it is outrageously unfair that local authorities should discriminate in that way.
    There is a further idiocy. Under article 30 of the treaty of Rome there has been a reference by the courts to the European Court of decisions on the granting of injunctions. That means that existing legislation may be overtaken by decision of the European Court. If the European Court rules, as it is invited to do, that the Shops Act 1950 conflicts with article 30 of the treaty of Rome, which deals with restraint of trade, then whatever the attitude of some hon. Members towards Europe, I for one shall say thank goodness that Europe can introduce a little sanity into our proceedings.

    1217
    On the matter of sanity, I should like to quote Councillor John Denison, the chairman of the Association of District Councils' general services committee. On hearing about the European reference, he said:
    "This is the last straw. The present law is totally discredited and every effort by districts to enforce the law is thwarted even by the courts. These cases show that it is imperative for Government to take urgent action to reform the law."
    The law is an abject mess.
    Mrs. Gorman: The law is an ass.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. What should we do about it? The Conservative manifesto was clear. We committed ourselves in that manifesto to bring sense and consistency to the law. I intend to remind all Ministers of that and not just my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office who has given up some important engagements to be here for the debate. I remind my hon. Friends of that commitment and hope that the Government will see it through.
    The last Bill in 1986 was hijacked by a minority who impressed their opinions on some of my hon. Friends who, like me, were in extraordinarily unsafe seats. They each received perhaps 100 letters in favour of the system from some of the vast majority of people who already used it, perhaps without knowing that they were abusing it, and could not be exercised to do anything about it at that time. I suspect that things might be different if we had another opportunity to debate such a Bill.
    Complete deregulation is the only logical answer. In a speech in his constituency on 10 February the Minister of State, Home Office said that the Government had not changed their views on the issue. He said:
    "We still believe that the wholly logical solution is that of total deregulation. But we have to recognise that this was not acceptable to Parliament."
    If, for whatever reason—and we can all speculate—Parliament has said that total deregulation is not its wish, we must not insult Parliament by reintroducing the 1986 Bill. We must consider the real and serious objections of some hon. Members to that Bill.
    If we do not want to go down the path of total deregulation, we have three options. One is to go down the path of a new list, but a new list would be absurd because it would instantly be arbitrary, immediately anomalous and increasingly ridiculous. There would be great difficulties in enforcing a new list system. Huge resources would be needed to visit every shop that was entitled to be open, because it sold some items that were on the exempt list, to make sure that it was not selling items that were not on the list. That is also nonsense in manpower terms. We will need an army of inspectors and an army of fraught policemen running around deciding whether someone has had the temerity to buy tights or is buying fodder for his horse from an unrecognised inn or farm. How awful that would be.
    We could, of course, allow any shop to choose its own restricted hours—perhaps to open for six or seven hours on a Sunday—but I believe that that suffers from the same problems of enforceability and is an avenue down which we should not go.
    My Bill would allow any shop to open from noon to 6 pm. It would allow an extension for small shops, because I believe that, on either side of the argument it is generally recognised that there needs to be some protection for small shops. I was advised, that, because of my inadequate
    1218
    drafting, the worker protection clauses in my original draft of the Bill were inconsistent with the wording of the long title. Therefore, I give the House my commitment that, if it approves my Bill on Second Reading, I shall introduce similar worker protection clauses to those contained in the 1986 Bill. I believe that that is the solution that gets nearest to common sense. It was supported by a majority of those participating in the polls. It also has least opposition of any of the proposed schemes. Its advantages are that it is enforceable, that there are no lists, that it is fair and that it retains the special character of Sunday, in that it clearly requires the closure of shops at certain times and a different pattern to be be established from that that applies on the other six days of the week.
    I will not proceed further other than to summarise the words of an editorial in the Evening Standard some time ago, which said:
    "Nowadays you can join a union, run your school, buy your council house or own shares if you so desire. But if you want to buy your baked beans or your wallpaper on the way to church on Sunday, you can't. The outdated and bizarre law preventing Sunday trading remains on the statute books … Ministers should have the courage to reintroduce their Bill at the earliest opportunity. Sunday trading is not a wrong but a right."
    2.11 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): It would be as well if I intervened at this stage—with apologies to hon. Members on both sides of the House—because if I do not intervene now, in the short space of time available, it may be impossible for me to do so at all.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not challenge who you call, because that is not for us to challenge. I realise that it is a Private Member's Bill, but it is custom and practice to call an hon. Member from one side of the House and then an hon. Member from the other side of the House. I am rather disturbed that you did not seek to catch the eye of Opposition Members, because we had declared in previous debates this morning our interest in getting rid of the previous debate so that we could get on to this one. I am somewhat appalled at the fact that you have called two hon. Members from the Conservative side when Opposition Members would also wish to contribute to this emotive debate. Those of us who are sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers are worried that we might not be afforded the opportunity to speak on the issue because of the time factor.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would he unusual to call a Minister immediately after a Back Bench Member has just moved his own Private Member's Bill. This is a Private Member's day. The Government have no business to intervene so soon.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Members who have raised these points are very experienced. They will know that it is customary to call Ministers when they rise. The Minister has risen and I have called him.
    Mr. Renton: I offered my apologies to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall be extremely brief in the hope that both the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will be able to make their contributions during the next 17 minutes. However, I must say that the

    1219
    comments of the hon. Member for Ogmore smelt somewhat of hypocrisy, as the Labour Opposition's record in promoting any attempt to reform Sunday trading so far has not only been one of total neglect, but every Labour Member who was present in the House voted against our Bill in 1986. As the record of the Labour party on this has been one of total ignorance and unawareness of the needs and wishes of the consumer, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's objections.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) for giving us the chance to examine an issue which continues to command a great deal of parliamentary and public attention. It is particularly helpful that my hon. Friend, in a concise and well-phrased speech, has presented a Bill which is simple, straightforward and avoids extremes. That ought to encourage rational and sensible discussion.
    I fully agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties that face proposals for legislation. There is virtually universal agreement that the present law is badly in need of reform and contains indefensible anomalies which limit public choice and no longer reflect modern needs. Equally, there are wide divisions about the steps that should be taken to achieve reform—and the practical difficulties of achieving it without creating equally indefensible anomalies, often of a very complex nature, are legion. I have found that to be so in my 20 months at the Home Office, in meetings with a great many people representing both sides of the issue, and in my attempts to find a halfway house acceptable not just in the House but to the vast majority of our countrymen. At every turn one is reminded of the sheer difficulty of arriving at a workable compromise.
    One reason is that, at heart, none of us wants all seven days of the week to be exactly the same. That would imply a grey monotony and a drab uniformity of which Orwell's thought police would certainly approve. We all want the rhythm of our lives to change on at least one day of the week—be it Friday for the Moslem, Saturday for the Jew, Or Sunday for the Christian. For at least one day of the week, those who live in towns want the high street to be quiet and the pedestrian centre to be peaceful. They would like an absence of heavy duty lorries parked on the double yellow lines and blocking narrow streets as they unload their goods, with coaches and cars queueing behind and honking their horns in irritation. At the same time, as my hon. Friend points out, consumers want on that same idyllic day regularly to buy a newspaper and petrol, to take the family out for a meal, enjoy a game of sport, buy the extra food needed because two of one's children are unexpectedly arriving for supper, visit the DIY store to buy paint and brushes, or the garden centre to purchase plants, fertiliser, a spare trowel, and so on.
    It is because of the normal demands of average consumers—certainly not wicked sybarites—that about 5 million people already work on Sunday. That is so often forgotten. It is because of those same demands that Scotland—a more Sabbatarian country than England—imposes no controls whatever on Sunday shopping. If one walks down Princes street or Sauchiehall street on a Sunday, one certainly does not get the impression that Jezebel has taken over. The churches are fuller while some shops are open and some are not without any bother at all.
    1220
    That is why I find the attitude taken by Scottish right hon. and hon. Members—not one of whom is present in the Chamber this afternoon—so extraordinary. In my experience, the Scots do not usually hesitate to extol the superior virtues of arrangements north of the border where they differ from ours. On this issue, however, they show a strange reluctance to do so. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for example, who is a Shadow spokesman on home affairs, and who is not in his place this afternoon, can stroll through his constituency on a Sunday and buy anything that he chooses—yet he and his Scottish right hon. and hon. Friends vote against giving consumers in England and Wales the same right. What is the reason for the hon. Gentleman's reticence? One can only assume that he and all Scottish Labour Members are creatures of the Labour Whips Office first, Scotsmen second, and friends of the consumer a very poor third. They will not speak up for a system that operates successfully in their own country. Their opposition to reform in England is a hypocritical sham, and their arguments are just so much humbug.
    I return to the notable omission from my hon. Friend's proposals, on which he touched in his remarks. In my judgment, the eventual Bill must provide safeguards for shop workers working on Sundays. I note that if my hon. Friend's Bill goes into Committee he will make certain that clauses to provide safeguards for workers would be included.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman rose——
    Mr. Renton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just come into the Chamber, as there is very little time available.
    Whatever happens to this Bill—it is clear that Labour Members are not at present inclined to help it on its way—I should make it clear that we are committed to finding a way of making sense of the present unsatisfactory position. I have every sympathy for retailers who find the present law confusing, anomalous and inconsistent, and who cannot meet the known needs and wishes of their customers without running the risk of breaking the law.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that Labour Members were not trying to help the Bill on its way. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arrangements were made before this debate so that it could start. If those arrangements had not been made through the usual channels, the debate would not have been allowed to begin. The Minister should withdraw his remark, as he was fully conversant with those negotiations.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Renton: It is possible, for example, that the Bill points to the next stage in the process of bringing sense and order to this obscure and complicated corner of the law. However, we need to be clear about its objectives for Sunday mornings. I am slightly fearful that the limit of 3,000 sq ft may be a little too wide and might have too great an impact on the number of shops that stayed open in the High street, but that is another point that we could consider in Committee. I know that the Shopping Hours Reform Council, under the leadership of Sir Basil Feldman, is anxious to take that further, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will be pleased to give the

    1221
    council all the help that we can. I take this opportunity pay tribute to the work of the council and Sir Basil for the dedicated and conscientious way in which they have attempted to build a consensus in favour of change. Their achievement in the areas of agreement that now exist has been considerable, and they continue to play an important role in finding an acceptable basis for legislation. I encourage all concerned to respond to their efforts.
    The law places the responsibility for enforcement fairly and squarely on local authorities. It is a matter for their discretion and judgment, and, although current references to the European Court are relevant to the future status of the law, there is clearly no reason why they should get in the way of the ordinary process of enforcing the 1950 Act in the courts when local authorities think it appropriate.
    Mrs. Gorman rose——
    Mr. Renton: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am about to conclude my remarks. I hope that she may yet have a chance to catch your eye before 2.30, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The question of the reform of Sunday trading is unfinished business for the Government but, as I have said before, we are in no hurry to finish it until we have a consensus which commands maximum support in the House and throughout the country on a subject that is certainly dear to all Conservative hearts, even if it is widely ignored by the Labour party. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for the proposals that he has briefly put today, and I wish him well in his efforts.
    2.23 pm
    Mr. Alan Meale: I note with interest that because of the time that the Minister has taken up—and taken away from Back Benchers—he is part and parcel of the probable talking out of the Bill, which contradicts the argument that he has put.
    The Bill's explanatory memorandum states that part of its purpose is to abolish the restrictions on premises
    "where a retail trade or business is carried on to serve customers from the hours of twelve noon to 6.00 pm"
    Hon. Members of all parties are aware that we have recently had a debate on a Bill about Sunday sport and that those provisions would have enabled some retail trading to take place on that day. As the explanatory memorandum points out, if the Bill were allowed to proceed today, it would cause yet another anomaly within the racing industry. That is an important point because it would mean that betting shops in the high streets of Britain would be able to open on Sundays. Conservative Members might say that that is irrelevant because there would not be any horse racing because hon. Members, and especially Opposition Members, managed to prevent a Bill that would have allowed that.
    However, because of the new technology and the investment that has been made by those in the bookmaking industry outside the United Kingdom, because of SIS—Satellite Information Services—and news satellite services, racing could be beamed live to British betting shops. If the betting shops in our high streets were open, clearly the workers in those shops would have to work on Sundays. That would change the Bill and the
    1222
    purpose of these arguments in the House, which has clearly rejected the arguments for Sunday sport. Anyone who has any doubt about that need only consider the investments that have been made by the big four betting chains in Southern Ireland. In the past 18 months the four big betting houses of Ladbroke and Co, Coral's, Mecca Bookmakers Ltd and Hill's have purchased more than 250 betting shops in Southern Ireland. Because SIS is now available, it is possible to beam overseas races live to this country. The betting industry has also made major investments in other countries. Negotiations are currently taking place to purchase betting and gambling rights in Belgium and France. Betting rights have already been agreed in California and Ohio in the United States. British betting chains are already working towards the possibility of beaming races live, at all hours of the day and night, which would allow betting in the high streets in Britain. That is a serious matter.
    Another serious concern relates to workers' rights in the retail trade. We must question whether those who have prepared the Bill have considered its effect on people who work in shops. I do not think that that has been thought through. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who promoted the Bill, has rightly pointed out——
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hasty and ill-thought-out nature of the Bill has been shown up by the fact that its promoter had to admit that there were problems about protecting the rights of workers?
    Mr. Meale: I entirely and absolutely agree. The argument that at some later stage the hon. Member for Epping Forest would try to ensure that protection clauses were inserted into the Bill is unacceptable to hon. Members of all parties. Members of Parliament are not shop workers and do not have to face the possibility of working a seven-day week. Many hon. Members will argue that they work a seven-day week and 24 hours of the day, but as a fellow Member of Parliament I deny that that happens. I think that Members of Parliament have good terms and conditions. They do not have to put up with regularised work over a seven-day period, which people on low pay and with bad conditions have to face in other industries.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Does my hon. Friend recall the Minister's words about the Government's attitude to the Bill and to shops legislation? My hon. Friend has participated on numerous occasions in debates on shops legislation. Does he recall that on many occasions the House has rejected any suggestion that legislation should be enacted to allow Sunday trading?
    Mr. Meale: That is right. Hon. Members have to ask themselves why the Government are seeking to introduce Sunday trading legislation by means of a private Member's Bill. It is important to remember that fact because, although it is the normal practice, the Minister did not allow individual Back-Bench Members——
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Private Members' Bills

    ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFITS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Not moved.

    TROPICAL HARDWOODS (CONTROL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear an objection, although I am sure that you did. We have had this discussion before. I should be grateful for your advice on the subject in this Session of Parliament. The Bill has been moved six times but it has never been debated. It has been objected to on every occasion by the Trappist tendency on the Treasury Bench. It would be helpful if 9 million pensioners knew who it is that does not want the Bill to be debated in the Chamber and who wants to block any discusson of a measure that would eliminate poverty among the elderly.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have had this discussion many times before at 2.30 on Fridays. The procedure that has been followed is perfectly in order. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Select Committee on Procedure considered the matter fairly recently and recommended that there should be no change in the procedure.

    POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Now.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must deal with this first. I asked, Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the procedures of the House, I moved the Bill and there was no objection. You should have said that the Bill
    1224
    had been given a Second Reading, and the next stage would have been the Committee stage, but you did not do that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal quickly with the hon. Gentleman's point. An objection at any time during the proceedings is in order. It does not necessarily have to be when the title of the Bill is first read out. There was an objection as soon as I put the Question on Second Reading. Consequently I asked the hon. Gentleman "Second Reading what day?"
    Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be right——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order.
    Mr. Cohen rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained the procedure to the hon. Gentleman. He has heard the explanation on more than one occasion at 2.30. I repeat that when I put the Question on Second Reading objection was taken. According to our procedure, that means that the Bill is not able to proceed. All that I am then able to do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to name a day for Second Reading.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain exactly how we move through the various stages of a private Member's Bill? As I understand it, if no objection is taken when the mover has nominated today for Second Reading, we have moved on to the Second Reading stage. If there was no objection, we should have moved on to Committee——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In this case, the objection was made when I put the Question on Second Reading. Had the Question been agreed to, the Bill would have received a Second Reading. But the objection was taken before that stage was reached and as a consequence the objection stands.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that we have other business. We have been through this on many occasions on Fridays. I understand the frustration of hon. Members, but I must remind them that the Select Committee on Procedure looked at the matter fairly carefully and they may wish to refresh their minds and look at the reasons that the Select Committee gave for not recommending alterations to our procedures.
    Mr. Corbyn: I share your concern about the procedures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the Select Committee will reconsider the procedure for Friday afternoon objections. We are not dealing with that problem at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) quite properly and correctly moved the Bill and none of us heard any objection——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I distinctly heard objection. Therefore, I said, "Objection taken", as I am obliged to do.
    Mr. Corbyn rose
    Mr. Cohen rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not listen to any more points of order as they are getting dangerously close to arguments with the judgment of the Chair.

    CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

    INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS AND WORKPLACES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    COUNTING WOMEN'S UNREMUNERATED WORK BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

    CONTROL OF POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 17th April, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, etc. (negative procedure)), Motions in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Education may be
    1226
    proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question already proposed from the Chair.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
    Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was asked to give a date for the Second Reading of my Bill——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman gave me a date which was 21 April, and that has been recorded.
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Counting Women's Unremunerated Work Bill was presented behind the Chair and, therefore, has been printed. Does that not count?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has to be a printed text of the Bill before I am able to put the Question.
    Ms. Gordon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was presented as a Bill behind the Chair in the previous Session.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The previous Session does not count. There must be a printed text of the Bill in this Session, and my understanding is that there is not one. Therefore, I am not able to put the Question.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me the position on the Poll Tax (Restoration of Individual Privacy) Bill, which is before us today?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If a day is named for the Second Reading of any Bill that has been deferred today, the Bill will appear on the Order Paper for that day. That does not necessarily mean that it will he reached. I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) did not name a day for Second Reading, but he can do so by giving an instruction to the Table Office.
    Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question related partly to that and partly to the present status of the Bill. Has the Bill passed its Second Reading and Committee stages so that when it returns it will be for its Report stage, or was it blocked by the Trappists on the Conservative Benches?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that this is a complicated matter, so I shall expand a little on the procedure. Let me read from the report of the Select Committee on Procedure which explained this point. Paragraph 70 states:
    "When the titles of private Members' Bills are read over … on a Friday, instead of rising to speak or to object, it is open to Members to remain seated but to give their voices as `No' when the question is put."
    Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not what happened. No Conservative Member said anything. Therefore, the Bill——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I read out is exactly what happened.
    Mr. Cohen: I dispute that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: I am on my feet. I realise the hon. Gentleman's frustration. We have been following a well-established procedure. It applies to Government orders on occasions and to private Bills on other occasions. At the moment, the hon. Members who are raising points of order have not managed to persuade the Procedure Committee or the House that the procedure

    1227
    should be changed. It is my job in the Chair to ensure that our present rules and regulations are observed. That is what I have been doing this afternoon.
    Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What arrangements will you make to rewrite "Erskine May" on this issue, because you have changed the rules in your ruling today? The Bill received——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made no changes in the rules. It is open to the hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, to put the matter to the Procedure Committee.

    Maternity Services (East Lancashire)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
    2.43 pm
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I welcome the opportunity to draw the House's attention to the concern of right hon. and hon. Members representing east Lancashire constituencies about the inadequate maternity services in the area covered by the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority. The concern that I shall outline is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) but, because of their ministerial positions, they are unable to take part in the debate. The concern is also shared by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who is unable to be present because of a longstanding engagement in Cheshire. His interest in the need for improved maternity services is clearly shown by the fact that he raised the matter in an Adjournment debate two years ago.
    I wish to make an urgent plea for reconsideration of the place in the North West region's capital programme of the new maternity unit for Blackburn, Hyndburn, and Ribble Valley district health authority. The provision of a centralised maternity unit has been considered urgent since the 1970s, and in 1979 was recognised as the highest priority of the former Lancashire health authority. The regional health authority incorporated the scheme as phase IIIA of a development programme for Queen's Park hospital. After much discussion, it was eventually included in the regional capital programme in 1985, with a start date of 1990–91, which was subsequently put back to 1992–93. As a result of the changes in the approval process, the current status of the scheme and its start date are not known. Current and future problems are so acute that urgent action is needed if a crisis is to be avoided.
    At present, district maternity services are provided on three sites—the main consultant unit at Queen's Park hospital, which has 67 beds, the GP unit at Victoria Accrington hospital, which has 15 beds, and the GP unit at Bramley Meade, Whalley, which has 20 beds. The GP unit at Darwen was closed in 1988 because of a substantial fall in the number of births. The authority decided that staff and resources could be used more efficiently by providing a temporary GP unit with 10 beds at Queen's Park hospital.
    The problem is accentuated by the fact that between 1978 and 1988 the proportion of births in GP units fell from 30 per cent. to 9 per cent. This change, together with a rise in birth rate, led to an increase in the number of births at Queen's Park hospital from 2,409 in 1978 to 3,591 in 1988—a rise of 49 per cent. Latest projections show that the number of births to residents of east Lancashire will continue to increase to more than 4,500 by 1993. If the current trend continues, most of the births will be at Queen's Park hospital.
    The total number of beds and staffing levels in the district reflect the regional average, but unfortunately the combination of a rising birth rate, a three-site operation and a 20 per cent. deficiency in consultant beds has placed enormous pressure on staff and facilities at Queen's Park hospital. Clinicians and midwives are extremely concerned

    1229
    that the work load has increased to a point at which an effective and safe service can no longer be maintained. In 1985, while the number of births per midwife was 26·88 in the region as a whole and 29·6 in the district, it was a massive 49·4 at Queen's Park hospital—80 per cent. higher than the regional average.
    The unit at Queen's Park hospital is clearly extremely busy and junior medical staff cover is inadequate. There is only one registrar for obstetrics and gynaecology. I believe that no other district which delivers 4,000 babies per year has only one registrar. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the registrar has commitments at other sites, particularly Blackburn royal infirmary.
    I referred earlier to the debate initiated two years ago by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He reminded the House at that time that:
    "The ante-natal clinic is half the size needed for its load. On some mornings 100 patients wait to see doctors, but only four examination rooms arc curtained off and"
    there are only two small waiting areas
    "so some patients must wait in the corridors and some must stand. It is bad enough having to stand to wait for medical treatment when one is otherwise able-bodied, but for women in an advanced stage of pregnancy it is no joke … Such is the pressure on beds that no mother stays after birth for more than 24 hours unless she or her baby is ill."—[Official Report, 22 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 767.]
    In the two years since that debate, matters have not improved. The special care unit is on the lower ground floor, away from the main area. Only one lift serves the entire facility, sanitary accommodation is in a poor state, and there is no anaesthetic or recovery room. The position is not only wholly unsatisfactory, but grossly wasteful and inefficient.
    The figures and examples cited give some idea of the unsatisfactory conditions that patients have to endure and under which the staff have to work. But for the dedication of the excellent medical, midwifery, nursing and ancillary staff at Queen's Park hospital, Accrington Victoria hospital and Bramley Meade hospital, the service would have broken down many years ago. It is sometimes difficult to escape the feeling that the district health authority is being penalised because it has made do with facilities that would not be acceptable elsewhere.
    As the starting date of phase IIIA is unknown, the district health authority has had to consider interim measures. In February, the authority decided that bookings for deliveries could no longer be accepted from patients resident outside the district. There is a real danger that bookings for deliveries even from patients resident in the district will have to be refused and that mothers will be sent to hospitals miles away. The district health authority is well aware of that possibility and because it would be totally unacceptable if that happened it has recently agreed that improved delivery facilities and a temporary ward will have to be constructed at Queen's Park hospital in the near future. That is not only unsatisfactory and a poor use of the money available, but carries with it the risk that once we have a temporary ward, poor though it may be, we shall once again be seen to be making do, which may cause further delay in providing the much overdue unit at Queen's Park hospital.
    The maternity service in Blackburn is already under pressure, with a high number of births, a high proportion of low weight births and a consequently heavy work load in the central unit. The service is already operating under
    1230
    conditions of considerable risk. The region's guidelines for the operation of general practitioner maternity units cannot be met, which has serious legal implications. The birth rate is forecast to rise significantly by 1993. If that happens and the decline in the number of births at the GP unit continues, the unit at Queen's Park hospital will be unable to cope. The new maternity unit will enable the district health authority to deal with its work load and will allow scarce resources in midwifery and medical staffing to be used more efficiently and with greater cost effectiveness. I ask the regional health authority to recognise the urgency of the situation and to support the view of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority that the only solution to the impending crisis—which could have serious legal implications—is to bring forward the new maternity unit in its capital programme. Building on the unit should be brought forward to start in 1989.
    I hope that the Minister will feel able to say that he agrees with hon. Members representing constituencies in east Lancashire who say that the present situation is unacceptable. I hope, too, that he will do all that he can to encourage and persuade the regional health authority to find some way of ensuring that this important project is given urgent priority and that a date for the start of construction is decided as soon as possible, so that my constituents and those of other east Lancashire Members may benefit from a safe, efficient and effective service.
    I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that we appreciate the enormous improvements in National Health Service provision in east Lancashire in the past 10 years. There has been a £4·5 million redevelopment at Queen's Park with 54 adult acute beds and 46 children's beds replacing wards that were appalling; £300,000 has been allocated for a renal unit at Accrington Victoria hospital and £200,000 has been provided to upgrade the theatres at Blackburn. Those are only three recent examples. Nevertheless, grateful as we are, we should be failing in our duty as Members for east Lancashire if we did not do everything in our power to ensure the urgent provision of the long-awaited maternity unit at Queen's Park hospital.
    2.53 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Before dealing with the detail of this important subject, I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his success in the ballot. I am aware of the close interest that he has taken over many years in the provision of health care services for his constituents. This debate is yet another example of his continued presure on behalf of the people of east Lancashire. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the need for better maternity services in east Lancashire has been accepted by both the district and the regional health authorities. I, too, accept the need for improved maternity services and I hope that my hon. Friend is convinced that the Department of Health takes the matter seriously.
    The maternity services for east Lancashire are provided' by the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley health authority. I hope that the House will allow me to comment briefly on the provision of patient services generally before responding to the points put to me about maternity services as it is important to set maternity provision in the context of hospital services generally.

    1231
    The Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley health authority provides the full range of health care services for a local population of 268,000 people. The health authority's record on achieving improved patient services in recent years is good. Comparing the latest available figures for 1987–88 with those for 1982 we see that the in-patient annual treatment rate is up by 17·3 per cent. from 36,926 to 43,315, the outpatient rate is up by 18 per cent. from 158,000 to 187,000, and the number of persons treated by community nurses in the district is up by 33·2 per cent. from 65,000 to 86,000. Those figures, of course, do not show the increases in the quality of care which have also taken place.
    Perhaps a more tangible sign to the local community of the improvement in services locally is the local building programme, which is well advanced, to modernise and upgrade buildings and equipment at Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn. The first phase has been completed and took the first patients in 1987. As my hon. Friend knows, this provided 46 paediatric medical beds and 56 acute medical beds and a range of other patient facilities, all at a cost of £4·6 million. Construction of phase II is due to start this year and will provide 76 geriatric beds and 50 day places and support services, including a new catering department. The total cost will be £8·3 million. Those new buildings and the facilities that they contain will ensure that the improvements in patient care achieved in recent years will continue well into the future, but the building programme must not end there.
    With regard to the specific subject raised by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful to the House if I first give some of the background to the maternity services available in east Lancashire. Current district provision is located on three sites—Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn, whch has 67 consultant beds, 10 GP beds and seven delivery suites; Bramley Meade maternity home, Whalley, which has 20 GP beds and two delivery suites; and Accrington Victoria hospital, which has 15 GP beds and two delivery suites. The two smaller GP units are nine miles and six miles respectively from the main unit at Queen's Park hospital.
    Taken overall, the district has about the right number of maternity beds, but changes in the pattern of work between the GP units and Queen's Park hospital have put the main unit at Queen's Park under considerable strain. I agree about the way in which the pattern of work has changed in the past few years and I agree with my hon. Friend's forecast of the number of births likely to occur in the next decade. The increased pressure at Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn is due not wholly but partly to the desire of general practitioners to refer expectant mothers to a large hospital with a full range of maternity facilites available, and the Department of Health understands that trend, which occurs throughout the country.
    That brings me back to the building programme for the district. The solution to the problem is a further phase IIIA of building at Queen's Park hospital to provide extra
    1232
    maternity beds on the main district general hospital site to replace those presently located at the GP units. The health authority is aware however, that even if the phase IIIA capital development could be brought forward it would not be ready in time to solve the immediate problem.
    I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Authority is aware of the need for immediate action to deal with the problem that I have outlined. The authority has given it the highest priority for action. I know that the full health authority has discussed it at both its last two meetings and that the district general manager has met regional health authority officers to discuss what action can be taken. At its meeting on 5 April, the district health authority made a decision on a further, more substantial measure to deal with the immediate effects of the problem. In conjunction with the regional health authority, it has agreed to erect a temporary building at the Queen's Park hospital as soon as possible. Final decisions have not been made about the extra facilities that this will allow, but it is hoped that it will contain 19 extra beds and two more delivery suites.
    I am pleased to announce that, as an exceptional gesture, the North Western regional health authority has agreed to provide additional capital funding of £450,000 to the district to make that building possible, and I am advised that the building will be well founded and of an acceptable quality. It will not be temporary or makeshift but will, I hope, have a long-term use. It will not be a permanent solution to the problem, to which I shall now turn, but it will produce an immediate expansion in the facilities available in the short term.
    Clearly the measures that I have outlined must be regarded as short term. I understand that both the district and regional health authorities regard the completion of phase IIIA as the permanent solution. The comments made by my hon. Friend add further weight to that view. When my predecessor spoke about phase IIIA in the Adjournment debate two years ago, she mentioned a start date for it in 1992–93. In the light of the points put to me today, I shall ask the regional health authority to advise me of the implications of achieving that. I mean the implications for the capital programme for the region, the revenue implications for the district and the potential closure decisions on the two smaller facilities to which GPs refer their patients for maternity care. I shall then discuss the details with the regional chairman when I am in the region next month.
    In concluding my response to the points put to me during the debate on this important subject I pay tribute to the medical, midwifery and other support staff providing maternity services in east Lancashire. I know that my hon. Friend will join me in that tribute. We all value highly the extra efforts which I know that they have made to safeguard the standard of care that they give to mothers during the present period of difficulties which I hope will shortly be put right permanently.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other aid Ministers to seek to reschedule overseas debts in Tanzania.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1979 Britain wrote off all aid debts owed by Tanzania, amounting to some —3·4 million. We have continued to urge others to follow this example for Tanzania and other low-income African countries undertaking programmes of structural adjustment. Tanzania has also benefited from concessional rescheduling of its official debt in the Paris Club, following the agreement reached last summer at the Toronto summit on the basis of the initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present aid projects funded by his Department in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our grant aid is largely concentrated on transport, power, natural resources and education. In Colombo we are funding two major projects, to rebuild two main roads and to improve the power distribution network. We are preparing a forestry project. Under our training programme more than 200 Sri Lankans were in Britain last year. From our —20 million relief and reconstruction grant, which is mainly for the north and east, we are providing railway track, double-decker buses, lorries and trucks and finance for the rehabilitation programmes of the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam. Under the aid and trade provision, we are helping to finance the Samanalawewa hydro-electric project, the supply of potable water to three districts and the provision of 600 bus bodies.

  1979–80 £ million

  1980–81 £ million

  1981–82 £ million

  1982–83 £ million

  1983–84 £ million

  1984–85 £ million

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  (a) Central Government

  (i) Cash terms

  100

  150

  170

  187

  181

  161

  173

  177

  166

  (ii) Real terms

  100

  127

  131

  134

  124

  105

  107

  106

  95

  (b) Local Government

  (i) Cash terms

  100

  107

  107

  132

  161

  145

  138

  173

  195

  (ii) Real terms

  100

  90

  82

  95

  110

  95

  85

  104

  111

  The real terms figures have been derived by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the gross domestic product deflators at market prices.

  For consistency with later years, the figures for central Government expenditure up to 1984–85 have been

  Privatisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which officials of the Overseas Development Administration have met during the course of 1988 with researchers at the Adam Smith institute, to discuss the possibility of Britain supplying aid and assistance for the privatisation of industries in the developing world; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) from whom he has sought advice on matters relating to the possibility of offering British privatisation expertise to Third world nations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There was a range of contacts between officials and outside bodies, including the Adam Smith Institute, concerned with the development of the private sector overseas, including privatisation.

WALES

  M4
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work was last commenced on a new section of the M4 motorway; what has been the increase in traffic on the Baglan-Lonlas area since that time; and if he will reconsider his start dates for this new section of the M4, in particular the new bridge and the connecting road to Baglan.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Work on the most recent section of the M4, the Bridgend northern bypass, started in 1978 and was completed in 1981. Traffic volumes on the A48 between Baglan and Lonlas have increased by some 50 per cent. since 1978 but are still within the design capacity of the road.

  The programme set out in "Roads in Wales 1989" for completing the Baglan-Lonlas section by mid 1994 is the most practical one. The Earlswood to Lonlas scheme is planned to start in the current financial year.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total(a) central Government and (b) local government capital expenditures in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88, expressed in cash and in real terms, taking 1979–80 as 100.

  Mr. Grist
  Gross central Government and local authority capital expenditure within my responsibility for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88, taking 1979–80 as 100, is estimated to have been as follows:

  adjusted to include regional development grant expenditure in Wales. Prior to November 1984, this expenditure was the responsipility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the average cost of council houses sold in Wales regardless of discount, for each year since 1979 to date, and the average monthly cost over each year of the same period of repayment per —1,000 borrowed of mortgages provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  The average market price of local authority dwellings sold is given in the following table:

  £

  11980

  11,012

  1981

  13,868

  1982

  13,521

  1983

  14,562

  1984

  15,272

  1985

  16,348

  1986

  17,448

  1987

  18,746

  1988

  20,115

  1 Based on sales from April to December 1980.

  The average monthly cost of repayment per —1,000 borrowed of mortgages provided by local authorities is not centrally available.

  "Roads in Wales 1989"
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to publish, "Roads in Wales 1989", by the end of April.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales 1989" was published on 10 April. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the start of the new crossing of the river Dee north of Queensferry, as referred to in "Roads in Wales 1989", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Clwyd county council.

  Council Housing Sales
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, at the latest available date, what was the average selling price after discount of a local authority unit of accommodation; and what is the average cost of building a new local authority unit of accommodation.

  Mr. Grist
  The average selling price after discount of local authority dwellings sold during 1988 was —9,883. The average cost of building a new local authority unit of accommodation during the same period is estimated to have been —35,450.

  Planning Appeal (Clydach)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Inspector has now decided the outcome of the appeal by I. G. Hale, application number 2/2/89/0082/03, relating to the forecourt walls adjoining Ramsay road, and Sunnybank, in the village of Clydach.
  724
  Mr. Ian Grist
  This application has not come before my right hon. Friend on appeal. I understand that it was approved by Lliw Valley borough council on 16 March 1989.

  NFU-FUW (Merger)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a report on the progress he has achieved in his initiative to bring about the merger of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As I have previously observed to the hon. Gentleman, the future relationship of the FUW and the NFU in Wales is a matter for those unions and progress towards any merger can be measured only by them.

  Farmers Union of Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates during 1988 when he met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During 1988 I met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales on four occasions. Dates and details of subjects discussed are as follows:

  10 February 1988—To discuss a wide range of agricultural subjects including extensification, stabilisers and milk quotas.

  10 May 1988—Speech to the FUW annual general meeting about sheepmeat regime and general matters of interest to the agriculture industry.

  19 July 1988—At the Royal Welsh show to discuss general subjects of current interest to the agriculture sector.

  20 October 1988—To discuss hill livestock compensatory review.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates during 1988 when he met representatives of the National Farmers Union; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During 1988 I met representatives of the National Farmers Union (Wales) on five occasions. Dates and details of subjects discussed are as follows:

  30 March 1988—To discuss a range of agricultural issues.

  19 July 1988—At the Royal Welsh show to discuss general subjects of current interest to the agriculture sector.

  27 October 1988—To discuss hill livestock compensatory allowances review with the NFU (Wales).

  27 October 1988—To discuss the HLCA review.

  8 December 1988—To discuss a range of agricultural issues.

  School Meals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each education authority and for Wales as a whole the 1988 figures for the percentage of schoolchildren(a) taking purchased school meals, (b) taking free school meals and (c) taking school meals in total.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information in respect of 1988 is in the following table:
  725

  Percentage of schoolchildren present: Taking school meals

  Purchased

  Free

  Total

  Clwyd

  35·6

  10·7

  46·3

  Dyfed

  51·3

  12·5

  63·8

  Gwent

  39·0

  16·3

  55·3

  Gwynedd

  43·0

  13·8

  58·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  34·4

  17·5

  51·9

  Powys

  50·8

  5·4

  56·2

  South Glamorgan

  25·6

  16·5

  42·1

  West Glamorgan

  33·6

  156

  49·2

  Wales

  37·4

  14·6

  52·0

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for September 1988 for each health district and for Wales in total the waiting list figures for(a) urgent in-patients, (b) non-urgent in-patients, (c) urgent in-patients waiting a month or more, (d) non-urgent in-patients waiting a year of more, (e) out-patients and (f) out-patients waiting three months or more.

  Mr. Grist
  Comprehensive information about waiting lists at 30 September 1988 will be published in Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1989, No. 1, during the week beginning 15 May 1989.

  Local Development Projects
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what local development projects have been undertaken in Wales; and what are their costs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The following list gives details of local development projects since the initiative began in Wales in November 1986:

  Contractor

  Description

  Cost£ ('000)

  1.

  British Coal Enterprise, Cardiff

  Small Firms' Training Needs

  18

  2.

  Cambrian Manpower Development Unit, Aberystwyth

  Environmental Training Needs in Industry in Wales

  5

  3.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Training Study of South Glamorgan Labour Market

  18·775

  4.

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce

  Cardiff Training Development Project

  25

  5.

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  Organic Farming

  46·7

  6.

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Environmental Manpower Project

  12

  7.

  People and Work Unit, Newport

  Small Businesses

  30

  8.

  Swansea College of Further Education

  Learning Skills for Adults

  20

  9.

  Swansea College of Further Education

  Learning Skills for the Unemployed

  25·224

  10.

  Welsh Joint Education Committee

  Tourism

  20

  11.

  Gwent Local Employer Network

  Consultancy Survey

  7·9

  12.

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce II

  Dissemination of Good Practices from 1st LDP

  13·9

  13.

  People and Work Unit Newport

  Training Needs of Business for Community Benefit

  28·2

  14.

  Cardiff Media City

  Identification of Training Needs in Media

  10

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Meals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give from the 1988 census the latest figures for uptake of school meals, giving for each education authority the percentage of children taking(a) purchased meals, (b) free meals and (c) meals in total.

  Mr. Butcher
  The figures are given in the table. They relate to maintained primary, secondary and special schools and are based on the numbers of pupils present in schools on the day in October 1988 on which the survey was carried out.

  The full results of the survey are contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "School Meals Statistics at October 1988" which will shortly be available in the Library.

  Number of pupils

  Percentage

  Local education authority

  Taking paid meals

  Taking free meals

  Taking meals in total

  ILEA

  39·3

  28·6

  68·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  28·9

  10·2

  39·1

  Barnet

  51·0

  8·0

  59·0

  Bexley

  25·6

  5·9

  31·5

  Brent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bromley

  33·2

  5·7

  38·9

  Croydon

  36·9

  8·4

  45·3

  Ealing

  32·3

  12·7

  45·1

  Enfield

  32·0

  8·2

  40·2

  Haringey

  33·6

  19·5

  53·1

  Harrow

  44·9

  4·7

  49·5

  Havering

  29·7

  4·6

  34·3

  Hillingdon

  37·0

  6·4

  43·5

  Hounslow

  51·0

  10·3

  61·3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  39·4

  4·9

  44·3

  Merton

  24·6

  6·7

  31·3

  Newham

  22·7

  17·1

  39·8

  Redbridge

  38·6

  5·9

  44·5

  Richmond upon Thames

  24·9

  5·8

  30·7

  Sutton

  46·8

  4·6

  51·3

  Waltham Forest

  33·4

  16·2

  49·7

  Bolton

  38·0

  15·3

  53·4

  Bury

  35·9

  11·3

  47·2

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Oldham

  34·1

  19·1

  53·2

  Rochdale

  36·5

  18·7

  55·2

  Salford

  36·9

  24·1

  61·0

  Stockport

  33·1

  10·0

  43·1

  Tameside

  38·6

  15·1

  53·7

  Trafford

  37·6

  13·0

  50·6

  Wigan

  33·9

  13·4

  47·3

  Knowsley

  13·7

  38·8

  52·4

  Liverpool

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens

  40·7

  16·6

  57·3

  Sefton

  29·0

  17·4

  46·4

  Wirral

  31·3

  21·4

  52·7

  Barnsley

  47·7

  16·2

  63·8

  Doncaster

  50·5

  18·2

  68·7

  Rotherham

  34·2

  16·8

  50·9

  Sheffield

  34·4

  19·4

  53·8

  Gateshead

  36·5

  20·4

  56·9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  30·3

  30·4

  60·7

  North Tyneside

  44·9

  17·8

  62·7

  South Tyneside

  35·5

  21·6

  57·0

  Sunderland

  34·9

  22·6

  57·5

  Birmingham

  27·8

  26·3

  54·2

  727

  Local education authority

  Taking paid meals

  Taking free meals

  Taking meals in total

  Coventry

  23·3

  19·9

  43·2

  Dudley

  26·7

  12·6

  39·3

  Sandwell

  29·3

  19·1

  48·5

  Solihull

  34·4

  9·7

  44·0

  Walsall

  38·2

  18·3

  56·5

  Wolverhampton

  16·9

  18·1

  35·0

  Bradford

  34·7

  21·0

  55·7

  Calderdale

  40·9

  12·9

  53·9

  Kirklees

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Leeds

  40·6

  14·7

  55·4

  Wakefield

  48·5

  13·8

  62·3

  Avon

  29·5

  10·6

  40·1

  Bedfordshire

  38·7

  9·4

  48·1

  Berkshire

  36·0

  4·9

  40·9

  Buckinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire

  26·6

  6·4

  33·0

  Cheshire

  37·0

  11·1

  48·1

  Cleveland

  42·5

  24·9

  67·5

  Cornwall

  41·3

  9·2

  50·4

  Cumbria

  48·7

  9·4

  58·1

  Derbyshire

  62·5

  10·5

  73·0

  Devon

  40·8

  11·0

  51·8

  Dorset

  17·3

  4·4

  21·8

  Durham

  45·9

  16·2

  62·1

  East Sussex

  34·1

  8·0

  42·1

  Essex

  29·6

  6·5

  36·1

  Gloucestershire

  23·0

  6·9

  29·9

  Hampshire

  24·4

  6·6

  31·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  19·4

  6·6

  26·0

  Hertfordshire

  44·8

  5·1

  49·8

  Humberside

  35·9

  14·4

  50·3

  Isle of Wight

  35·0

  10·4

  45·5

  Kent

  35·1

  7·0

  42·1

  Lancashire

  36·7

  13·9

  50·6

  Leicestershire

  31·7

  8·9

  40·6

  Lincolnshire

  17·1

  6·0

  23·1

  Norfolk

  26·7

  9·4

  36·1

  Northamptonshire

  26·6

  7·2

  33·8

  Northumberland

  44·7

  9·7

  54·4

  North Yorkshire

  43·7

  6·3

  50·0

  Nottinghamshire

  34·0

  14·0

  48·0

  Oxfordshire

  37·7

  4·8

  42·6

  Shropshire

  41·3

  10·5

  51·8

  Somerset

  34·3

  5·7

  40·0

  Staffordshire

  30·9

  9·8

  40·6

  Suffolk

  39·9

  6·7

  46·7

  Surrey

  41·2

  3·7

  44·9

  Warwickshire

  28·5

  7·3

  35·8

  West Sussex

  40·6

  4·1

  44·8

  Wiltshire

  31·7

  5·5

  37·1

  Isles of Scilly

  5·5

  0·9

  6·4

  n/a = Not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

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

  Mr. Viggers
  On 22 March 1989, heads of agreement were approved for the sale of Harland and Wolff plc to a management-employee buy-out team backed by Mr. Olsen. Employees of Harland and Wolff plc will have an opportunity to acquire shares in the new company. The Government have to date had no discussions on the 728
  feasibility of introducing an employee share ownership scheme in the context of the privatisations of Short Brothers plc and Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many privately held (a) shotguns, (b) ·22 rifles, (c) rifles of larger calibre, (d) hand-guns, (e) air and gas-operated weapons and (f) antique firearms, have been lost or stolen each year from 1976 to the latest available date; how many of each such category were subsequently recovered; and how many in each category are known to have been used in criminal, including terrorist, activity or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Information is not readily available in the form requested. However, such information as is available is contained in the following tables.

  Table 1

  Firearms stolen from civilians

  Year

  Shotguns

  Rifles1

  Pistols/ revolvers

  Antiques

  Air weapons

  1976

  128

  23

  8

  1

  18

  1977

  53

  8

  8

  —

  7

  1978

  35

  3

  3

  —

  3

  1979

  34

  3

  2

  —

  7

  1980

  38

  7

  —

  2

  8

  1981

  69

  7

  8

  2

  13

  1982

  60

  9

  13

  2

  5

  1983

  64

  4

  13

  4

  8

  1984

  78

  4

  11

  1

  9

  1985

  79

  11

  8

  —

  9

  1986

  96

  9

  4

  —

  20

  1987

  91

  17

  17

  —

  13

  1988

  59

  6

  10

  —

  9

  21989

  7

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1 Including ·22 calibre.

  2 To 21 March.

  Table 2

  Firearms stolen from civilians and recovered between 1976 and 1989 (to 21 March)

  Shotguns

  Rifles

  Pistols/revolvers

  Antiques

  Air weapons

  365

  30

  41

  —

  31

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to introduce a poll tax in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The Green Paper of January 1986 "Paying for Local Government", which formed the basis for the Great Britain reforms, made it clear that the proposals did not apply to Northern Ireland. This reflected the fact that local government arrangements in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and we have no present plans to replace the existing system.

PRIME MINISTER EMPLOYMENT

  Council of Europe (Delegation)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 41st session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The 41st Session Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 8 May 1989. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 11 Members of the Conservative party, six Members of the Labour party and one Member of the Social and Liberal Democrats party. I have also appointed a number of substitute delegates.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the leaders of those parties concerned.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in Paris on 5 June.

  Representatives from the Government Benches will be:

  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir Geoffrey Finsberg—who will act as leader of both delegations

  The hon. Members for:

  Warwick and Leamington (Sir Dudley Smith) Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) (Government Whip)

  Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)

  Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)

  Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir John Stokes) Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)

  Ashford (Mr. Speed)

  Streatham (Sir William Shelton)

  Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner)

  and the Earl of Kinnoull

  Representatives from the Labour party will be:

  The hon. Members for:

  Neath (Mr. Coleman)

  Wallsend (Mr. Garrett)

  Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)

  Tooting (Mr. Cox)

  Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry)

  Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)

  Representatives from the Social and Liberal Democrats party will be:

  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir Russell Johnston)

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates

  From the Government Benches:

  The hon. Members for:

  Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)

  Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)

  Norfolk North (Mr. Howell)

  Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)

  Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)

  Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden)

  Suffolk Central (Mr. Lord)

  Ravcnsbourne (Mr. Hunt)

  Lord Newall

  and Lord Rodney

  From the Labour party:

  The hon. Members for:

  Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson)

  Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland)

  Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

  Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)

  Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)

  Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie)

  and Lord Kirkhill

  From the Social and Liberal Democrats party:

  The Lord Mackie of Benshie

EMPLOYMENT

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

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,918,100 compared with 2,453,900 in March 1988—a fall of 535,800 or 21·8 per cent. on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which areas he now considers to have a labour shortage.

  Mr. Cope
  Thanks to the very strong growth in employment, unemployment rates have been falling since July 1986. By March 1989 there were 48 travel-to-work area with unemployment rates below 4 per cent. and 16 travel-to-work areas below 3 per cent.

  As unemployment has fallen, some shortages of labour have appeared. Occupations most in demand are in higher level skills such as professional engineers, computer specialists and managers and in craft skills.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the —55 million surplus of the construction industry training board; what information he has as to what this sum will be spent on; why the board has —74 million invested in financial institutions; on what authority the board makes such investments; and when this authority was last reviewed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available accounts are for the financial year ending 31 March 1988. Detailed information is included in the 1987–88 annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Section 17(5) of the Industrial Training Act 1982 permits a board to invest any money in a manner approved by the Training Commission. The latest advice was given to all industry training boards in October 1986 when certain categories of investment were given general approval by the commission.

  The board will need to draw substantially upon its accumulated fund in order to finance training commitments already entered into and its planned increase in training effort to meet skill shortages which prevail in the industry.

  European Social Fund (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what technical queries he received from the European Commission regarding the European social fund applications for 1989 by Cornwall county council;. what steps were taken to answer those technical queries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department was advised by the European Commission that Cornwall county council's 1989 European social fund applications, in common with over 150 other UK applications, were being rejected
  731
  because the Commission considered that the expenditure costs quoted were too high and not sufficiently justified for the type of training being given.

  Officials from my Department made representations to the Commission on behalf of all the applicants so affected, but have not so far been successful in changing the Commission's decision.

  Because of the difficulties that the rejection to these applications is causing Cornwall county council, my Department has written again to the European Commission with a request that the social fund applications be reviewed.

  Training Managers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the largest 100 companies which have contracted directly as training managers under the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: This information is not available in the form requested. Organisations are contracted as training managers by their capability to provide and meet employment training standards, and not by their size. I am sending the hon. Member a list of all private sector firms acting as training managers as at 20 February 1989 and am also arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Visual Display Units
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the steadily increasing use of visual displays units, when he expects to recommend standards to be introduced, especially with regard to the adoption of the ALARA principle of keeping radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: The introduction of such standards for VDUs is unnecessary as these machines do not pose a radiation risk. I hope that national and international standards on some ergonomic aspects of VDUs will be published within a year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Glasgow Passport Office
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average waiting time at Glasgow passport office between the receipt of(a) an application for a passport and (b) an application for renewal of an existing passport and the issue of the new passport.

  Mr. Renton
  Straightforward non-urgent postal applications of all types are being processed at the Glasgow passport office in an average of 33 working days. Urgent applications are given priority and are processed in accordance with travellers' requirements.

  Newchurch Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the survey into the possible use of Newchurch hospital, as a prison, took place; and what conclusions were reached.
  732
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Newchurch hospital is not being considered as a possible site for a prison establishment and no such survey has been made.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the deaths of four horses and injury to others at Aintree racecourse on 8 April, he will consider instituting proceedings against the racecourse authorities under the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The prosecution of offences is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Member believes he has evidence that an offence has been committed, he should communicate it to the chief officer of police concerned.

  Prison Officers
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether new applicants are being accepted for work as prison officers in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. For the time being, the prison service in England and Wales is recruiting only for posts in London and the south-east. All applicants are therefore invited to confirm that they are willing and able to work at any establishment in that area.

  Satellite Information Services
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the increased percentage stake in Satellite Information Services which has been recently announced for the Horserace Totalisator Board; and on what terms it will be allocated.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the board may increase its shareholding in Satellite Information Services from 5 to 6 per cent. and will be entitled to purchase these additional shares at the same price per share as that achieved for those shares in the company which are to be made available in a private placing.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the membership of the Firearms consultative committee.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) yesterday.

  Lindholme Prison (Use of Body Belts)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of a body belt on an inmate at Lindholme prison in 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A governor may order an inmate in a prison service establishment to be put under restraint in a body belt where this is necessary to prevent the inmate from injuring himself or others, damaging property or creating a disturbance. The prison medical officer must be informed whenever a governor orders an inmate to be put under restraint.
  733
  On the one occasion in 1987 when a body belt was used at Lindholme prison, the inmate had attempted to commit suicide. His behaviour was aggressive and unpredictable and he was placed in a body belt for his own protection, with the full knowledge and agreement of the medical officer. The body belt was removed after 2 hours 20 minutes prior to his transfer to Leeds prison hospital for observation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions body belts have been used on inmates of Lindholme prison since 1987; what category of prisoner was involved in each case; and for how long the device was applied on each occasion.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Body belts were used to restrain prisoners at Lindholme prison on one occasion in 1987 and twice in 1988. The prisoners were all in category C and were kept in body belts for an average of 1 hour 45 minutes.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many men have been convicted at South West London magistrates court for kerb-crawling activities in the Bedford Hill area of Wandsworth during the last three years;

  (2) how many people have been convicted at South West London magistrates court in each of the last three years for living off the immoral earnings of prostitutes;

  (3) how many convictions there have been at South West London magistrates court of women convicted of soliciting for prostitution in the Bedford hill district of Wandsworth during the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information held centrally, which may be incomplete, is given in the table. It is not possible to identify separately those offences which occurred in the Bedford hill area of Wandsworth. Information for 1985 and 1986 was provided in a reply given to a question from the hon. Member on 12 November 1987 at column 206.

  Persons found guilty of offences relating to prostitution at South Western magistrates court

  Offence

  1987

  Kerb-crawling

  —

  Soliciting for prostitution

  399

  Living on earnings of prostitution

  —

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a list, broken down by port of entry, of the number of occasions since the latest immigration guidelines were introduced that hon. Members have made representations to immigration officials to change their decision to refuse entry and the number of times the immigration officials have agreed to do so.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information about requests to immigration officers to defer removal following refusal of leave to enter was contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 March at column 231.

  Rates (Non-payment)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the area including Nottingham(a) were imprisoned, (b) had attachments to earnings, and (c) had distraint warrants issued for non-payments of rates in each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Estimates of numbers of rate defaulters committed to custody by courts in Nottinghamshire are given in the table below; provision of information for other years would involve disproportionate cost. Information on attachment of earnings orders and distraint warrants is not recorded centrally.

  Committals to custody for non-payment of rates by courts in Nottinghamshire

  Estimated number

  1979

  20

  1983

  20

  1987

  10

  1988

  5

  Tamil Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of applications at his Department from Tamils from Sri Lanka seeking to be granted refugee status in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans. For the latest available information, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 11 January 1989 at column 683.

  Attempted Murder
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average recommended minimum length of sentence to be served, in cases of attempted murder in each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Disabled Persons (Voting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he is having with election returning officers in the United Kingdom to ensure that access is possible for disabled people at all polling stations in their areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None at this time. Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1985, places a particular obligation on district and London borough councils to designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, only places which are accessible to disabled voters. This requirement is supplemented by Home Office guidance to returning officers, which states that the long-term objective should be to have polling stations which are all capable of easy access by disabled people, and that the Treasury will provide grants towards the cost of portable ramps so that wheelchairs can enter polling stations easily.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 327–38, he will place in the Library anonymised summaries of the convictions for officers in connection with the employment of children in (a) non-industrial, (b) industrial and (c) agricultural undertakings for the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make it his policy to make such summaries available in future years.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The available information relates to prosecutions in 1987 under sections 18, 19, 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 notified to the Home Office. There were eight such prosecutions and eight convictions, all leading to fines and no other disposals. Equivalent figures for 1988 will become available later in the year and can be made available on request.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Late Night Sittings (Costs)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what estimate he has made of the costs of keeping the House open for sittings which go beyond 10 pm.

  Mr. Wakeham
  When a sitting of the House goes beyond 10 pm a wide diversity of costs are incurred.

  1988–891

  1989–902

  Excise duties £ billion

  VAT £ billion

  Total receipts £ billion

  Excise duties £ billion

  VAT £ billion

  Total receipts £ billion

  Spirits

  1·6

  0·6

  2·2

  1·7

  0·7

  2·3

  Beer

  2·1

  1·3

  3·4

  2·1

  1·4

  3·5

  Wine

  0·7

  0·5

  1·2

  0·8

  0·5

  1·3

  Made wine

  0·1

  3—

  0·1

  0·1

  3—

  0·1

  Cider and perry

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  TOTALS

  4·5

  2·4

  7·0

  4·7

  2·6

  7·3

  1 Latest estimates.

  2 Forecasts.

  3 Below £50 million.

  Note: Separate figures are not available for low duty alcohol products. Individual items may not add up to totals due to rounding.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Libya
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are(a) currently serving sentences and (b) awaiting sentencing in Libyan prisons.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no British nationals known to be currently detained in Libya.

  USSR (Cultural Co-operation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a view to a greater exchange of cultural co-operation between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  736
  Information on these costs is either not held centrally or not separately identifiable. The information requested, therefore, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions there have been major currency realignments within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and if he will give the relevant dates and adjustments.

  Mr. Lilley
  There have been 11 realignments of the currencies in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system since its inception in 1979. Details are set out in the Commission booklet, "The EMS: Ten Years of Progress in European Monetary Co-operation", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimated receipts in 1988–89 and 1989–90 from excise duties and value added tax on spirits, beer, wine, made-wine, cider, perry and low-duty alcohol products, respectively.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anglo-Soviet cultural exchanges have developed considerably in recent years. During Mr. Gorbachev's recent visit we agreed to start negotiations on a new, more wide-ranging cultural agreement, which we hope to sign next year. The agreement will set out the basic principles of our co-operation and will in due course lead to the establishment of cultural centres in London and Moscow, with guaranteed free and unimpeded public access.

  Tourism (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has as to what agreements exist for tourism between Britain and countries in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no agreements at Government level on tourism between Britain and
  737
  countries in eastern Europe. The Vienna concluding document, which those countries have accepted, calls for improvement of the infrastructure of tourism, removal of restrictive measures that hinder its development, and the encouragement of individual travel. Her Majesty's Government attach importance to the fulfilment of these provisions.

  Human Rights (Tibet)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of China about the abuse of human rights in Tibet.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 22 March to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) at column 621.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will arrange for the British post in Bombay to issue a visit visa to Mrs. Sakina Najmuddin Badruddin so that she can join her family in paying respects to her father who died in the United Kingdom last December;

  (2) when Mr. Latifa Begum, who was born on 7 March 1955, and her four children, applied to the British post in New Delhi for entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom; and when they will be interviewed;

  (3) why Mrs. Zaffar Iqbal Raja, ref. V 431489, was refused a visa by the British post in Islamabad to visit the United Kingdom; what is Mr. Raja's occupation and family circumstances; and if he will reconsider Mr. Raja's application.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the recent guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Old Age Expenditure Programmes
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a list showing expenditure on programmes for old age as a proportion of gross domestic product at market prices, for European Community member states, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent information is as follows:

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Belgium

  7·8

  7·8

  —

  Denmark

  10·2

  10·2

  10·1

  Federal Republic of Germany

  8·0

  7·8

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  France

  9·1

  —

  —

  Ireland

  5·7

  5·6

  5·5

  738

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Italy

  7·7

  7·7

  7·6

  Luxembourg

  6·7

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  8·8

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  9·5

  9·6

  —

  Source: Eurostat.

  Note: Social protection expenditure for old age comprises state pension, occupational pensions, income related benefits and public expenditure on residential care.

  Social Security Act 1988
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in percentage terms the number of applications to him under the hardship clause of the Social Security Act 1988(a) submitted through each Department of Social Security local office and (b) submitted on a Department of Social Security regional basis, which are successful in their intent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Family Credit
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the television-based advertising campaign for family credit will be launched; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The family credit television campaign started yesterday and will run throughout Great Britain for eight weeks until 7 June. This phase of the campaign will cost 2·3 million. In addition, an outdoor campaign on posters and bus sides will commence throughout Great Britain on 1 May for two months until the end of June. The total cost of this aspect of the campaign will be £1·3 million. A further £;1 million has been allocated for other promotional activities during the remainder of this financial year. These will include providing adequate supplies of leaflets and posters in sub-post offices, community and health centres and other places used frequently by mothers with children.

  The campaign emphasises working families' eligibility for family credit, including those with take-home pay levels as high as £175 per week in some cases. It sets out to dispel misconceptions about ineligibility for family credit because of home ownership, self-employment and lone parent status, and points out that it is a weekly tax-free payment and not a loan.

  We have already arranged for a copy of the advertising research on which the campaign is based to be placed in the Library.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what period 16 and 17-year-olds estranged from their parents will be able to claim income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Regulations have yet to be made, but we intend that 16 and 17-year-olds who are estranged from their parents will be eligible to receive income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period—that is, until the end of the calendar year for
  739
  summer school leavers and for 12 weeks in the case of those leaving at Christmas or Easter. During that time the guarantee of an offer of a YTS place will be met. Once eligibility for income support on this basis runs out, the "severe hardship" provision will be available where necessary. Those not required to be available for work or training will continue to be eligible for income support at all times.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes that the housing benefit will reflect the community charge in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From April 1990, help for people on low income in paying the community charge will be provided through a community charge benefit scheme. This will be separate from the housing benefit scheme, though the rules of the two schemes will be aligned as closely as is possible. The local authority associations and the Social Security Advisory Committee are now being consulted on draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum from his Department to which reference is made in the Evening Times article of 10 April, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The document referred to was only interim advice. Full instructions to local offices will be issued in the near future and I will arrange for a copy of these to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether under S.I. No. 507 (S.59) any deduction for poll tax payments from persons on income support can be made by his Department without its first having received a specific request, naming an individual or couple, from the levying authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The levying authority must first have obtained a summary warrant in respect of the debt.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on imposing deductions of poll tax payments from persons on income support before appeals have been dealt with by a tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  If an appeal is made, deductions will continue pending the tribunal's decision.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the spokeswoman referred to in the article printed in the Evening Times, a copy of which has been sent to him, had his authority to state that a person on income support could be left with 10p of an income due to deductions arising from non-payment of the poll tax; and if he will provide an example of how this can happen.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision for 10p to remain in payment is in regulation 2 of the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations (SI 1989 No. 507) and derives from the 740
  provision in paragraph 2 of schedule 9 to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 1968) dealing with other deductions from income support for debts to third parties. Its purpose is to avoid extinguishment of entitlement. For example, the deduction for a single person will be £1·75p a week. If the person's income support is less than £1·85p per week because of other income, the deduction for community charge arrears could not be made.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum weekly deduction for non-payment of the poll tax from(a) a single person aged 18 years, (b) a single person aged 25 years, and (c) a married couple, all receiving full income support and without savings, and assuming they have no other deductions for housing and fuel.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:(a) and (b) £1·75p a week; (c) £2·75p a week if both partners are debtors to the levying authority.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the powers of his Department to deduct sums from income support where the recipient has failed to pay his or her poll tax are subject to a time to pay direction under the Debtor (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. In terms of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (as amended by the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987) section 1(5)(ee), the court cannot make a time direction in an action by or on behalf of a levying authority for the payment of any community charge.

DEFENCE

  RAF (Front-line Aircraft)
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Royal Air Force's front-line aircraft is not fully operational.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to provide detailed information about the operational readiness of elements of the armed forces. All Royal Air Force aircraft assigned to operational duties are fully manned and equipped and thus able to undertake their designated missions.

  US Competitive Strategies Doctrine
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his(a) Belgian, (b) Canadian, (c) Danish, (d) French, (e) Greek, (f) Norwegian, (g) Spanish and (h) West German counterparts regarding the United States' new competitive strategies doctrine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Near Miss (Somerset)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of an alleged near miss by two low-flying military aircraft over Cannington, Somerset, on Friday 7 April; and if he will make a statement.
  741
  Mr. Neubert
  There has been no report of an alleged airmiss involving military aircraft over Cannington, Somerset, on Friday 7 April.

TRANSPORT

  M40 (Southern Extension)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the tender process and timings he intents to adopt for the southern section of the M40 extension.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We plan to invite competitive tenders later this month and to expedite our normal arrangements for their submission and evaluation. Subject to the outcome and to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures this should enable construction to start this summer.

  The contract will include provision for a bonus for early completion and a charge for late completion in relation to the contractor's own tendered period. This should ensure completion of the M40 as soon as practicable.

  Roads (Investment)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of road investment in the United Kingdom, France and West Germany for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information readily available is as follows:

  Capital expenditure on road infrastructure National currency—millions

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  1983

  1,425

  13,550

  26,900

  1984

  1,570

  13,450

  28,800

  1985

  1,678

  13,250

  35,700

  1986

  1,801

  14,500

  37,800

  1987

  1,871

  —

  —

  Exchange rates taken from CSO "Economic Trends"

  DM

  FF

  1983

  3·870

  11·5471

  1984

  3·791

  11·6349

  1985

  3·784

  11·5494

  1986

  3·193

  10·1569

  1987

  —

  —

  Sterling—millions

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  1983

  1,425

  3,501

  2,330

  1984

  1,570

  3,548

  2,475

  1985

  1,678

  3,502

  3,091

  742

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  1986

  1,801

  4,555

  3,722

  1987

  1,871

  —

  —

  The information for the United Kingdom and West Germany comes from the latest ECMT publication "Statistical Trends in Transport". That for France was obtained from the statistical office of the French Transport Ministry in November 1988. ECMT is currently collecting the relevant information for 1987—it should be available in the autumn.

  Railway Stations (Staff and Information)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations has he received from commuters about lack of staff and information at British Rail stations; whether he has any plans to alter the quality of service objectives set for British Rail to take account of these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: We regularly receive representations on all aspects of the quality of service of British Rail. There are already quality of service objectives covering train enquiry bureaux and queuing times at ticket offices. Staffing matters generally are the responsibility of the British Railways Board and we have no plans to introduce objectives to cover staffing levels at stations.

  Trains (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change British Rail's quality of service objectives to seek a reduction in overcrowding on trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: We are discussing with BR new quality of service objectives for the provincial sector. We shall be reviewing BR's other quality of service standards in setting new objectives for the period from 1990 to 1993.

  The Government have approved increasing levels of investment to reduce overcrowding and to meet the agreed quality of service objectives on all passenger sectors.

  British Rail (Service Objectives)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent to which British Rail is meeting the quality of service objectives set by him with regard to train punctuality and cancellations.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 Apri11989]: The results available to the Department for the first three quarters of the financial year 1988–89 are as follows:
  743

  Percentage

  Punctuality

  Reliability

  Objective

  Within in minutes of timetable

  Attainment

  Objective (services to run)

  Attainment

  Inter City

  90·0

  10

  87·3

  99·5

  99·0

  Network SouthEast

  90·0

  5

  91·3

  99·0

  98·7

  Provincial

  85·0 to 97·0

  5

  190·0

  98·5

  99·0

  1 On average.

  Trains (Cleaning)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change British Rail's quality of service objectives to take account of the need for improved standards of cleaning on British Rail trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: We have no plans to change British Rail's carriage cleaning objectives. BR is making every effort to achieve the standards that have already been agreed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Edible Dormice
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimated cost to his Department of administering his scheme to control the numbers of edible dormice.

  Mr. Ryder
  Licences to trap edible dormice are issued as a small part of my Department's general licensing responsibilities under the Widlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is no specific scheme of control. The administrative cost of issuing licences in 1989 is estimated at £80.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the damage inflicted to the commercial timber industry by the six edible dormice, the destruction of which he authorised in 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  Damage to commercial woodland by edible dormice is assessed by local Ministry biologists. The dormice strip off bark, mainly from larch trees. Such damage occurs in very localised areas but can considerably reduce the long-term value of the stands of trees affected. The success of control varies markedly from year to year but actual trapping occurs only when damage becomes apparent and local Ministry staff have been notified.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any assessment of the impact on British agriculture of Britain becoming a member of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The United Kingdom is already a member of the European monetary system (EMS). Were we to join the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) of the EMS, within what is known as narrow-band divergence limits, there would be implications for the monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) applied to trade in agricultural products.
  744
  Currently MCAs applied in the United Kingdom can vary weekly if sterling's market exchange rate varies. If we joined the ERM, our MCAs would become fixed, changing only at EMS realignments or following changes in the "green rates" which apply to the conversion of ECU prices into sterling. The green rates themselves would not be directly affected by membership of the ERM, and changes to them would continue to be subject to decisions by the Council. Joining the ERM would not, in itself, affect our CAP support level, expressed in sterling, either way.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions during 1988 cattle submitted for slaughter at European Economic Community export approved slaughterhouses were identified by ante-mortem veterinary inspections as bovine spongiform encephalopathy suspect; and in how many of these cases bovine spongiform encephalopathy subsequently was confirmed by post-mortem inspection.

  (2) how many cattle entered for slaughter at non-EEC export approved slaughterhouses during 1988 were found, on inspection, to be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: We consider this monitoring very important indeed. It is essential that no animals slip through. There has been no evidence of negligence. Thorough inspection has resulted in 63 suspect cases of BSE, 40 of which were subsequently confirmed, being reported from markets and slaughterhouse from 21 June 1988, when the disease was made notifiable, to the end of the year. During this period a total of 2,186 cases were confirmed.

  Sheep Dipping
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposals for compulsory sheep dipping in 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The Government have examined the arrangements for controlling sheep scab with a view to securing effective regulation while avoiding unnecessary burdens on the industry.

  It has been decided that there will be a single compulsory national dip in the autumn of 1989 and a further dip in the autumn of 1990. A system of movement controls will be introduced following this autumn's dip and arrangements for 1991 onwards will be decided in the light of the effectiveness of the new measures. The dates of the compulsory dip will be announced after consultation with the industry.

HEALTH

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last 10 years and to date for 1989, the number of cases of meningitis treated in the Trent regional health authority, the years in which there were clusters, the number of fatal cases and the number of cases involving children under five years and of school age.

  Table A

  Number of cases of (a) all forms of meningitis (b) meningococcal meningitis notified in Trent Regional Health Authority, 1979–891 all ages and selected age-groups.

  Notifications

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Acute Meningitis All forms

  All ages

  84

  74

  93

  104

  91

  103

  135

  170

  186

  309

  71

  0–4

  30

  28

  30

  42

  47

  48

  56

  88

  79

  117

  41

  5–14

  25

  12

  25

  19

  16

  15

  21

  26

  37

  39

  5

  Acute Meningococcal Meningitis

  All ages

  58

  76

  27

  26

  41

  33

  44

  69

  72

  111

  33

  0–4

  28

  39

  14

  11

  22

  15

  23

  34

  43

  61

  17

  5–14

  15

  25

  6

  7

  7

  2

  9

  9

  9

  15

  3

  1 1 January–31 March (1988 and 1989 provisional).

  Table B

  Number of deaths with meningococcal infection1 as underlying cause of death, usual residents of Trent Regional Health Authority, all ages and selected age-groups, 1979–1987.

  Deaths

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Meningococcal Infection

  All ages

  11

  11

  6

  4

  14

  6

  11

  10

  15

  0–4

  6

  4

  4

  2

  7

  1

  7

  8

  7

  5–14

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th Revision 036·0

  Table C2

  Numbers (10 per cent. sample) of hospital inpatient cases recorded with meningococcal infection1 as principal diagnosis, Trent Regional Health Authority, 1979–85.

  Trent RHA—Region of treatment

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Numbers

  11

  8

  6

  8

  14

  4

  6

  1 ICD 9th Revision 036·0

  2 These data are taken from the Hospital in-patient inquiry, a 10 per cent. sample of NHS non-psychiatric in-patient records. The last data year for this study was 1985.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department collects on the movement of people after discharge from mental illness hospitals;

  (2) what information is collected by his Department about people who have been discharged from mental illness hospitals.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the mental health history of the boarders in each local authority area in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1 April 1987, annual figures are collected about the intended destination of patients on completion of a
  746
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. In particular, data on clustering of cases within a local authority area are not available, since addresses are not noted on the infectious disease notification reports sent by regional health authorities to the OPCS.

  The tables show the nearest equivalent readily available data.

  duration of stay within National Health Service hospitals and units in a district health authority in England. The destinations recorded are:

  1. Usual place of residence, other than those institutions noted below (including patients with no fixed abode);

  2. Temporary place of residence, when usually resident elsewhere (eg hotels, residential educational institutions);

  3. Penal establishment, court or police station;

  4. Special hospitals;

  5. National Health Service hospital outside district—general ward/younger physically disabled;

  6. National Health Service hospital outside district—maternity/neonates ward;

  7. National Health Service hospital outside district—mentally ill/handicapped ward;

  8. Local authority residential accommodation (including foster care);

  9. Deaths;

  747

  10. Other, including non-National Health Service hospital or nursing home.

  The annual figures are not linked to individual patients and will include data on the same patient when admitted more than once during the year.

  Certain statistics are collected about those for whom residential provision is made in the community. Those mentally ill people whose accommodation costs are met in whole or in part by local authority social services departments are counted at 31 March each year by sex, broad age band, and by whether they are in local authority homes, registered care homes or other accommodation. These statistics do not distinguish those who have at any time been resident patients in mental illness hospitals.

  In March 1987 and March 1988, all local authority staffed homes and registered care homes catering for mentally ill people were asked to provide details of individual residents admitted during the previous year, including whether their most recent previous accommodation had been in a hospital or other NHS establishment.

  The adequacy of current statistics about mentally ill people will be reviewed during the coming year as part of the Department's information systems strategy.

  Statistics about local authority and other provision in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis were discharged from mental illness hospitals in each of the last three years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of discharges, excluding deaths and transfers, with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia from National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in England for the latest three years for which information is available. The figures are for discharges, and not individual patients, since the same patient may be discharged more than once during the year.

  Discharges1 from mental illness hospitals and units, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia2, England 1984–86

  Year

  Numbers

  1984

  23,879

  1985

  24,091

  1986

  23,975

  1Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals.

  29th Revision, International Classification of Diseases, 295·0–295·9.

  Information is not collected by diagnosis on the numbers of people entering into care, or taking up accommodation, provided by the local authorities.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis and subsequently taken by the police under section to hospital have been refused admission in each health region in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not centrally available.
  748
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects about admission under section and refusals of admissions under section to mental illness hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  From 1987 information has been collected centrally about the number of patients detained, within each district health authority, under each of the following sections of the Mental Health Act, 1983: section 2, 3, 4, 35, 36, 37/41, 37, 37(4), 38, 44, 46, 47/49, 47, 48/49, 48, 135 and 136. This information is available correlated to the mental category and sex of patient. Comparable information is available for earlier years and is contained in the Department's statistical note 1/88, a copy of which is in the Library. No information is centrally available on the refusal of hospitals to admit patients under sections of the Act.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis having been proved vulnerable boarders subsequently became voluntary boarders in each of the last two years in each health region.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential places in the community are currently available for those discharged from mental hospitals in each health region; what is the current rate of occupancy; and what are the projected figures for the next two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on residential places specifically for people discharged from mental hospitals is not available. The estimated numbers of places in local authority, voluntary and private homes and hostels for mentally ill people in each health region in England, in the latest year for which figures are available, are given in the table. Neither occupancy rates nor projected figures for subsequent years are available centrally.

  Numbers of places in local authority, voluntary and private homes in health regions in England—Places available at 31 March 1987

  Health region

  Number

  Northern

  482

  Yorkshire

  778

  Trent

  821

  East Anglian

  382

  North West Thames

  770

  North East Thames

  678

  South East Thames

  1,160

  South West Thames

  627

  Wessex

  473

  Oxford

  394

  South Western

  495

  West Midlands

  982

  Mersey

  464

  North Western

  662

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental illness beds there were in each health region in each of the last five years; what was the rate of occupancy; and what is the planned number of beds in each health region in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of staffed beds in mental illness hospitals and units, and their
  749
  occupancy rate, for 1982–1986. Since 1987–88, the first year of Korner data, information has been collected on "daily available beds", and is available in the booklet "Summary of KHO3 pt 2 Wards open overnight". A copy has been placed in the Library. The figures for occupied bed days

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Region

  Beds

  Percentage occupied

  Beds

  Percentage occupied

  Beds

  Percentage occupied

  Beds

  Percentage occupied

  Beds

  Percentage occupied

  Northern

  5,879

  87

  5,739

  88

  5,652

  87

  5,606

  88

  5,375

  87

  Yorkshire

  7,001

  83

  6,561

  84

  6,455

  81

  6,070

  82

  5,660

  84

  Trent

  7,263

  88

  7,104

  86

  6,910

  86

  6,679

  86

  6,520

  84

  East Anglian

  2,940

  83

  3,039

  81

  2,855

  78

  2,756

  79

  2,655

  81

  North West Thames

  7,389

  87

  7,193

  86

  6,657

  88

  6,433

  88

  5,968

  89

  North East Thames

  6,681

  86

  6,556

  87

  6,147

  90

  5,887

  90

  5,771

  89

  South East Thames

  6,581

  81

  6,268

  83

  6,103

  82

  5,774

  83

  5,417

  81

  South West Thames

  6,645

  89

  6,425

  90

  6,270

  89

  6,061

  89

  5,528

  91

  Wessex

  4,034

  86

  4,005

  85

  3,850

  84

  3,626

  85

  3,411

  84

  Oxford

  2,349

  80

  2,316

  82

  2,244

  85

  2,290

  83

  2,195

  82

  South Western

  5,283

  84

  5,058

  83

  4,586

  85

  4,454

  84

  4,226

  79

  West Midlands

  7,962

  83

  7,664

  84

  7,352

  83

  6,964

  84

  6,764

  81

  Mersey

  6,201

  85

  5,913

  85

  5,596

  85

  5,421

  86

  5,062

  88

  North Western

  6,781

  85

  6,734

  84

  6,594

  85

  6,359

  85

  6,199

  84

  Special H.A.

  508

  69

  457

  78

  459

  81

  457

  81

  464

  69

  England

  83,500

  85

  81,032

  85

  77,730

  85

  74,837

  85

  71,215

  77

  Ambulance Calls (Kidsgrove)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct extra resources to be made available to the North Staffordshire district health authority to enable the response to ambulance calls from Kidsgrove to meet the Occon standard.

  Mr. Freeman
  The allocation of resources to the Staffordshire ambulance service is the responsibility of the West Midlands regional health authority which has this year increased its allocation to the service by £403,000 to £6,229,000. I understand that the Staffordshire ambulance service has commissioned a full review of its services to identify areas for improvement.

  Kreutzfeldt-Jakob Dementia
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he now has any plans to introduce reporting procedures in respect of Kreutzfeldt-Jakob dementia.

  Mr. Freeman
  The chief medical officer is discussing with the Medical Research Council and the medical profession the most effective way of monitoring the incidence of Kreutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health since the introduction of the Mental Health Act 1983, how many people have been removed from the United Kingdom under section 86; and if he has any plans to review the operation of this section of the Act.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two patients detained under the Act have been removed under this provision. There are no plans to review its operation.
  750
  for 1987–88 are not yet available and so a rate of occupancy cannot be calculated. The information about planned number of beds for 1988–89 is still being processed.

SCOTLAND

  Highland Health Board (Meeting)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who attended the meeting between his Department and the chairman and general manager of Highland health board; what was the purpose of that meeting; and if he will place a copy of any minutes taken of the meeting in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An informal meeting between the chairman and general manager of Highland health board and myself was held on 24 February to discuss matters of common interest. An official of the Scottish Home and Health Department was in attendance. No formal record of the meeting was made.

  Ambulance Drivers (Overtime Ban)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any recent representations from the trades union movement about the overtime ban by Edinburgh's ambulance drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No representations have been received from the trades union movement. The unofficial overtime ban ended on 27 March 1989 following a ballot of the membership.

  Animal Diseases Research Association
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recent representations from the Animal Diseases Research Association about a reduction in research funding at its Edinburgh base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The president of the association wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 28 February drawing attention to the alleged effects on work at the Moredun Research Institute of reductions in Government funding of near-market research.
  751
  The position is that a programme of Government-funded research for 1989–90 amounting to £2·558 million has been agreed with the institute's director, based on his recommendations on scientific priorities taking account of the Government's policy to phase out public support of near-market R and D. Additional resources will be directed towards molecular biological and immunological work, which offers the best opportunities for faster progress in animal disease control and prevention. Other work of lower scientific priority will be terminated or reduced. The allocation of recurrent expenditure for 1989–90 compares with the allocation of £2·596 million in 1988–89. In addition, the institute received £0·166 million from the DAFS increased flexibility scheme, and will be eligible to enter further bids in 1989–90.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in Scotland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Arrangements have been made to collect this information for the first time this year. Data will relate to 31 March 1989 and should be available by early summer.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for research into mental disorders funded by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and, of these amounts, how much are for projects specifically related to schizophrenia.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Outturn figures for the financial year 1988–89 are not yet available. Estimated expenditure is £105,615, of which –25,245 is for projects related to schizophrenia. Estimated expenditure in the financial year 1989–90 is £106,911 and £51,121 respectively.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has about the mental health history of homeless people in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has about the mental health history of the homeless people in Scotland in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the mental health history of homeless people in Scotland is not collected. It is the policy of my right hon. and learned Friend that people should not be discharged from mental illness hospitals unless proper support facilities are available for them in the community.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is collected by his Department about people who have been discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is collected under the following headings:

  Occupational condition on discharge (fitness for employment etc.)

  Disposal on discharge (eg to home, hostel etc.)

  Arrangements for after-care.

  752
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mental illness beds there were in Scotland in each of the last five years; what was the rate of occupancy; and what is the planned number for the current year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is as follows:

  Average available staffed beds and percentage occupancy for mental illness1

  Year

  Average available staffed beds

  Occupancy per cent.

  1984

  13,054

  85·2

  1985

  12,551

  83·5

  1986

  12,191

  83·2

  1987

  11,683

  83·9

  1988

  10,155

  82·6

  1 Excluding the specialties psychogeriatrics, child psychiatry, adolescent psychiatry.

  Forward information for the current year is not available centrally.

  New Towns Document (SDA Response)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Scottish Development Agency asked for its response to the consultation document "The Scottish New Towns—Maintaining the Momentum" to be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Lang
  Many communications between the agency and Ministers must of necessity be in confidence. After consultation with the agency, however, I am pleased to make the agency's views available on the same open basis as the other responses to the consultation document.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  No. The existing procedures which apply in Scotland are adequate to ensure collection of the community charges.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department had any hand in providing information to the Evening Times for its article published on 10 April, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Lang
  No. The Scottish Office was not approached in connection with the article.

  Mrs.Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what directions he has issued to poll tax registrars on when to choose freezing of bank accounts as a method of enforcing either fines for non-registration or for non-payment of the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  Individual levying authorities are responsible for deciding when to take steps to recover civil penalties due for offences relating to community charges registration and arrears of community charges, and the means by which they do so. My right hon. and learned Friend has issued no instructions on these matters.

  Health Boards (Membership)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he gives to district representation in the appointment of members of a health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Members are not appointed to represent particular areas or interest, but the Secretary of State tries to ensure a suitable range of experience, expertise and background in the membership of any board. In doing this he takes the area of residence into account as one relevant factor.

  Animal Pests and Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the annual loss to the British forestry industry from damage from animal pests and diseases, respectively, and also the annual costs in(a) preventive measures and (b) remedial measures.

  Health Board

  Nominating body (where appropriate)

  ARGYLL AND CLYDE

  Appointment ended

  Mrs. E. M. Cockburn

  Russell Fairgrieve Esq.

  Dr. R. Erskine

  British Medical Association

  J. H. Gillougley

  Paisley Chamber of Commerce

  Rev. J. Young

  Renfrew Local Health Council

  Appointed

  N. M. Faccenda

  Scottish Conservative Party

  AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN

  Appointment ended

  Mrs. A. M. Campbell

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  T. Dickie JP

  Health Board

  Mrs. M. W. Gallie

  Mr. John Corrie

  Dr. J. Morrow

  British Medical Association

  Mrs. A. B. Wilson

  Appointed

  Mrs. A. Bates

  J. D. Sharp

  Confederation of British Industry

  BORDERS

  Appointment ended

  Dr. W. B. Aitken

  British Medical Association

  P. S. Elliot

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  R. W. Jack

  Roxburgh District Council

  A. C. Purves

  Confederation of British Industry; British Medical Association

  Appointed

  Dr. D. W. Cameron

  British Medical Association

  J. P. Metcalfe

  Mr. A. C. Purves

  W. Thyne

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY

  Appointment ended

  W. D. Beck OBE

  Co-op Union Ltd.

  Mrs. M. D. Dick-Smith

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Mrs. A. R. Murdoch

  Stewartry District Council

  G. Willacy JP

  Annandale and Eskdale District Council

  Appointed

  Mrs. M. J. S. Cambell, the Countess of Dalkeith

  Health Board

  Mrs. V. Jardine-Paterson

  Sir Hector Munro MP

  FIFE

  Appointment ended

  J. S. Edmiston JP

  Health Board

  H. C. Forwell

  Scottish Association of Master Bakers; Kirkcaldy Chamber of Commerce

  Dr. J. B. Gallacher

  St. Andrews Ambulance Association; West Fife Local Health Council

  J. Marshall

  British Medical Association; Royal College of General Practitioners

  Mrs. M. M. Pullar

  Royal College of Midwives

  G. Reid

  Harry Ewing MP

  754
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to provide an accurate assessment of the financial loss from damage from animal pests and diseases as much of this is of a long-term nature. Records of expenditure on the protection of Forestry Commission woodlands are available, but no information is held on the expenditure in privately owned woodlands.

  Health Boards (Membership)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those members of health boards whose appointment terminates on 31 March and those whose appointment arises on that date giving for each the nominating body.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information requested is as follows.
  755

  Health Board

  Nominating body (where appropriate)

  Appointed

  Mrs. W. R. Addison

  Royal College of Nursing

  Dr. A. C. A. Alexander

  Dr. J. B. Gallacher

  K. W. Fraser

  Scottish Division, Institute of Directors

  J. Murray

  Health Board

  FORTH VALLEY

  Appointment ended

  J. Cross

  British Medical Association

  A. B. Cruickshank

  Clackmannan District Council

  Prof. P. McEwen

  University of Stirling

  Mrs. W. J. A. MacFarlane

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  A. D. McNeill

  British Medical Association

  Appointed

  G. M. Dougall

  Health Board

  P. A. Joynson

  Dr. J. D. Stewart

  British Medical Association

  Dr. H. B. Tavadia

  Royal College of Pathologists; British Medical Association; Forth Valley Area Committee for Hospital Medical Services

  GRAMPIAN

  Appointment ended

  P. Cook

  Grampian Regional Council

  Captain C. A. Farquharson

  Gordon Local Health Council

  Dr. J. G. Henderson

  British Medical Association; Royal College of Psychiatrists; Grampian Area Committee for Hospital Medical Services

  G. S. Peterkin JP

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Miss E. A. Sheldon MBE

  Aberdeen Association for Mental Health; Society for the Mentally Handicapped; Muscular Dystrophy Society; Robert Gordons Institute of Technology

  Mrs. V. A. Stevenson

  Area Dental Committee; British Dental Association

  Appointed:

  A. Broomfield

  Health Board

  N. Thornton-Kemsley CBE

  GREATER GLASGOW

  Appointment ended

  J. Jackson

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Prof. A. C. Kennedy

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons; University of Glasgow

  Rev. J. T. Lang

  Church of Scotland

  Dr. J. Mackay OBE

  British Medical Association; Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons; British Dental Association; Royal College of Surgeons

  L. M. Turpie

  C. Williams

  British Medical Association; British Association of Social Workers

  Appointed

  Rev. R. D. M. Campbell

  Dr. K. W. Davidson CBE

  British Medical Association

  C. MacKay

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

  N. M. Naftalin

  Health Board

  HlGHLAND

  Appointment ended

  R. J. B. Bryson MBE

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine; Chartered

  Society of Physiotherapy

  Miss M. T. Hadden

  Royal College of Midwives; Royal College of Nursing; Scottish

  Health Visitors; Association of Nurse Administrators

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Macdonald

  Skye and Lochalsh District Council

  A. I. MacDonald

  Health Board; Caithness District Council

  Dr. W. D. Murray

  Royal College of Physicians; Royal College of Surgeons; Hospital Medical Staff Association.

  Appointed

  J. Forbes JP

  J. G. Ligertwood

  Health Board

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Miss I. Urquhart

  Health Board

  LANARKSHIRE

  Appointment ended

  Mrs D. C. McGirr

  Royal College of Physicians; Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

  G. Mclntosh

  Confederation of British Industry

  Dr A. M. Matthewson

  British Medical Association

  Appointed

  Dr W. Criggie

  Health Board

  I. L. Livingstone

  Health Board

  756 757

  Health Board

  Nominating body (where appropriate)

  LOTHIAN

  Appointment ended

  Mrs. P. Bell

  Conservative and Unionist Party

  A. T. Clark CBE

  Edinburgh District Council

  Mrs. W. E. Donaldson

  Lothian Regional Council; British Medical Association

  W. B. Herald

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Dr. A. R. Milne

  Health Board; Royal College of General Practitioners

  Professor J. Williamson CBE

  Edinburgh University

  J. F. Wilson

  Bank of Scotland

  Appointed

  Mrs. H. G. Birrell

  West Lothian Local Health Council

  Mrs. S. J. Cunningham

  Health Board

  J. W. Stephenson

  Lothian Region Conservative Group

  Orkney

  Appointment ended

  B. M. Clark

  Health Board

  F. J. Groundwater

  Scottish Trade Union Congress; British Medical Association

  Mrs. J. Marwick

  Orkney Local Health Council; Health Board; Orkney Islands Council

  M. E. Porteous

  Health Board

  Appointed

  Captain M. Gunn

  Confederation of British Industry

  D. L. Kemp

  Health Board

  Shetland

  Appointment ended

  R. Leask

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  W. A. Smith

  Shetland Islands Council

  G. A. Walterson

  Mrs. M. Williamson

  Health Board

  Appointed

  L. G. Groat

  Shetland Islands Council

  Mrs. A. I. Manson

  Shetland Islands Council

  Mrs. E. M. W. Poplar

  Royal College of Midwives

  TAYSIDE

  Appointment ended

  E. W. Cameron OBE JP

  J. Campbell-Smith

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  J. W. Duncan OBE JP

  Co-op Union Ltd; Dundee District Council

  E. C. Lowson MBE

  Association of Scottish Chamber of Commerce

  Prof. D. G. McDevitt

  University of Dundee

  I W. Stevenson

  Tayside Regional Council

  Appointed

  D. W. M. Davidson JP

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society

  Mrs. S. H. Fallon

  The Most Rev. L. E. Luscombe

  D. J. T. McKenzie

  Bill Walker MP

  WESTERN ISLES

  Appointment ended

  J. MacIntyre

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Appointed

  A. W. Hay

  Confederation of British Industry

  Rev. J. A. Macdonald

  Health Board

  Dr. J. W. Robertson

  Health Board

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many severely mentally impaired adults he estimates will qualify to be exempt from the poll tax(a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We estimate that around 55,000 adults in England will qualify for exemption from the community charge on grounds of severe mental impairment. Figures are not available on a local basis.
  758
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the poll tax bill for each person in Nottingham; when this estimate was made; and when he expects to update it.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. I have made no estimates of future community charge levels. Illustrative figures were placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 showing community charges based on 1988–89 local authority budgets. Figures based on the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement were placed in the Library on 1 March. Illustrative 1989–90 figures based on expenditure returns will be provided in due course.
  759
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had since 1 April with poll tax levying authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Both Ministers and officials at this Department have frequent discussions with charging authorities. For example, since 1 April I have visited Wolverhampton and Dudley district councils and the London borough of Islington.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those European Economic Community member countries that have a community charge tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list information available to him on any countries which finance their local government from a poll tax, also expressing this as a percentage of world nations.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to annex K of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cm.9714) which comments on international comparisons, and to the updated version of figure K3, which was published in the Official Report on 24 June 1988 at column 744.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of single pensioners will be adversely affected by the introduction of the community charge; and what percentage of pensioners will be adversely affected by the community charge(a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  Tables showing the impact of the community charge on pensioners in England were placed in the Library on 28 February 1988.

  These figures based on an analysis of family expenditure survey data show that 75 per cent. of single pensioners, and 83 per cent. of single pensioner households, will pay less when the community charge is fully in place. Overall, 69 per cent. of pensioner households are expected to pay less.

  I have no separate estimates for Nottingham.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of staff now working in local authority units specifically to register people for poll tax(a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales; and what is the total wage bill for each category.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. As far as the community charge is concerned, the information sought by the hon. Member is not available centrally. A summary of the available information on community charge implementation, including staffing levels, was placed in the Library on 10 April.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide an estimate of the amount of additional paper which will be required to provide for forms connected with the collection of the community charge, as compared with the old rating system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: No reliable estimates are available of the quantities of paper
  760
  required to service the collection of domestic rates or of community charges. Since there will be twice the number of chargepayers as ratepayers, it would not be surprising if the volume increased.

  I should imagine that the volume would be very much higher if we were to replace rates with the complexity of a local income tax, and higher still if that were combined with capital value rating, which I understand to be the Opposition's proposal for rates reform.

  Babbington Pit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to preserve the former Babbington pit headstocks, Nottingham, in their present form on the current or a nearby site.

  Mrs.Virginia Bottomley
  I have asked our statutory advisers in English Heritage to assess whether there is a case for listing the headstocks as a building of special architectural or historic interest. I will write to the hon. Member when I have received their advice.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he was consulted by the President of the European Economic Community Commission before the announcement on 4 April by the president of his proposals that the United Kingdom team at the Olympic Games in 1992 should bear European Economic Community insignia and substitute an European Economic Community tune in place of the United Kingdom national anthem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The President of the Commission of the European Communities did not consult my Department about his announcement on 4 April about the 1992 Olympic Games. His proposals are for the British Olympic Association to consider. I understand that it is opposed to them.

  Loughborough and Angell Town Estates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is willing favourably to consider estate action schemes for the Angell Town and Loughborough estates in Lambeth.

  Mr. Trippier
  Lambeth's application under the estate action initiative in support of the first phase of improvement works to the Angell Town estate was received too late to be considered for resources this year. Applications for future phases will be treated on their merits. No application has been made in respect of the Loughborough estate.

  Leasehold Contracts
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to ensure that leasehold contracts include full details of the leaseholder's commitment to insurance and maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. These are matters for negotiation between the individual freeholder and leaseholder when a contract is drawn up or assigned. The Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987 give significant rights to residential leaseholders in relation to both insurance and maintenance arrangements.

  Drought (Contingency Plans)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department received reports from the water authorities concerning levels of winter rainfall; whether he expects the shortage to continue into the summer as a drought; and whether his Department has made contingency plans for a drought this summer.

  Mr. Howard
  We have been receiving regular reports from the water industry on regional rainfall and the state of water resources. Heavier than average rainfall over the last two months has greatly improved the situation; areas of potential shortage of water supply this summer are now relatively small and confined to parts of the south east. Responsibility for taking action in the event of drought rests with the water undertakers.

  Council Housing (Allocation)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on the proportion of(a) councils and (b) housing associations which publish their criteria for allocation of property; and whether any guidance has been issued to them on this point;

  (2) what information he has on the proportion of (a) councils and (b) housing associations which have clear allocation policies according to need; and whether he has issued any guidance to them on this point.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not held centrally, but section 106 of the Housing Act 1985 requires local housing authorities and housing associations to publish their allocation rules. There has been no recent guidance to councils on this subject, but the tenants' guarantee, issued in January this year by the Housing Corporation, provides advice to registered housing associations on policies and procedures for allocation of their accommodation.

  Strategic Planning (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements for consultation he has made in respect of his draft strategic planning guidance for

  £ million

  Housing capital allocations1

  Prescribed proportion of housing capital receipts

  Excess of cash backed housing receipts over prescribed proportion of housing receipts

  1987–88

  Shire districts

  592

  1,400

  3,130

  Metropolitan districts

  377

  300

  270

  Inner London boroughs

  264

  230

  170

  Outer London boroughs

  146

  320

  580

  1988–89

  Shire districts

  500

  n/a

  n/a

  Metropolitan districts

  350

  n/a

  n/a

  Inner London boroughs

  265

  n/a

  n/a

  Outer London boroughs

  149

  n/a

  n/a

  1989–90

  Shire districts

  361

  n/a

  n/a

  Metropolitan districts

  249

  n/a

  n/a

  Inner London boroughs

  184

  n/a

  n/a

  Outer London boroughs

  106

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Provisional. For 1989–90 £208 million housing allocations have not yet been issued.

  762
  London with (a) the general public, (b) London borough councils, (c) voluntary and community groups, (d) the business community and (e) other public and private bodies.

  Mr. Chope
  Copies of the draft guidance were sent to London Members, the London borough councils and some 180 organisations with an interest in London wide planning matters. The Department has publicised the consultation and to date has sent more than 350 copies of the draft guidance to members of the public, voluntary and community groups, businesses and others on request. A list of those commenting on the guidance will be placed in the House of Commons Library when consultation is completed.

  Local Authority Housing (Capital Programme)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made by his Department for the availability of resources for local authorities' housing capital programmes including non-prescribed capital receipts under both the current and the proposed capital finance regime proposed by the Local Government and Housing Bill 1989 in the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, tabulated by non-metropolitan authorities, metropolitan authorities, inner London boroughs and outer London boroughs.

  Mrs.Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows housing capital allocations for the years requested. It also shows the prescribed proportion of housing capital receipts and the amount, for each class of authority, by which cash-backed housing capital receipts in aggregate exceed the prescribed proportion of housing capital receips for 1987–88. Information on the availability of capital receipts by class of authority for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is not available.

  The capital finance regime proposed in the Local Government and Housing Bill will apply to 1990–91 and subsequent financial years. Provision for housing capital expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92 was made in table 9.1 of the "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92 Chapters 9 and 10" (Cm. 609).
  763
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the utilisation of non-prescribed capital receipts currently used by local authorities to fund part of their housing capital programme will be taken into account when assessing the level of Exchequer subsidy to housing revenue accounts for 1990–91 and in subsequent years.

  Mr. Trippier
  An allowance will be made in the calculation of housing revenue account subsidy for local authorities' revenue expenditure on maintenance. We believe that, under the present system, some authorities also use some of their capital receipts on what would normally count as items of revenue spending, and we shall be consulting the local authority associations on whether to reflect this in the subsidy calculation under the new system, and if so, to what extent.

  LRB (Portraits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 7 April,Official Report, columns 299–300, he will give details of the portraits transferred from the London residuary body to the City of London.

  Mrs.Virginia Bottomley
  The entire collection of portraits of London county council and Greater London council chairmen, and portraits of prominent members of those councils and of the Metropolitan Board of Works are the subject of the transfer.

  Middlesex Guildhall Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what criteria Harrow was chosen as the potential recipient of items from the Middlesex Guildhall collection currently in the possession of the London residuary body; which other London boroughs showed an interest; and if other boroughs were notified of the possible availability of the collection.

  Mrs.Virginia Bottomley
  The London borough of Harrow was chosen because of the strength of its connection with the former Middlesex county council. No other borough was made aware of the availability of the Middlesex Guildhall collection for transfer, or showed an interest in acquiring it.

  Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has accepted any land in lieu of tax in the last financial year.

  Mr. Ridley
  An offer of 18·91 acres at Oxey Mead, Yarnton, Oxfordshire was accepted in lieu of capital transfer tax. The amount of tax satisfied was £15,640. The land, part of a site of special scientific interest, has been allocated to the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Naturalists Trust.

  Parent Registers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the 764
  availability to community charge registration officers of the parent registers presently being compiled by local education authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: There is no requirement on local education authorities to compile parent registers. Registers containing the names of everyone known to be a parent of a registered pupil are required to be kept by schools, and access to them by officers of local education authorities is limited by regulations. Regulations on the community charge require local authorities to supply information about individuals to community charges registration officers only where it is within their possession or control. That information must be limited to names, addresses, and periods of residence.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the average percentage of the housing stock of(a) councils, (b) housing associations and (c) private landlords vacant for more than three months at the last recorded date.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: The available information is provided by local authorities in their housing investment programme return (HIP 1). It is recorded in the "Housing Needs Appraisal: HIP 1 for 1988, Grossed for England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The return shows the number of local authority dwellings which had been empty for more than six months at 1 April but it does not provide any further breakdown of those empty for six months or less; nor does it show the length of vacancy for dwellings in other sectors.

  Planning Guidance (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies and proposals is his planning guidance for London are designed to meet the special problems and needs of (i) women and (ii) ethnic communities.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Ethnicity and gender are not relevant to land use planning.

  House of Commons (Health and Safety)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how many more weeks the stairway leading to the Official Reporters' gallery will be in breach of health and safety regulations, were they to apply; and if he will now replace the two out-of-order light bulbs.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Redecoration work on the Lady Members' staircase was restricted to weekends in order to maintain normal access. This inevitably prolonged the work, but it has now been completed and the area cleared. The light bulbs have been checked and are now in full working order.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The Principal Deputy Chairman Of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Unlicensed Vehicles
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they propose to take to prevent owners of unlicensed vehicles from using them on public roads.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, virtually all DVLC local offices now have direct and immediate computer links to the central tax disc records at Swansea. Full use of this new technology will enable the police and the department to deal with vehicle licence offenders more efficiently and in greater numbers than ever before. At the same time in 1989 we shall be running in co-operation with the police the biggest programme so far of intensive regional and local campaigns against evaders.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome reply. Since the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the North Committee that clamping be introduced for this offence in persistent cases, does my noble friend agree that strong deterrents are needed? Unlicensed cars, usually also not road-tested, are often owned by unlicensed and uninsured drivers, thus constituting a menace to all other road users?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the reason we decided not to adopt the North recommendation on clamps was that we thought that extended use would run the risk of undermining public acceptance of the need for, and the desirability of, clamping. I assure my noble friend that our campaigns to deter people from failing to licence vehicles will not be neglected.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the reason for the rejection of the North Committee recommendation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred, was raised by myself during our debate on the road user and the law? I said that far from having their confidence in clamping reduced, the great majority of the 33 million owners of vehicles resented the fact that a certain number were getting away with not meeting what was a proper responsibility? I am afraid that the noble Earl's ministerial colleague did not give an answer. Will the Government reconsider the matter because the great majority of the public would appreciate the implementation of the North Committee's recommendation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill,
482
that the public resent people who get away with not licensing their vehicles. As I have just said, it is the Government's view that it would undermine public acceptance of the whole business of clamping if we were to clamp vehicles because they were unlicensed. The Government's policy towards evaders is that we are not actually dealing with a crime. While, of course, we still want penalties and fines and prosecutions to deter, we do not want to lump evaders with criminals. That is the basis of our policy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords is my noble friend aware that some of us who agree with the Government's view against widening the scope of clamping, because clamping perpetuates obstruction, would nonetheless like to see severe penalties being imposed for use of unlicensed vehicles? Has consideration been given to confiscating such vehicles?
The Earl of Dundee: Indeed, my Lords. One recommendation of the North Report to which we are giving serious consideration is that when cars are clamped in the normal way because a parking offence has been committed, they might not be released from the clamping pound, if they should also be unlicensed, until the licence is paid.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are the penalties which can be imposed on those who commit these criminal offences adequate? Should they be increased? Should there be a general warning in view of the threat to the public at large, as noble Lords have said previously, of this malpractice, which is what it is?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Criminal Penalties Order of 1984 raised the maximum level of fines for vehicle licence evasion from £200 to £400, or five times the annual rate of duty, whichever is the greater. There has been a slow but steady increase in the level of fines and penalties imposed by the courts. Since 1985–86 the average total penalty for vehicle licence evasion has increased by 20 per cent. to £105. The department considers that this is too low to be an effective deterrent and has made its views clear to the Magistrates' Association and other court-related bodies quite a number of times.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that if fines are not collected it does not matter how big they are? Surely the opportunity, when people have their cars impounded, to make sure that licences are in place and that previous fines have all been paid should be taken by the authorities? There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to take what seem to us obvious steps.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I entirely accept that whatever the level of fine, if it were not to be collected, there is not much point in having a fine. I can reassure the noble Lord that some £25·7 million was recovered in fines, back duty orders, penalty payments and costs in the financial year which has just ended.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me why one should be clamped merely for parking in the wrong place if one is not clamped when one should not be there at all?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I assume that because my noble friend asks that question with such emphasis he himself would never park in the wrong place or only very occasionally. However, I imagine that your Lordships would agree that there are certain advantages in continuing with our practice of clamping, although it is quite a relief for me on a Friday when I travel from London to Edinburgh to be able to relax in a city where as yet that practice has not been adopted.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, presuming that every car was originally licensed, is there any computerised system capable of discovering how many cars are not relicensed and how many are redundant?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, improved technology is now in place at the centre in Swansea. It is possible to record all the relevant details with regard to the ownership of a car, duration of the licence and so forth.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the Minister said that last year £25 million was paid in motoring fines. Can he give the figure of the total number of unpaid fines during that period?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I would need notice of that question; I shall write to the noble Lord.

Namibia: UN Presence
11.13 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they played any part in giving permission to the South West Africa Territory forces to attack SWAPO guerillas on 1st April and subsequently.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, no. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in Namibia on 1st April, any action to deal with the incursion by SWAPO forces must be taken under the authority of the United Nations. This has remained our position.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, on 1st April the Prime Minister was in Windhoek. On the same day the United Nations released the South West African defence force to resume its attacks on SWAPO. If the Minister read the report of the adjournment debate which took place in the other House last night, he will know that the personal evidence of Mr. Paul Boateng, who recently returned from Namibia, was that since then there have been massive and widespread atrocities. I do not say that they are all on one side, but the
484
release of the South African force produced a state of war— —
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, was the Prime Minister in any way responsible for the decision that was taken? She was representing a member of the Security Council. Did she partake in any way in the decision that was made on 1st April?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. The decision was taken by the United Nations authorities in Namibia on that day and not by my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the unhappy problem has been exacerbated by the overbearing presence of South African security forces at United Nations bases in Namibia, as was made clear in the "Nine o'clock News" on BBC television last night? Furthermore, can the Minister say when it is expected that the United Nations forces will be in full complement in Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the reason why the United Nations plan, which was due to come into effect from 1st April, got into such difficulty was because of a major incursion into Namibia by members of SWAPO who had no right to be there. However, that was in the past and they have now agreed to withdraw into Angola, north of the appropriate parallel. Matters are now on track to resume a successful implementation of the United Nations plan. Important duties are laid upon the South Africans in accordance with the implementation of the UN plan as well as upon SWAPO. We are now looking to all the participants in the United Nations process to honour their undertakings, and we have evidence that they all intend to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the United Nations were asked to keep the peace, sufficient forces should have been sent in time to do so; and that to put them in under-strength and in the humiliating position which they experienced is quite wrong? Does he further agree that if we are to back the United Nations, we must do so with money and forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, keeping the peace is not quite the role of the United Nations forces and officials in Namibia. Their task is to oversee the implementation of the United Nations plan which calls for elections to be undertaken later this year, and for an appropriately elected government to come into office in Namibia in due course. Nonetheless, it is important for an appropriate number of United Nations forces to be in place. We are ensuring that they will arrive as quickly as can be arranged, and all the United Kingdom's contribution is now in place.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, with all respect, does the Minister not agree that while the United Nations forces are there to oversee the plan,

485
in the midst of armed forces on both sides they need to be able to enforce the plan?
Lord Trefgarne: But, my Lords, they are not there and were never intended to be there in the kind of force which the noble Lord has in mind. It is not the role of the United Nations forces to conduct military operations in Namibia of the kind that he suggests.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House were delighted to learn that Britain has enough forces to contribute to the United Nations peace force? That is something to brag about! Secondly, is the Minister aware that the history of this matter has been extremely sad? For a long time there has been a war between SWAPO and South Africa which has come to a halt at last. The tragedy has been that there was insufficient control over SWAPO which endangered the position. Can the Minister indicate that SWAPO now recognises its responsibilities and will go back to where it belongs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in recent days we have heard much more helpful utterances from senior officials within SWAPO, including its agreement to withdraw across the border north of the 16th parallel in southern Angola. That will mean that the United Nations will be back on track. I do not put it more strongly than that. The United Nations plan is far from complete, but there are signs that it is now moving in the right direction, and I invite your Lordships' support of that process.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, in welcoming the part played by Her Majesty's Government in bringing this unexpected hope of independence and peace in Namibia, I ask the Government to use their influence to ensure that SWAPO is involved to a greater extent in the necessary negotiations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course SWAPO is a very important element in native opinion in Namibia and is intimately involved, as the right reverend Prelate suggests, in discussions going on continuously with a view to keeping the United Nations process under way and ensuring that a successful conclusion is reached in due course. I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate about the importance of the SWAPO position.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we support the general principle he has enunciated and what he has said generally about the position? However, does he not agree that it is really important for us and the United Nations forces to be even-handed in reaction to both SWAPO and South Africa? While the United Nations forces are not there to keep the peace, they are there to help to maintain the peace leading to fair and open elections in Namibia. Does he not further agree that in addition to the reaction of SWAPO, it is very desirable that the South African security services should withdraw? Can he give an assurance that he is confident that South Africa, with all the power it has in the region, will do that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes; the noble Lord is quite right. The withdrawal of South African forces to bases will be an important part of this process. It is certainly essential that that part takes place, and we have reason to believe that the South African forces intend to do just that.
Lord Burton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the SWAPO Democratic Party in Windhoek is opposed to the SWAPO external communist terrorists and deprecates their actions in invading Namibia as armed terrorists?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are different strands and strains of opinion within SWAPO, as there are within many political groupings, if one may say so. However, the important matter now is that the peace process should continue on track and that duly constituted and properly conducted elections should take place later this year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is the latest news Her Majesty's Government have on the withdrawal of SWAPO forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the latest news I have is that the withdrawal is going more or less according to plan. Naturally, communications are not always terribly good between London and the situation on the ground. However, we have no reason to believe at present that things are not going more or less as we had hoped.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord did not fully answer my Question. I am aware of the fact that the United Nations administrator took the decision on 1st April. I asked whether the Prime Minister, as a representative of a country which is a member of the Security Council, took any part in that decision. The Minister now says that the South African forces will withdraw to base. Is he aware that at present South African forces are surrounding the bases where SWAPO forces are asked to gather and are threatening them? Two days ago, they threatened to interrogate those who gather there, with the result, as was pointed out by Mr. Boateng last night, that many SWAPO guerillas will not go to those bases because they will not feel safe there.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to clarify the position with regard to the last point of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Interrogation, as it has been somewhat unfortunately described, such as it is, will be conducted by UNCTAD officials and not by South African security forces personnel and will simply relate to the essential information required to ensure the implementation of the arrangements now in place. I agree that it would not be appropriate for South African officials to conduct the kind of interrogation that has been feared. I believe that there was an unfortunate remark made in that connection by a member of the South African security forces which gave rise to that misconception.
As for the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, perhaps he will allow me to say that he does the United Nations officials there no service

487
by suggesting that they are in some way subject to external pressures other than the authorised ones. As the noble Lord rightly said, my right honourable friend was in Namibia on 1st April. However, her role was simply to see what was going on and to meet some of the British personnel involved in that process, and not to twist the arm of United Nations officials.

Radioactive Waste Management: ECC Report
11.25 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (19th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 99).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this morning we are discussing two reports which are on related subjects. However, from the very beginning I should like to emphasise their distinctness. Paragraph 187 of the European Community Committee's report emphasised:
"steady progress towards a solution of the radioactive waste problem should be independent of any decisions on the future of nuclear power".
That is the very firm line which we took.
The Government have already published a response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, and no doubt the noble Lord will take that into account in the debate. We do not habitually expect a written response to reports of the sub-committees and Committee on the European Communities and, therefore, I shall place great weight this afternoon on the reply of my noble friend Lady Hooper. However, I hope that she will deal with issues of policy which are clearly apparent in the report of the European Communities Committee, even though I may not have time to touch on them all myself.
I see my own role as introducing the report to your Lordships and I intend to highlight its general features. I do not have time to recapitulate the many recommendations made. For example, I shall not revert to the points summarised in paragraphs 62, 194,195, 200, 201, 202 and 209. Those points are largely directed towards the European Community itself for action but I should appreciate it if my noble friend were able to give us the Government's views on the issues dealt with there.
The inquiry was prompted by the second triennial report from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council covering developments under the Community's 12-year action plan in the field of radioactive waste which runs from 1980–1992. It was important for us to obtain a Community perspective. To that end we visited disposal sites, reprocessing plants and research sites in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, as well as those at Sellafield and Drigg. To keep the European perspective, we heard oral evidence from the Commission of the European Communities, from the European Environmental Bureau and from two MEPs. As regards our own national programme
488
we received written and oral evidence from the statutory regulators, advisers, practitioners, from NGOs represented by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace and from two academic researchers, Professors Blowers and Dr. Lowry. We also received written evidence provided by all those institutions listed on page 5 of the report. I should like to record my thanks to all those who assisted us in that way in our inquiry.
It is not a lightweight report because we deliberately chose to produce a comprehensive review, as far as we could, of the entire subject of radioactive waste management and disposal. I am particularly grateful to our specialist adviser, Professor Lewis Roberts, for his help in compiling the information section and particularly those in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 8. I hope that what we have produced is not exactly a child's guide to the subject, but may prove a parliamentarian's vade-mecum through the thorny thickets of this subject. Indeed. I hope it will be more than that. I hope that it will be helpful to a much wider readership; especially to those who give service in local government where decisions have to be made; to those in education and to all those who want to get to grips with the problems covered by this report.
I think I should remind your Lordships that we were, in fact, really a bunch of quite ordinary Lords. We had no prior commitment to any point of view. We started this inquiry with the general sense of unease, suspicion, anxiety that typifies public attitudes to these issues when they are confronted. However, I am glad to say that we ended up confident that disaster does not loom. There is much science involved; there is heavy expenditure to be incurred: extreme care is needed, and watchfulness is essential from the regulatory authorities. With those provisos, we come out of this inquiry convinced that our society can cope safely with these frightening wastes, provided we have a firm lead and positive direction from central government. We want no more shifts, sideways jumps, or even the back-tracking that have so far featured in national policy. These wastes exist. They must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible in order to ensure the safety of present and future generations.
The first main conclusion of the committee to which I wish to draw attention is that radiation protection standards are uniform and operating effectively throughout the Community. Doses to the public from the nuclear industry are the smallest component in national exposure. The report draws attention to risks from radon in houses—a subject that is now being tackled with as much vigour as we know how. Paragraph 45 concludes that,
"further reduction or even total elimination of the doses from the nuclear industry … could make only a minimal contribution to an improvement in public health".
I quote those words not to reflect complacency but to impress the sense of reassurance received by the committee—reassurance that national and EC-wide regulations based on international standards are serving to protect the public.
The second important conclusion is that there has been adequate research to demonstrate that safe

489
methods of disposal are achievable in the European context. Given the hazards of long-term near-surface storage of these dangerous wastes it is, as paragraph 210 states:
"irresponsible to wait any longer for some hoped-for but unspecified alternative".
The right procedure depends on the radioactive characteristics of the waste. Categories IV and V of Table 2, on page 22, can safely be buried in shallow repositories, given a degree of engineering containment.
We followed members of the environment committee of the House of Commons to France and, like them, we were impressed by the technology in use at the La Manche repository. When we went to Drigg we were pleased to note the improvements in hand that have taken place since the Commons visit. Our conclusions, reported in paragraph 116, were that this work should be completed as soon as possible, together with improved packaging of wastes designated for disposal at Drigg.
In France some intermediate level waste is disposed of near surface. In the Federal Republic of Germany all wastes are to be buried in deep repositories. In the United Kingdom the decision has now been made to construct a deep disposal facility that will take all intermediate level waste and some, ultimately all, low level waste when Drigg is full. The responsibility for developing this disposal site falls on NIREX. As we know, on 21st March the Secretary of State announced that he had allowed the appeal of BNFL against Cumbria County Council's refusal of planning permission to drill an exploratory borehole at Sellafield. NIREX's latest report Going Forward is fresh from the presses. A copy was sent to me and I have encouraged NIREX to send copies to your Lordships. I hope that some have been received. The company has also taken the trouble to provide me with an advance draft of the relevant chapters from the technical version, and I am grateful for that help. I shall mention that again in a moment.
In the meantime, there are important questions which arise from the decision to permit an exploratory borehole at Sellafield. I put these to my noble friend. First, will a similar decision follow to permit a borehole at Dounreay? Secondly, assuming that indications are satisfactory from a first borehole, what will be the next step? What permissions will be required to proceed to the extensive, site-specific geological investigations that will be needed, as we point out in paragraph 208? Will an EIA be required? Thirdly, assuming these further investigations are also favourable, how will the public obtain the information needed to be assured that safe disposal can go ahead? Fourthly, will this be the definitive site? Fifthly, will retrievability as discussed in paragraphs 152 and 153 be an option?
Referring back to the NIREX papers, I cannot but note how clearly these reports demonstrate this company's extreme apprehensiveness with regard to public opinion. Many potential sites in prospect that are at least as good as Sellafield and Dounreay were rejected out of hand to avoid expected local opposition. The decision chart I have seen is a
490
travesty of the dispassionate, science-based technical decision chart quoted in the BPEO process by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 12th Report.
I find it a fearful prospect if we envisage that every further step in the development of a safe disposal site, which the nation needs, will have to be imposed by central government in the national interest—imposed on local authorities who feel that they have to resist in order to reflect public sentiment. The committee confronted this difficult issue in Part 9 of the report. We listened to all varieties of opinion. To some extent we blame both the industry and the regulators for the present unhappy circumstances. We believe it is important that the industry is not seen as the sole arbiter of its own actions. Equally, we believe that the Government are not seen to be unduly influenced by short-term political considerations (paragraph 189).
The committee was particularly impressed by the work of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) and hoped for a more significant role for this body. After discussions with RWMAC the committee was persuaded that there was some utility in taking natural background radiation as a standard of comparison (discussed in the evidence sections on page 118). I received a letter from Professor Knill last November reporting that his committee would discuss the establishment of a standard measurement of artificially-induced radiation relative to background. He also mentioned the first meeting of the RWMAC public interest panel. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me what advances there have been on this front. In particular, I should be glad of assurances that the Government will take notice of recommendations in paragraph 192.
Three other outstandingly important questions concerning forward plans are raised in this report. First, paragraph 120 sums up the committee's views on decommissioning. The need for complete removal of all structures surrounding a closed reactor should be examined carefully. Techniques for permanently sealing a structure in situ should be explored. Research is needed in order to develop policy in this field.
Secondly, there is the contentious issue of reprocessing (discussed in Part 8) and the committee's conclusions in paragraph 169. Magnox fuel must be reprocessed on environmental grounds. The committee believe that current THORP contracts should be completed, but further options need to be reviewed in relation to oxide fuel in particular. The Government must give a clear lead to the reprocessing industry in this instance.
Finally, there is the issue of high level wastes. At present in the United Kingdom these exist in the very horrid form of nitric acid solution. The radioactivity is intense. Considerable heat is generated and requires to be dissipated by artificial cooling. Solidification through the vitrification process is an available technique and as such should not be delayed. Subsequent storage of the solidified waste will be necessary for some years to allow further cooling. But the need for this cooling period should not give false reassurance that time is on our side.

491
In paragraph 118 the committee states its conviction that work towards a final disposal of high level waste should be pursued vigorously to prevent unnecessary delay. No agency has yet been constituted to undertake that essential task. The Department of the Environment has direct responsibility. For the sake of public safety the Government must bring forward plans as soon as possible.
I close with a quotation from paragraph 193 of the report:
"Radioactive waste management is a key environmental issue in the Community. The safe handling of radioactive wastes raises difficult technical problems, but in addition, raises questions of public confidence and public acceptability".
Those are the key issues that the Government must face. But neither the Government nor the nation need forget that we are not alone in meeting this task. It is being tackled throughout the Community. Strength lies in co-operation and in joint endeavour, in the sharing of research and in the exchange of experience. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on radioactive waste management (19th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 99)—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
11.41. a.m
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, we are debating two reports this morning and it falls to me to introduce the debate on the second. I understand that my Motion is to be proposed after my noble friend's Motion is put. Therefore, I shall do that at the end of the debate.
I advise your Lordships right from the start that we have just received the Government's reply to our report. It will not be published until next week. I hope that all noble Lords who are participating in this debate have now received copies of it. I am glad to say that there is a large measure of agreement between the committee and the Government. But there are one or two important points of difference which I shall touch on during my remarks.
First, I pay tribute to the specialist advisers who helped us with this inquiry. They were Sir John Hill, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority; and Professor Williams, professor of government and science policy at the University of Manchester. Their knowledge and experience was of great assistance to your committee. The evidence that was submitted to us was also of great assistance and it was given by a wide range of interested parties. I express our gratitude to them for the time they gave in submitting evidence to us.
This inquiry came at an extremely interesting time because we were conducting it against a moving background. It was a moving background for two reasons. First, the government proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry were in the process of being formulated. The White Paper was produced during our inquiry, but the Bill itself did not appear until after the findings of our inquiry had been published. Secondly, at the same time public opinion was becoming more aware of the dangers of atmospheric pollution including that of
492
the so-called greenhouse effect. At the beginning of our inquiry that was not a public issue, but we identified it as being of importance to energy policy.
During the inquiry the momentum in the public arena grew until today hardly a week goes by when we do not get a publication or statement about atmospheric pollution, particularly as regards the greenhouse effect. The difficulty is that many of these pronouncements are not so well informed, though some are. Our difficulty was to differentiate between those which were informed and those which were not.
We started our inquiry by asking ourselves whether there was a basic need to maintain a proportion of non-fossil fuel generating capacity as laid down by the Government. We found no evidence to show that previous instabilities in fuel prices and availabilities were going to change in the period ahead of us. That indicated that the maximum options for a variety of fuel supplies should be maintained including that of nuclear power on top of oil, gas and coal. Added to this was the growing uncertainty about the fear of atmospheric pollution. We looked into this question because it seemed to be so relevant.
The evidence that was presented to us was pretty sketchy to say the least. But we were convinced that potential dangers in the long term were such that they could not be ignored. Your committee recommended that further studies should be made of this particular phenomenon especially of the greenhouse effect. That is now being conducted by another committee under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is speaking later in this debate. Your committee concluded that these factors taken together fully justified the Government's decision to maintain the nuclear option in the future. Hence there was a case for maintaining a long-term research and development programme in the nuclear field.
We took fully into consideration two relevant factors the first being to what extent fuel saving and greater efficiency in the use of fuels would affect the issue. The second factor was how great was the practical potential for renewable sources of energy. Both those factors were taken into account, and important as they are, we did not feel that they in any way altered the conclusions that the committee came to.
In the light of that conclusion we then pursued the question of the fast reactor. The committee concluded that, in view of the excellent progress that had been achieved in this field and its possible long-term potential, it was right for work to continue, but at a reduced rate in view of the long-term period involved. We considered that the scheme should be continued through a centrally-managed and integrated European programme. The scale of the British effort should be such as to justify our participation in the European programme.
Up to this point we were largely in agreement with the Government. But here there is a major difference. In this fast reactor programme there is a design project under way for a new fast reactor for commercial operation. In their reply the

493
Government take the view that this should be funded by the private interests of the supply industry or the equipment suppliers. Your committee took the view that this was not a practical approach. Money for this work would not be forthcoming from the private sector until there was a foreseeable market for the new product. Therefore we recommended that a measure of public funding should be put behind the project at this stage. I hope that the Government will consider this matter again.
We suggested also that the Government should revise their programme for the use of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay which they are proposing should be closed in 1994. We suggested that this was an important test vehicle which could play an important part in the European programme to which I have referred. We considered that the Government should look at this again with a view to keeping the reactor operating beyond the proposed closure date for this purpose. In your committee's opinion such a decision would benefit not only our participation in the European programme but also the people of Caithness, referred to in the Government's reply as a factor in their decision. Perhaps, therefore, the Government will look again at the matter before any final decision is taken implementing the proposed shutdown.
The second issue to which we addressed ourselves was the effect of electricity privatisation on the nuclear programme. The measure raises many matters of detail which are not appropriate for our debate today. They will be debated when the Electricity Bill comes before your Lordships very shortly. However, there is one aspect which we consider important. We asked ourselves the question: under these measures who would be responsible for the long-term research and development necessary for the maintenance of the electricity supply industry, its direction and its funding? This quickly resolved itself into a further, rather more fundamental, question: who is responsible under the Bill for the long-term security of supply of power to the nation? Your Lordships will be aware that this responsibility has been carried very effectively in past years by the CEGB. The board has promoted long-term programmes of research to meet these needs involving environmental issues and all the questions relating to security of supply in the long term. It has arranged either for funding from central government or by consumers.
We were told that in no way was the new organisation, National Power, going to take responsibility for this work. It was in competition with other power generators and could not afford to carry the burden. That must be carried elsewhere. Naturally we asked ourselves: where will it be carried? We sought information. We were told that it was going to be carried by all 12 of the distribution companies. How they would carry the burden together was not clear. Nor was it clear how the programme was going to be determined or implemented; nor how it was going to be funded. We found that pretty unsatisfactory.
A major issue in our report is this: who is responsible for the security of supply under the new proposals? Interestingly enough, the Government in
494
their reply—which your Lordships have studied—donot address themselves to the fundamental problem that we have raised. However, they say that long-term research and development will be the responsibility of the Department of Energy. By implication it seems to me that if one is taking responsibility for long-term research and development one is taking responsibility—at the Department of Energy—for long-term security of supply. Perhaps the Government will clarify the point: it is a very important issue. In many respects the department is probably the place where responsibility should rest. In the event of the lights going out, it will be the Department of Energy and the Secretary of State for Energy, I suspect, who will have the chop, not 12 area boards separately, each of which will say that it is nothing to do with it individually. This is an important issue and I emphasise it.
There are a number of recommendations arising from our inquiry. Other members of the committee may wish to speak to them or emphasise the points I have been making. I shall take up your Lordships' time only on one issue. That is the future of the Atomic Energy Authority—the AEA. Our report pays a well merited tribute to the high quality and expertise of the staff of the authority. They are a valuable and great national asset. I emphasise that.
We paid tribute also to the excellent work that the authority has done since its formation in creating a new industry—and a very successful one—in a highly technological field. However, we must recognise that this is now a mature industry. Times have changed. We were left with considerable unease that the present size of the authority seems to be in excess of the needs of its tasks—12,000 people employed on eight different major sites. We gave some thought to this. What tasks? Here, we felt even greater unease. We were not able to obtain a clear picture of exactly what was the expected role of the Atomic Energy Authority in the years ahead. The issue is very important because while one questions what it should be there is an essential role for the expertise of the Atomic Energy Authority in meeting the essential existing regulatory and safety requirements of our nuclear industry. Such facilities will also be required for the long-term programme that we defined as being necessary.
How are these excellent facilities to be maintained but at the same time adjusted to a level more appropriate to future needs? We foresaw considerable dangers, if the position was not faced up to and realistically tackled, of loss of morale within this great organisation. Key people who would be required for the future might well be lost. We therefore urge in our report that the Government should face up to this issue, define what future Atomic Energy Authority tasks are, and enable the management of the authority to take the necessary steps to adjust accordingly. At the same time it must recognise that such adjustments and such restructuring will require adequate funds to see it safely through a difficult period.
Other members of the committee will, I know, add to my remarks. I have said enough. I look forward to hearing comments on our report. I shall welcome any further clarification that the Government care

495
to give on the issues that the report raises. I shall be proposing the Motion in my name at the conclusion of the debate.
11.59 a.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, for the excellence of the reports that we are discussing. Their opening speeches covered the matters of concern in the reports and I should certainly not wish to duplicate those remarks. However, there is one issue on which I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, said.
There is undoubtedly widespread interest and concern throughout the world regarding what is called the greenhouse effect, a perfectly natural occurrence existing since the world developed an atmosphere millions of years ago. But there are quite frightening rapid changes taking place following the development of technology leading to a vastly improved quality of life and multiplied by the population explosion of the past 200 years. That has led to drastic effects on man and on his terrestrial environment. There has been a change from a linear effect over many thousands of years to an exponential one in recent years of almost unbelievable proportions. Whether that leads to a rise in the oceans of half a metre or five metres is really of secondary importance compared with the enormous changes that will take place in the weather patterns and the catastrophic effect that this can have on life on earth.
We have recently witnessed a tiny sample of that effect in the floods in Bangladesh and in the droughts in central Africa. Nearly all the dramatic changes taking place within the greenhouse effect are caused by the burning of fossil fuel in its many forms to provide energy either for heat or for power. That situation simply cannot continue. Moreover, since the present or future world population cannot be sustained without an enormous quantum of energy, we must find other means of provision rather than fossil fuels.
Electricity as a transfer system is the key since it allows transposition without adding to the greenhouse gases. But this means, of course, that we must find a primary energy source which also does not add to the greenhouse effect. We can and must make use of every available source of renewable power, such as the sun, the wind, the waves, and so on. We must practise conservation until it hurts, but even then we shall not have nearly enough energy to sustain life on earth with a rapidly expanding population.
The whole world, whether it likes it or not, will have to turn more and more to nuclear power, and, whatever the future is of this fascinating cold electro-chemical engendered fusion, nuclear power for the short term and medium term means thermal and fast reactors. In our case that means the PWR and the sodium-cooled fast reactor. The expansion of thermal reactors will rapidly increase the world demand for uranium, which by any standards is a
496
scarce resource. Therefore, to depend only on thermal reactors would be sheer lunacy. For instance, it could easily lead—and almost certainly will—to another OPEC. The fast reactor could multiply that scarce resource a thousand fold. I say to the Secretary of State for Energy that I believe the fast reactor will be needed sooner than he thinks.
It is now a matter of history that in the PWR we have adopted a technology from overseas and the UK technology has been allowed to wither on the vine. The fast reactor situation is quite different. The technology which the UK pioneered many years ago has been adopted throughout the world and there is within this country an enormous reservoir of knowledge and expertise, and that particularly relates to the fuel technology.
I entirely agree that the way forward for a fast reactor system is within European collaboration, but the benefit that might flow to this country from within that collaboration depends critically upon the expertise we take into the European project. It has been proved over and over again that in order to make a success within a collaboration you have to have a home base of research. In Dounreay we have a unique reactor system that will test and qualify the fuel elements of a full-sized civil fast reactor wherever it is built.
It would be quite wrong to limit the life of that programme or, perhaps even worse, to place it at the whims and fancies of our European collaborators. I ask the Government to think again about the future support of the Dounreay establishment and the most successful work it has been doing. We shall be foolish indeed simply to cut off our nose to spite our face.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport:My Lords, I must start by frankly admitting to your Lordships that my credentials for contributing to the debate are minimal. I have come here today more to listen and to learn rather than to put forward any firm proposals. I must say straight away that I greatly enjoyed the speeches made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. I also enjoyed the speech which has just been made from the Labour Benches.
Unfortunately my colleague and noble friend Lord Ezra, who is far better qualified than me to speak on the subject and who would normally speak for my party on energy matters, is unable to be here today due to a long-standing commitment elsewhere. My party is currently reviewing its energy policies and will, I anticipate, be publishing a wide-ranging discussion document in the fairly near future. I have no doubt at all that the two reports which we are discussing today will be studied most carefully by the people responsible for that report. In fact, I intend to make sure that the reports are studied.
I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. For all our sakes, it must surely be of the utmost importance for the future energy needs of this country and Western Europe—and, for that matter, for the rest of the world—that a large measure of cross-party agreement should be reached on nuclear generation, the disposal of wastes and the

497
alternatives which are available. Moreover, it must be reached with the minimum of delay. I have no doubt at all that the two reports before the House today, and that of the House of Commons Select Committee which was published two days ago, will contribute towards that end. I can say from these Benches that we certainly intend to play our part in that respect.
I turn first to the report, Research and Development in Nuclear Power. I must say that I find myself totally in agreement with conclusion 4.11, which reads:
"An R&D programme which caters for the possibility of a future expansion of the nuclear programme as well as its contraction should be planned for".
That matter is dealt with at greater length in paragraph 3.34. My own view is that current spending on nuclear research—which the committee found to be satisfactory—is already out of balance with the rest of energy research. We would certainly like to see more expenditure on the latter. For instance, we should be spending more on renewables, on the more efficient use of energy and on the alternatives which have been referred to, such as wind, wave and tidal power.
We regret to learn that the Grimethorpe project established, I understand, during my noble friend Lord Ezra's chairmanship of the Coal Board, is now being abandoned. That, I gather, is pressurised fluidised bed combustion which reduces sulphur emissions. That is important so far as concerns acid rain and the greenhouse effect. Perhaps I may ask the committee, which has promised a further report, to look at that matter and report back to us, when it has finished enlarging upon the environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear plants.
Evidently the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is satisfied as to the effectiveness of deep geological disposal. However, I think the noble Earl will agree—he said as much—that that concept will take some selling to the general public. In that respect I accept that it is an enormous advantage actually to sit on a Select Committee. One gains a great deal of knowledge thereby and one can pass on such knowledge to the House. Moreover, one learns a great deal. From my past experience as a member of Select Committees in the other place, I know how helpful that can be. Unfortunately, however, one has to convince others of the correctness of one's decisions. In that respect the press is not terribly hopeful. An illustration of that is that we are now worried about how we will get rid of outdated nuclear submarines. The Norwegians have been extremely anxious following the sinking of a Soviet submarine in the Arctic.
The committee calls for more research into the disposal of unreprocessed spent fuel, and I welcome that call. In summary, I believe I can say that my colleagues and I find both reports worth while and informative, especially that on waste management, which although highly technical in parts is worthy of a much wider study. I hope that it will receive publicity.
We have a view that both reports come up with recommendations and conclusions that are slightly
498
too complacent, although I suspect that a speech that is to be made later from these Benches may contradict that view. I shall understand that, because it will be made with knowledge of Dounreay. Most of us on these Benches, like Thomas, remain to be convinced. In the meantime, while continuing with the generation of nuclear power from existing plants, we should explore with greater vigour the alternatives, including the more efficient use of fossil fuels, especially coal of which we have an abundant supply.
I understand that the Coal Board is making great strides towards profitability. That is much to its credit. Despite the fears about cheap imported coal flooding the market shortly, I believe that with a little luck and workforce-management co-operation our coal industry can be as efficient and cost-effective as any in the world.
Finally, the recent news shows that nuclear fusion may provide another way forward. However, I learn from the report that even that much-lauded solution may give rise to some problematical side effects. The difficulties which face any government are such that we can only hope and pray that in the end the right decisions will be taken. I am sure that the reports will prove helpful in reaching such conclusions. I congratulate the chairmen and members of both those committees.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, I wish to endorse the tribute that he paid to our specialist advisers. I should also like to pay a tribute to our chairman for the personal contribution that he made both through his knowledge of the subject and the skill with which he guided out deliberations.
I shall confine my remarks to one aspect only of the committee's report—the future or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The committee's opinion on that matter is given in the report's final paragraphs. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, has said on that subject. I can only describe the Government's response to the report as extremely vague. The authority is a huge undertaking, employing some 12,000 people, including a large number of the nation's best scientists, engineers and technicians. I believe that it is by far the largest single research and development organisation in the country. It has much to be proud of in its history, although some of the decisions made in the past on the authority's recommendations are now seen to have been mistaken.
A number of factors now make it abundantly clear that a radical new look is needed for the future. One is the decision to base the near future of the country's nuclear energy programme on the pressurised water reactor (basically the American Westinghouse design). There is therefore no question of the authority designing a new type of reactor, unless and until the fast breeder reactor appears to be more likely to prove an economic competitor; and, as has already been said, a purely national design for that is no longer on the cards.

499
I find it ironic that one of the factors which persuaded the Labour Government in 1947 to develop our own atomic bomb, as it was called in those days, was that civil nuclear energy would be a by-product, and it was vitally important that the United States should not have a monopoly in that field. But here we are, 42 years later, abandoning all our British designs (Magnox and AGR) and firmly and rightly basing the future of our civil nuclear energy programme on an American design.
The operation of nuclear power stations is now a developed technology which requires a lower level of research and development. The same is true of research and development needed for the regulating authority and for the support of the fuel cycle. Both the Health and Safety Commission and British Nuclear Fuels will be reducing the amount of research and development they commission from the authority.
In their reply the Government have made clear that they expect that the privatised electricity supply industry will commission less research than did the CEGB, and is less likely to concentrate on fairly short-term research and development. It admits that the Government will,
"as at present, undertake any necessary research which may have longer term national implications",
and pick up any omissions in that field where they consider that the privatised ESI has failed to reach the standards set by the CEGB. The future of research and development in nuclear fusion is even more problematical than that of the fast breeder reactor; but there again it is clear that once the JET project at Culham is finished and has been cleared up the effort made by the authority in that field is bound to be greatly reduced.
It is therefore absolutely clear that the tasks of the UKAEA in future will be on a far smaller scale than they are at present or have been in the past. The Government's attitude, despite their distaste for any form of liberalism, seems to be to wait and see what research and development is needed once the ESI is privatised; after that, to wait and see what is left for the authority to do; and meanwhile to encourage it to diversify and earn what money it can in any field (nuclear or other) in which it has expertise.
If that is the Government's intention, I do not believe that it is right for the authority, for its distinguished and skilful staff, or for the nation as a whole. It will encourage hanging on to establishments, organisations, real estate and employees of all kinds in case they are needed, with increasing overheads and decreasing value for money. An organisation which has to observe the safety and security standards of nuclear installations in unlikely to be able to compete on equal terms for non-nuclear research and development contracts which the Government are encouraging other research and development organisations, including government ones and universities, to look for. It would be wrong, and contrary to the Government's declared attitudes, in any way to subsidise the UKAEA in such competition. Potentially profitable nuclear activities have already been hived off to the CEGB, British Nuclear Fuels and Amersham International.
500
The authority itself and all those who work for it deserve a clear aim towards which to plan their future research and development programme and organisation. The sooner that is decided and clarified, the better for all concerned. The earlier those who may become redundant or wish to leave can know what the future holds, the better for them and for the nation. Their knowledge and skills could contribute much in other fields, not least the academic, where there are serious shortages in the science and mathematics disciplines. In considering the future of the UKAEA, the Government must not adopt a policy of wait and see but must bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, and produce a clear, radical design for the future.
12.19 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I shall speak on the R&D report on nuclear energy as I was a member of the committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about how valuable it is to be a member of a Select Committee. One learns a great deal and has some interesting experiences when finding out what goes on in establishments which one would never otherwise have an opportunity to visit.
When we began our inquiries we had to form some sort of estimate regarding the future place of nuclear power in Britain and in Western Europe. If it was to be a minimal place, would there be much need for further R&D? It was no good just looking at the provision of nuclear power in isolation. It had to be examined in relation to the total energy requirements, not only of Britain but of Western Europe.
In particular, in the long-term field, forecasting on future energy requirements is notoriously unreliable. Nevertheless, we had to do something in that direction before we could properly focus our inquiries. I suggest to noble Lords that they might find Part 1 of considerable interest in this regard because, thanks to the helpful work of our specialist advisers, to whom tribute has already been paid, we have been able to produce a fairly concise estimate of current production under different sources, and also some estimate of the future. That has enabled us to make some recommendations.
As regards the nuclear component in Europe, I think we were very surprised to learn, for example, that France is almost 100 per cent. dependent on PWR reactors for electricity generation. Sweden, on the other hand and at the other end of the scale, with one of the most advanced systems of nuclear generation, will phase out all its nuclear stations as a result of a public vote some time ago. An energy-poor country can ill afford to do so, but Sweden has yielded to relatively uninformed public opinion.
As we all know, Britain is an energy-rich country and therefore is not so dependent on nuclear power as the French. Indeed, at one time it was thought that we might be able to do without it. However, I think that the Government are to be congratulated on giving the commitment that 20 per cent. of electricity must be supplied by nuclear stations in this country. That gives a solid base on which to work.

501
We in the committee recognise that nuclear power is passing through a very difficult phase at present. Paragraph 3.74 mentions that in more detail. During the course of our investigations, we have found that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry leaves unresolved so far the question of who is to pay for long-term nuclear R&D. We comment on that dilemma in our report in paragraph 3.67 and further paragraphs.
There has been some Government response. I think it is a pity that the printed response is only available in the Roneo form, and there has not been much time to look at it. From a quick glance, I do not think that the Government have come out very clearly in their statement on the matter. They must make a clear statement on where responsibility will lie after privatisation. They must include in the statement their own share of the responsibility. Noble Lords who spoke earlier have referred to the matter as well so I shall not elaborate.
It is perhaps worth reminding noble Lords that one of the difficulties in our committee was that the scene was changing all the time while we were at work. The most dramatic example of that was when, on the very day we were visiting Dounreay, Her Majesty's Government announced their new policy for the fast reactor and some associated research. They thus threw into the discussion an entirely new state of affairs. It certainly made our discussions much more lively, but inevitably somewhat inconclusive. Indeed, we are not wholly satisfied with what the Government propose in that area.
Since the scene was moving so much, when the time came to write our report it would have been tempting to have waited six months or so to see whether some of the issues would be resolved in the meantime. However, we thought it right to press ahead and to accept that there were certain areas in which we could perhaps not be as definite as we wished. Perhaps I may put it this way. In our short journey down the nuclear road, so to speak, we found that we had reached a crossroads with a number of signposts, one or two of which were still being erected or dismantled by the Government. We could not go down all these roads as fully as we should have wished; but the wording on the signposts and a brief colloquial description of each road, as far down it as we could see, might help those noble Lords who are non-technical to grasp some of the essentials of a complicated and evolving situation.
The first signpost is labelled "Magnox and AGR—entry restricted". As regards research and development, that is finished with. They are British in design and manufacture, but no more are to be made. It is noted that the R&D, although it must continue, will be confined to keeping existing stations in full working order for the remainder of their lives. We believe that those arrangements are adequate.
The next signpost is "PWR"—the Westinghouse American design, to which my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver has referred. While it is sad to think that we are no longer in the forefront of nuclear station design, nevertheless I believe, and all of us in our committee believe, that the decision to go
502
over to the PWR is right. Britain benefits from using a well proven design instead of trying to continue to go it alone. We shall also benefit from the extremely collaborative attitude of France which uses PWRs almost exclusively. It has had the good sense to standardise its design so that it could replicate the stations all through its territories. Perhaps we could learn that lesson when we come to PWRs Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
The prototype fast reactor is acknowledged to be a British success story. When we were at Dounreay we were most impressed with the quality of the science, technology and engineering. It is perhaps worth reminding noble Lords that it was initiated when uranium supplies were scarce and likely to become more expensive. It was therefore thought of as a better and more efficient way to use uranium. However, what in fact happened was that the demand for uranium, and the supply due to the demand, are now such that uranium is abundant and cheap. So the PFR is not yet an economic commercial proposition.
My noble friend Lord Gregson, who is a fellow member of the committee, referred to the probability of uranium becoming scarcer in the future and therefore more expensive. Of course that would make the PFR a commercial proposition. He may well be right. On the other hand, the committee could not see any hard evidence of that happening within the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, regarding Lord Gregson's point, we recommend that R&D should continue as an insurance policy, but on a reduced scale. We think that more could be done than the Government stated in their announcement while we were at Dounreay. But we must have enough work going onto keep the technology alive and for Britain to remain an effective partner in European collaboration. It is no good hoping to collaborate with others if we are not doing anything ourselves. The only way in which collaboration can be effective—andit will probably be between France, Germany and ourselves—is for us to play a full and active part in research and development, spending money on it in order to make the collaboration effective. Incidentally, we particularly welcome the Government's decision to sign the European fast reactor agreements referred to in paragraphs 3.57 and 4.18. That sets everything right on a formal basis. The next signpost labelled "fusion" is clearly marked "No through road". It is unanimously seen as entirely impracticable, except by means of international collaboration. We had several suggestions to make on this subject, but I shall not prolong my remarks today by referring to them, although they are contained in paragraphs 2.26 and 4.21.
Little has been said so far in this debate about British Nuclear Fuels plc. That is a remarkable company because it offers a complete fuel cycle service. There is only one other company in the world which offers that service and that is COGEMA in France. British Nuclear Fuels is the only major British company which is wholly dependent on the nuclear industry. We were impressed with its achievements. The bulk of the R&D for its major investment programme has been completed, but

503
other R&D work will continue. I shall not say any more about that as it is referred to in our report.
As regards the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, I would only underline what my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver has said. It has got to be substantially restructured because it faces a reduction in its research contracts. It needs a proper, firm, clear statement from Her Majesty's Government on the functions to be carried out. It also requires an assurance of adequate Government funds for those purposes, so that restructuring can take place quickly.
Public health and safety is a big area. This is a very broad subject and it verges a little away from research and development into the political field as it deals largely with public attitudes and public apprehensions. Nevertheless we considered this matter and referred to it in our report. Indeed we have gone so far as to suggest that some organised research and development work should be carried out on the way in which the public see these developments, and on their fears and apprehensions. Many of those are exaggerated, but some are well-founded. That work should be carried out in a systematic and thorough way because, if public attitudes are hostile and uninformed, they can delay or arrest nuclear programmes. That is particularly important in the field of waste management. That subject was referred to so well by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, health and safety is too big a subject for today's debate and, as I said, it contains a political element as well as scientific elements.
In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will agree that our report is timely and constructive. I also hope it is a help to the Government whose further response I eagerly await. Perhaps I may finally conclude on a lighter note. The journal of the American Chemical Society reports the prospect of cheap production of hydrogen gas from water. That would form an abundant source of energy. The process would use cadmium sulphide as a form of catalyst. Perhaps cadmium sulphide will one day render obsolete the nuclear stations of the world.
12.33 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I shall speak mainly about the nuclear report. I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, for the manner in which he conducted the inquiry. As the noble Lord has said, it was not free from difficulty. While it was in progress the Government, which was in parallel reviewing the British nuclear research effort, shot no fewer than three of the committee's foxes. However, it is of some interest that, apart from one issue, the committee found little to criticise in the Government's decisions. The exception relates to the decision about the future of the fast reactors.
While the fast reactor, as noble Lords have said, is not at the moment competitive with the advanced PWR, energy forecasts are notoriously unreliable, even in the short-term. I mention as an example the sudden and unexpected current rise in oil prices. It is essential, quite apart from the greenhouse effect and all that, with which the noble
504
Lord, Lord Gregson, dealt in his speech, that this option must be kept open. While, therefore, a substantial reduction in the 1988 level of R&D is entirely appropriate, it is of first importance that UK participation in the European project should be adequately funded. It is not, I think, to be expected that the whole of this should fall upon industry.
It is very doubtful that the £10 million figure to which fast reactor research has been reduced will be sufficient for this purpose, and this sum therefore should not be regarded as immutable. It should be kept under review.
Further, even though the French Super Phénix has recently been restarted, at least for one year, the Dounreay fast reactor is probably the most important test facility for metal oxide nuclear fuel in operation anywhere in the world. Yet the Government have given priority to the continuation of the reprocessing plant at Dounreay in preference to continuing the operation of the fast reactor for the longest possible period.
We now have the Government's reply on this point. They say that the continued operation of the PFR will:
"enable much useful information on fuel performance and materials behaviour to be obtained".
That is true enough, but if it went on to 1997—at the moment it is due to close in March 1994—the information, especially on fuel burn-up, would be even more valuable, in particular to the European project. The Government's reply also says that the reprocessing plant will be needed to help with the decommissioning of the PFR. It is not clear from that brief remark what it involves and how essential it is. I think that this should be spelt out. But, in any case, I trust that the matter will be reconsidered, and I reinforce the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, on this point.
As regards fusion, I personally find the Government's position acceptable. There have been some outstanding engineering achievements by the JET team at Culham. But the objectives of the JET project, which may well be attained, are still far away from proving the viability of a fusion power reactor. The success of the European project is much to be welcomed, and there will no doubt be some useful spin-off from it. Nevertheless, economic fusion power hot, or, I suspect, cold, has always seemed to me, as a layman, to represent no more than a highly desirable concept which may or may not materialise in an economic form towards the middle of the next century. Therefore, here again, it must make sense to devote the great proportion of any resources deemed justifiable after the JET programme at Culham is completed, to another international project. I strongly support the committee's recommendation that this project should not be NET (which stands for the Next European Torus) confined as it is to the EC countries, but the ITER project, which includes the United States and Japan.
The present position, which I believe involves NET and ITER teams working next door to one another, does not strike me as a sensible or cost-effective arrangement. The Government reply does not in fact deal with this point which is already a current problem.

505
I wish now to add a few words to what has been said about the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. First, I extend my sympathy to Mr. John Collier, the present chairman. When I was fortunate enough to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, as chairman of the Authority in 1960, I reckoned it to be one of the best and most interesting jobs in the country. Now the authority as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has said, is shorn of its moneymaking arms, the radio-chemical business and British Nuclear Fuels. In a misguided bureaucratic takeover it has lost the atomic weapons establishment to the Ministry of Defence, and it is left with the R&D work, the fusion and fast reactor section of which has now been cut to the bone. The chairmanship, once so rewarding, is now little better than a bed of nails.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Collier and his board for the resolute way in which they are facing up to the consequences. The UKAEA will need to be restructured, and even perhaps transformed into a new organisation. Its first-class work must be preserved and its first-class people looked after. The Government must not do in this case what they have tended to do in other cases. They must not compel an organisation to restructure itself while denying it the resources which alone can make an orderly and fruitful restructuring possible. The UKAEA's great services to the country deserve better treatment than that. I do not, no more than the committee as a whole, presume to suggest how the authority should proceed, and indeed it may not agree with some of the suggestions in our report. However, I trust that when the Government make their promised statement later this year it will contain some constructive and realistic decisions.
In the few minutes left to me I should like to say a few words about the report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on radioactive waste management. It strikes me as a wholly admirable document which puts this emotionally charged subject into a down-to-earth, realistic perspective. I have been disappointed for years at the pusillanimity—the sheer funk—displayed by successive governments in facing up to the problem of the management of radioactive waste. They have cravenly given in to the ill-informed, popular clamour about it and have established no sensible policy. The noble Earl's report shows how far we have fallen behind what the Swedish Government have done and the French and German Governments are doing in this matter. Having said that, I must admit that in the past I with my colleagues in the Atomic Energy Authority have been no more successful than anyone else in the efforts we made to try to convince sections of the public of the facts of ionising radiation.
In the circumstances one can only welcome the small step now taken to allow NIREX to bore holes at Sellafield and, I trust, at Dounreay. Sharp objection to this limited proposal has immediately been raised. Most noble Lords will have received such an objection only yesterday. On receiving it I turned again to re-read what the committee had to say on the subject of deep disposal. Its views were described by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I shall not quote them. But I prefer the collective view
506
of the committee and the European Commission, and I express the earnest hope that in this specific case and across the whole field the Government will be encouraged by the positive attitude of the European Commission and the constructive recommendations of the committee to be rather more robust in handling this problem than they have been in the past.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the report on radioactive waste management. I cannot do better than to start by congratulating both the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on his introduction of the report and he and his committee on presenting a report which I would describe as a valuable contribution to the public debate. I emphasise the words "public debate". I shall refer later to what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who knows a great deal more about nuclear energy and the disposal of nuclear waste than I do, had to say about the place of the public in this debate.
The noble Earl concluded his speech by quoting from paragraph 193 of the report. I too will quote from it to make my point. It says:
"Radioactive waste management is a key environmental issue in the Community. The safe handling of radioactive wastes raises difficult technical problems, but in addition, raises questions of public confidence and public acceptability which are quite different in degree from those presented by the management of other toxic wastes".
There seems to be a certain ambiguity in the opinion of the committee on that issue. Paragraph 181 of the report says:
"The Committee are concerned that the exaggerated fear of radiation from radioactive waste may be causing a misapplication of resources".
I prefer the quotation of the noble Earl from paragraph 193. I prefer it because, although I do not claim to have any expert knowledge of this subject, I have some experience of the expression of public anxiety both in Lincolnshire, over the Fulbeck site, and throughout the North-East coast of England, from Scarborough to Middlesbrough, when the Cleveland area was being considered as a site. My function is not to be so outrageous as to argue with the scientists but to put something of the public concern about this issue before the House.
I am also concerned about the number of times the suggestion is made in the report that there should be greater use of the mass media. The fear seems to be that some people in the community believe that a cabal of some scientists—perhaps most scientists—along with some politicians and publicists are telling the public, "We know better than you". This is where I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who spoke of the pusillanimity of public opinion.
Lord Sherfield: No, my Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, I spoke of the pusillanimity of successive governments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept that correction but the noble Lord spoke of public opinion as though it is ignorant. Of course we are ignorant. We are ignorant of the technical side.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, nobody is more conscious or has more experience of the crucial importance of this issue in public opinion than I.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept that point fully, but it does not detract from the point that I was making; namely, that it is beginning to appear to many people as though there were a small cabal that considers that it knows, and that it is its job—this includes NIREX—to convince the public of its case. I suggest that it is far too important an issue with far too great a timescale to leave to a handful of experts and politicians. It is a matter that concerns every member of the community today and for many centuries hence.
I am therefore worried about the number of times that the report refers to the use of the public media as though that were the job of either the Government, NIREX or the committee itself. Paragraph 188 of the report states:
"the nuclear industry and the regulatory authorities have to learn how to make better and more frequent use of the mass communication media".
I do not think that that is the way in which the problem should be tackled, or that it is the way in which the public will gain confidence from the knowledge that its interests today and in future centuries will be put first.
I have a proposal to make on that subject at the end of my speech; but, before I come to that, the other point that worries me about the report is that, so far as I can see, the submissions put forward by organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth—public organisations both of which use scientific opinions and briefings to the maximum ability of their resources—have apparently been rejected out of hand. I cannot see any serious attempt to tackle their proposals by the committee. For example, in paragraph 137, which deals with the established policy of ultimate deep disposal of high level and long-lived wastes, the committee states that this has been questioned in some quarters and that Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace made the point that:
"It may turn out that all research on deep disposal of high-level waste is ultimately of little use, because the only socially and politically acceptable means for 'disposal' are in above ground repositories where retrieval is guaranteed".
That proposal is rejected by the committee. I should like to know why.
In paragraph 148, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth argue that keeping waste on the surface keeps it in sight and therefore in mind. That proposal is again rejected in the committee's conclusions. Again, I should like to know why. I do not suggest for one moment that the committee has not discussed those submissions during its deliberations; but I suggest that in the report there seems to be no clear consideration and recording of why the submissions of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth—which, after all, represent a growing number of people in this country—have been rejected without the reasons for rejection being given.
One does not have to be a scientist to know that there is great danger in the whole issue of the disposal of nuclear waste. One need only stand on Hampstead
508
Heath and watch the trains go by, knowing that they carry nuclear waste. It needs only one accident to bring that point right home to the public. There are genuine concerns; and although the committee has reached its conclusion, I do not feel that it has met them in its report, as the public would expect to do. For example—I shall give only a handful of examples—are there sufficiently reliable models of groundwater movement which would directly affect the whole issue of deep disposal? According to those who have advised Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, those reliable models do not exist. The sorption data currently available is claimed to be both unreliable and meaningless, especially if it is not obtained from the site under investigation.
There are two main points to which I want to draw the attention of the House. I do not believe that the report goes into anything like sufficient detail on the whole issue of the seismological database which is also obviously a major issue in deep disposal. There was an earthquake in Colchester in 1884. How do we know what will happen to the earth's crust? How do we know what will happen to the sea beds over that huge period of years that is involved in the disposal of waste? I do not believe that we know the answers to those questions—the report does not satisfy me on those points—or that it is possible to forecast that there will be no earthquakes or movements of earth during the long period that is projected.
Secondly—I need to say very little about this because my noble friend Lord Gregson made the point very clearly—what do we know about changes in climate? What do we know about the greenhouse effect? What do we know about the effects of the gaps in the ozone layer? Are not all those matters directly relevant to the future of the waste that is to be disposed of? I do not consider that the report shows sufficient concern about what, to a layman, is a matter of deep concern.
On that specific issue, perhaps I may raise one point of which I have given, with my apologies, very tardy notice to the noble Baroness who is to reply. What happened at Wylfa in July 1984? Wylfa is a power station. According to my information—I hope that it will be corrected if it is wrong—in July 1984 there was an earthquake tremor which measured 5·4 on the Richter scale. It had its epicentre 30 miles south of Wylfa. That was sufficient to cause cracks to appear. It is said that it was a coincidence that, at the same time, the crane used to transport spent fuel was put out of action for two to three years. I do not know whether that was a coincidence and I wonder whether anybody else knows. But I should like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about what could be a catastrophic warning of what could happen if we dispose of our nuclear waste at depth. It has already been a warning of what can happen to nuclear power stations.
Finally, I come to paragraph 222, which is the burden of the committee's submission to the Government. It refers to the shifts in United Kingdom policy which, it states,
"have not improved public confidence and it is regrettable that a more consistent policy line has not been followed. The industry is not the sole arbiter of its own actions, and this is not adequately recognised".

509
No, the industry is not the sole arbiter. In this country the people are the sole arbiter and that applies also to the Community. I do not believe that this is a party issue or an issue which can be left to any government. It seems to me that this matter is of such supreme importance to the Community as a whole that rather than putting the responsibility on government (which, as the committee has pointed out, constantly shifts their policy) it should be dealt with by an independent body composed of both scientists and non-scientists which will report on the facts as objectively as is humanly possible. That will allow the British nation—the electorate, the ordinary people—to judge on the facts that have been presented without party bias, without government authority, and without enormous mass communication indoctrination. The facts should be put objectively and the issue left to the people to decide.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, in the history of the planet earth, species man is something of a newcomer. A pamphlet issued by Greenpeace of which I have a copy tells us that should earth's time-scale be reduced to a hypothetical half century, apelike man would have appeared three weeks ago; our great industrial revolution, likewise adjusted, would be a mere 60 seconds old—and what are 60 seconds? The point at which we have now arrived in that historical saga is one where man is confronted with a dilemma of which he is the architect; to a certain extent he also holds the key. Can this industrial progressive revolution continue without becoming the cause of a huge calamity? What steps, if any, should or can be taken to prevent that calamity? Is nuclear energy the tool with which such a calamity can be circum vented or will it itself be an inevitable cause of disaster?
Mythology tells us that Noah created an ark in order to ensure the survival not only of mankind but of all other species also. At this critical time, can nuclear energy be seen as a symbolic life-raft made manifest as a means of securing the survival of mankind? Can it be a saviour of all the species that dwell on earth? Can the plutonic reaction of its products be accepted as environmentally platonic? The answer to that question lies in the hearts and minds of a youthful and immature newcomer—mankind. In the formulation of careful, well-balanced, concerted, long-term judgments for the future, economics in monetary terms will certainly have to play a minor role. Such are the thoughts of a great many people, especially those who place little credence in the past motivation and abilities of their fellow men. Monetary considerations alone may well contain the seeds of disaster. One can imagine the ultimate scenario in which man is asked: why was it necessary to destroy planet earth? And his reply?—Because it was economic.
I turn now to the report. I do indeed see it as an entirely platonic document in a constructive sense. It contains great wisdom. I confirm that in the course of its preparation it has given the opportunity to very ordinary members of the team to seek advice from all who wish to offer it, to see for themselves, to learn there from and to form their opinions.
510
Guidelines are presented therein for governments and Ministers in the most elegant form with no distortion of fact or over-emphasis. It plays the whole thing straight, and for that I congratulate and thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who set up the drawing board for the inquiry and guided its deliberations. I also thank Professor Lewis Roberts, who filled so many gaps for the committee and from whom we sought and found enlightenment where so much obscurity prevailed, especially in my own case.
As to the contents of the report, and speaking with an independent mind, I was especially struck by that principle contained within the acronym ALARA which in a sense is a decision arrived at by applying an ad hoc balancing equation of risks and economics. Putting it into other words, perfection being always just out of reach, progression toward that goal is faced with ever-multiplying costs. In the end the line has to be drawn somewhere in order to achieve progress and as an end in itself. That is the ALARA line. Pressure groups tend to have a diverting effect as to where that line is drawn. In the end more complicated and costly solutions may be produced without their necessarily being the effective ones. The voice of dissent, although necessary in a democratic context, can, if overplayed, achieve precisely opposite and damaging effects from those which it set out to obtain. Alarmism must be carefully balanced on the scales if ALARA is not to have reason destroyed by prejudice.
This crucial issue of nuclear waste obviously cannot be regarded as that profligate disregard which was the hallmark, to its everlasting shame, of the so-called industrial revolution. Are the current solutions at Drigg and Dounreay right or are they a coloured political response to the media and pressure groups?
We now propose to bury our disused nuclear submarines in the deep trenches of the ocean. If that is deemed to be suitable for decommissioning military nuclear reactors, perhaps that is also the right route for waste from civil nuclear reactors. If that is acceptable and proven to be a near perfect and innocuous route for radioactive waste when properly packaged, then new horizons for conservation could appear.
The key to the future of nuclear power lies in the handling of its waste products. If that is done correctly—not necessarily with political or economic motivation but by carefully reasoned principles—I believe that a massive transformation of the world's environment would result which would be far greater and better than the one we can observe in the brief but catastrophic immediate past history of the industrial revolution.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my two noble friends who have so helpfully introduced the two reports for those of us who are taking part in the debate. I did not serve on either of the committees, but as noble Lords will possibly recall, I have been active at Question Time over the last three years in raising associated environmental questions, in particular the greenhouse effect.

511
I should like to deal briefly with both reports. The first report dealing with radioactive waste management states that the subject raises special questions of public confidence and acceptability. It points out that there is little understanding in the country of radiation and the possible hazards from it. I should like to pursue that further.
To most people nuclear technology is mysterious and it deals with great potential dangers. Radiation is invisible, but can be lethal. The spreading of enlightening information on these subjects is a delicate task. On the one hand, it must not appear simply to be propaganda in favour of the nuclear industry. On the other hand, it should not scare the public—for example, by emphasising the amount of radiation from ordinary life, for example, from radon gas in many houses, or the higher exposure from background natural sources in parts of the country where the rock below the soil gives off radiation. That exposure has existed for centuries. One should not scare the public by pointing out the amounts of radiation in medical premises, where radiation is part of medical treatment.
The committee nonetheless confirms that the total amount of radiation from the nuclear industry in Britain is a minute proportion of the exposure affecting the whole British public. Most of that radiation exposure comes from natural background sources and the amount is not dangerous. I agree with the committee's view that because the basic facts about radiation are still not generally known or understood, fears concerning radioactive waste are exaggerated. I go further. Those fears can easily be fanned and misdirected by people who want to set themselves up as supposed protectors of mankind or particular communities.
Whether we are dealing with waste, with low levels of radiation or high levels and long life, much more careful attention must be paid to explaining the facts and proposals to the public and the media, with the help of the Government. As regards the media, I believe that they have first to be approached and convinced. If this is not done with care and effectively, there will always be objections to any site chosen both before examination and testing and afterwards. Of course, there will no doubt be automatic objectors with no interest in facts or reason. For example, I shall tell the Government, if they have not already realised this, that on past and present showing the Scottish National Party—the SNP—is likely to object to any site in Scotland regardless of facts and reason, even when it is low-grade waste consisting of gloves and other material after use in medical departments in Scottish hospitals.
This is a temptation for demagogues who are looking for subjects to frighten people and campaigns to lead, however misconceived and irresponsible. Unfortunately it is easy to frighten people where little is known except by scientists and others who work in, or are familiar with, the industry. We have to take into account also the NIMBYsyndrome—not in my backyard. I quickly add that that does not apply to me. I should be perfectly happy, both at my home in Scotland and my tiny flat in London, for
512
nuclear waste to be disposed of below them or near them, because I have been familiar with the nuclear industry for 30 years. I could satisfy myself that it was being done properly. I recognise that I am unusual in that respect.
While we shall not perhaps ever change the attitudes of demagogues and fanatics, I believe that the public as a whole will understand and accept the need for permanent disposal if the facts and the proposals are clearly explained. I remember that in the late 1940s and 1950s there was a quite different attitude from the British public. They were delighted, as indeed I was, with the thought that nuclear weapons, which were so horrifying at the time, could now be turned into a clean source of energy. Of course there were dangers, but these could be dealt with. This was a magnificent example of turning swords into ploughshares. Unfortunately that public attitude went sour some years later.
I note that permanent disposal of all categories of nuclear waste is what the Select Committee recommends. This is timely because NIREX has recently announced its proposals for a national centre for disposal of low and intermediate level waste and for testing the suitability of a site at Sellafield and perhaps Dounreay. The Government agreed to that last month. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth soon afterwards circulated what they call the geological case against those proposals produced by a geological consultant who worked, I note, for 12 years for the Coal Board. I do not mention that simply to imply that it was somebody from the other camp—that is, the coal industry. No, I mention that because it shows that he was employed by a national corporation as a geologist and therefore his views should not be dismissed lightly.
We should remember that NIREX is also considering a final destination for high-grade waste because the proposals that I have been referring to are for low and intermediate level wastes. The probability is that the solution will eventually be that the high level waste will be vitrified and buried far below the surface of the land or sea.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth start their document, in the foreword, by describing UK-NIREX as the "creature" of the nuclear industry, implying that it is a puppet or prejudiced. I believe that the same in the reverse direction could be said about Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. They have a record of being entirely opposed to a nuclear industry of any kind. This is no doubt for the best of motives, but it means that they have an interest in finding fault with any part of the industry's operations and they appear to be dedicated to getting the industry closed down. Who are the public to believe? The Select Committee's report does a particularly useful service because it comes from an independent body whose chief concern is the best interests of the United Kingdom, including safety.
I now turn to the other report on research and development. I believe that that is reassuring because it endorses the PWR decision after all the arguments concerning the AGR and the case put for that system. The conclusions on fast reactors and fusion seem to

513
me for the moment somewhat overshadowed by the apparent developments reported in the last three weeks on fusion. Has a short cut been discovered without the need for intensely high temperatures? We still do not know. The press tell us that at least three teams in different parts of the world believe that they have made a breakthrough in that field.
We cannot dismiss the possibility that there has been a great advance. If fusion were to become possible earlier than previously thought, fast-reactor technology might not be needed. At this stage I do not wish to pour cold water on what we read in the press, because it would be exciting if a new and simple road to fusion had been found. My view is that research and development should continue in fast-reactor technology and be kept alive as proposed by the Select Committee. Success with fusion is probably still a long time away.
The Government's response reached me only this morning. I am grateful for the fact that it was sent to me, but it was posted to Scotland, missed me there and was returned to London. I note from paragraph 25 that the Government expect that the fast reactor will not be needed commercially in the next 30 or 40 years. No doubt that is one of the reasons for the proposal for it to continue in co-operation with other countries in the EC.
During the 1970s and 1980s the United Kingdom was ahead of the rest of the world in this technology, particularly in the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay. Great credit is due to all those who have worked there over the past 20 to 30 years. The Select Committee asked the Government to look again at the proposal to close down the prototype reactor and discontinue that line. I have not yet found in the document any response from the Government. I fully support the view of the Select Committee that the matter should be reconsidered. On re-examination the Government may find it useful in the continuing research and development now in prospect. I hope that the fact that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Government's response about this means that the decision is still open.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the flow of the noble Lord's speech, but before he sits down I should like to ask one question. He talked about the demogogic aspect of general debate on the nuclear issue and the disposal of waste. He asked: who is the public to believe? Does the noble Lord agree that within the scientific community, particularly those connected with the nuclear industry, there are various opinions, each of which should be publicised so that the public can see that there is no single monolithic scientific attitude to these problems and that in the last resort the people must decide?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord who is to follow me will no doubt also speak about this matter so I do not wish to say much more. However, I was pointing out that some people are glad to seize on the fears of the public concerning an issue about which they know little, except that it can be dangerous, and simply fan that fear. I have lived in northern Scotland for the past 30 years and
514
I am aware that most of the good people living near and around Dounreay are familiar with the nuclear industry and are not opposed to it. That is not just for the sake of jobs but because they know about it, have grown up with it and are quite happy with it. People living in places with no nuclear plants nearby are more easily frightened.
1.25 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am glad that the debate is taking place after NIREX has given voice to its plans. I am now able to take part in the debate untrammelled by the suspicion that I may be providing ground into which NIREX will drill holes and deposit its waste. I am able to say that at the moment I do not have an interest in that way.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I am a "Yimby"—yes, in my back yard—not a "Nimby". If it is useful to the country and is desirable and sensible, you can bury the stuff in my lawn or in my back yard. I say that because I am confident of the sensible measures which will be taken to protect me and anyone else living near me from the effects of radiation and so forth.
I am glad that the spokesman for my colleagues has been able to assure us that our official policy is to seek a measure of cross-party agreement. I believe that we also should seek a measure of agreement from all parts of the country. These problems will not go away and they will not be solved by becoming entrenched in opposing camps. They will be solved in the best interests of the country only by people opening their minds to information and their ears to discussion.
I must admit that not only am I a "yes, in my back yard" man; I am also an ardent supporter of the value of the atomic energy industry to this country, to the world and to the future of mankind. That has been adequately and eloquently expatiated upon both in the reports before us and in the speeches which we have heard particularly from members of the two committees. Therefore, I should like to thank the chairmen of the committees on behalf of those of us whose minds and ears are open and who are prepared to listen and take an interest in the subject. I thank the members of the committees for their magnificent work, for their excellent contributions to the debate and for the manner in which they explained their reports and the subjects which they considered.
I should like to begin by commenting on the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I was delighted by the phrase, "disaster does not loom". He sensibly modifies that by concluding that the Community safety policies are uniformly based and are operating effectively, that the UK limits on maximum exposure of the public are within the range of natural radiation doses experienced as people move around the world and that the limits for occupational doses are even below those which can be experienced in normal life in the community. I was interested to note that the Select Committee did not conclude that further reduction from the nuclear industry would make a significant improvement in public health.

515
In dealing with the question of radioactive waste we are in an area of emotion—of emotive reaction. It is a pity that a more full explanation is not given to the public in a way which it can readily understand. It was strange that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, should choose to be cast in the role of the advocate of the uninformed and should accuse people who try to give information to the general public of being a cabal, trying to manipulate the media for its own uses. If you do not use the media to inform the public, what do you use? Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have already spotted that the media are of infinite value in getting one's case across and see that they, if possible, are never out of the media. They arrange stunts so that they appear in the media. I do not suggest that members of sub-committees should go around arranging stunts, or biting dogs, or anything of that sort, but I believe it is very important that the message of these two reports should be put out to the people of the country who, we all agree, have to be the final arbiters.
When we talk about low level and intermediate level waste, we are talking of substances which are not immensely radioactive. I know that most of us do not understand things like becquerels and sieverts and that sort of thing, but people understand fairly straightforward domestic similes. I believe it would be fair to say that much of the low level atomic waste is no more radioactive than a packet of coffee on the larder shelf and much of the intermediate level waste no more radioactive than a pallet load of fertiliser sitting on a farm. That is the sort of stuff of which we are so terrified that we want to keep it on the surface in case burying it should allow it somehow to creep around underground and get into our midst.
I believe that we must take the opportunities which we have of informing the public that although there is radioactivity in those things we are disposing of them sensibly. We are disposing of them as sensibly as we would dispose of any waste which arises within the community and we are disposing of them in places where they will remain safe and not get out at some future date and cause contamination to our environment.
I believe that the conclusions of the committee about the disposal of waste are eminently satisfactory in that regard and we should make them widely known. The committee concludes that the disposal of low level waste to shallow repositories is satisfactory and advocates continuation of work on deep disposal for long lived alpha-bearing waste. It recommends that we should continue research and development of the vitrification of high level waste. It recommends that repositories should be designed for 40 years of waste arisines and further, that there is no reason to oppose the centralisation of repositories because of environmental hazard to transportation.
Notwithstanding the vociferous opposition of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and so on, which are all fundamentally opposed to nuclear power, the committee firmly conclude that deep geological disposal should be pursued with determination, only advising us to take measures to allay public anxiety so that at least for some time there are facilities to retrieve or monitor the in place waste.
516
There is no doubt that public perception is creating difficulties. There are no technical difficulties in dealing with the problems. I believe that the committee has been most helpful in bringing that point to our notice. Therefore, I applaud the Select Committee's advocacy of a higher media profile for the nuclear industry. We must restore public confidence in this immensely valuable national asset which we have created in our midst. Therefore, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for his work and his committee's work and all those noble Lords on his committee who have spoken today.
The noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, presided over a committee which dealt with something slightly different although connected with the atomic energy industry. He dealt with the question of long-term research and development following privatisation, the future of the atomic energy authority and the future of the fast reactor. I was delighted by the calls on his part and on the part of members of his sub-committee particularly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, to be aware of the dangers of the greenhouse effect. I have recently been round the world. I went to Hong Kong where everyone was saying that the weather "was quite unusual in that part of the world and they didn't usually have that much rain at that time." I went to New Zealand and the North Island was suffering from rain such as, "we never usually have at that time of year". I went down to the South Island where it was suffering from a drought, "most unusual at that time of year", and so on. I came home to find an unusual gale ripping my roof off and to find that the islanders of Shetland were claiming subsidies because of the unusual flooding and wet weather which they had had throughout the winter. I found that I had the happy end of the stick because an unusual amount of grass had grown on my farm and my sheep and cattle were unusually well as a result. However, you know, it is an ill wind which blows nobody any good.
There is no doubt that times are out of joint and we must believe that the greenhouse effect is probably the cause. We must guard against it and have weapons to deal with it if we are satisfied that it is the danger which we are told it is. In that respect, we cannot cast aside the atomic energy industry or the fast reactor. To be told that it may be needed in 30 years means that we need it in 20 years because there has to be a 10-year lead time before there can be a power plant of any kind, especially a fast reactor. The point at which we may wish to start developing research and design for a new project is probably only a matter of a mere 10 years away. I believe that it is foolishness of the highest order to close down our wonderful facility at Dounreay at this time when we are so near to using its ability as a research tool in any future development and when we see the Japanese deciding to go for fast reactors. They are prepared to spend sums in one year which are very nearly the same as the total sums which we have spent so far on fast reactor development. Therefore, I welcome the pleas which have come from the Select Committee on research and development, that

517
Dounreay should be looked at again and that plea has also come from other quarters.
There are many things which would make life easier at Dounreay, not least of which is to allow it to compete without having one hand tied behind its back; for example, to allow it to take equity and to capitalise on the products which it sells and produces and the work which it has done and which it can do. If we say that Dounreay is to work like a commercial concern we must allow it to do what commercial concerns are allowed to do, such as taking equity and being able to make full use of what it has developed.
I have spoken for too long, but I feel strongly about this subject. Therefore, I conclude with a few words about the effect on Caithness of the closure of Dounreay. One cannot imagine the effect that it will have. It will be worse than the clearances. The clearances were mistaken and some were cruelly enforced, but they were a genuine attempt to develop Scotland's agricultural industry. The clearances did not take place to lay waste the countryside; they took place so that people could develop the new type of agriculture, prosper and improve the economy of the North.
The closure at Dounreay is far worse. It will cause many people to leave Caithness. My own quick estimate, made immediately after the announcement, was that it would cut the population of Thurso from 10,000 to 4,000 and that it would cut the population of Caithness in half. That was a quick estimate and a more recent calculation made earlier this week by consultants says that the area around Dounreay—Caithness, my home—should expect 40 per cent. unemployment after having been one of the better employed parts of Britain.
When something like that occurs in the North, my experience is that it results in depopulation. People do not sit around in the North hoping, like Mr. Micawber, for something to turn up. If the jobs are not there, they leave. They used to say in Orkney, "We do not have unemployment, we only have emigration". If Dounreay is hit in the way that we know it will be hit if nothing else is done to continue the programme there, or to provide other employment, there will be emigration from Caithness. After having devoted my life to the area, that is something that I do not want to see.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by declaring a past interest as I was appointed as the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority as long ago as 1954. Nuclear power no longer has the ready acceptance that it had at that time. The reasons are many, and some we have heard today, but perhaps the most important are the accidents that took place at Windscale at the time I was chairman of the authority; Three Mile Island; and Chernobyl. I believe that attitude will change in time as people come to understand more clearly the damage that the burning of fossil fuels is doing to the world's atmosphere and the effect that it is likely to have on the world's climate—the so-called greenhouse effect.
At Chernobyl over 30 people were killed and no doubt many hundreds will suffer from excessive
518
radiation all their lives. A very large area of land round the reactor was contaminated and sheep as far away as on the Highlands of Scotland were affected. However, we must put this into perspective. Some years ago at Bhopal, in India, there was a severe accident at a chemical plant and many thousands of people died. In the past few weeks an accident has occurred in Alaska that has severely damaged the ecology in that part of the world. Those accidents were not due to nuclear power.
No sensible person assumes that nuclear power is likely to solve all the problems of the world's climate but I am sure— and it has been said in the debate this afternoon—that it can make a major contribution. I agree strongly with the sub-committee's comments that adequate research and development facilities must be preserved and properly used.
The privatisation of the electricity industry, whatever its merits or dermits, may I fear endanger the provision of adequate research and development. My first concern is the future funding of long-term strategic research and development and how it will fare in the new commercial enviroment. All the evidence leads one to believe that there will be a much shorter time horizon for research and development funding unless responsibilities are specifically placed for the longer-term research.
The generating bodies that will succeed the CEGB will not have the same responsibilities as the CEGB for long-term supplies of energy and long-term research and development to support it. I fully endorse the committee's view that the Government should encourage the electricity industry to devise arrangements for funding long-term research and development. If it fails to agree, the Government themselves must ensure that such arrangements are made.
Referring to the paper that we have received from the Government, does paragraph 32 mean that they accept this responsibility? Uncertainty is itself destructive and the period of uncertainty about responsibility should be as short as possible. The fast reactor and fusion are two major long-term projects in which we are now collaborating with Europe. It is right that we should do so in view of the cost and timescale of these projects.
We have entered into these collaborative arrangements and we must do so wholeheartedly. With the recent cut-backs there is a danger that our partners may regard this country as less than fully committed to these important projects. The cut-back on fast reactor research and development is extremely severe. It seems to rely on an assessment of fast reactors and the contribution that they can make, which the committee tells us is not supported by the French. However, if there is to be markedly more nuclear power, uranium will have to be burnt with an efficiency which can only be achieved effectively with a fast reactor. Therefore, I submit that research and development must be such as to keep the fast reactor option open.
I also submit—and here I agree with the committee—that the research and development programme must be sufficient to allow us to participate fully with our European collaborators; also the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay should

519
continue to operate as long as it is useful to the European programme. If that costs more than has been allowed for, we should fund that money. Inevitably fusion is a very long-term prospect. I am aware of the belief of Sir John Cockcroft that we had solved that problem with the Zeta machine. Perhaps professors who have achieved it on a cold basis may be right. Even so, it is a long-term proposition. It is right that we should collaborate with others to the greatest possible extent.
I fully endorse the committee's view that fusion should remain the authority's responsibility up to and including the decommissioning of JET. However, I am not convinced by the suggestion that responsibility might then transfer to the Science and Engineering Research Council. Fusion is an energy technology and its successful development will require applied science and engineering. Those facts put it clearly in the authority's remit. The position will not change when JET closes down. To transfer fusion away from the authority, with all its expertise and experience, to the Science and Engineering Research Council, would inevitably be disruptive to the teams there, and I suggest that it would also be unwise.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, I am concerned about the future, and the role and shape of the Atomic Energy Authority. All the organisations connected with nuclear power and carrying out research and development will be affected by the developing commercial pressures. But most of these organisations commission research and development in support of their main business. The Atomic Energy Authority is very different. Nuclear research and development is its main business. The authority has a wonderful record of scientific and technological achievements. I know from experience that it maintains the highest standards. Nevertheless, the Government's decision to cut support for the fast reactor and fusion research and development has meant a marked decline in the authority's scale of business and a need to reduce the number of employees. In the face of this and the uncertainties introduced by privatisation, I know that the authority is striving to become a leaner and fitter organisation. It aims to be better able to win contracts from industry and the Government by offering the best technology in a professional way and at the right price.
The move towards a leaner and fitter organisation is clearly in line with the Government's wish that the authority behaves so far as possible in a commercial manner. Yet the authority suffers from a big disadvantage as it may not participate in the commercial exploitation of any developments that it may make. That is surely quite wrong and it should be changed. I hope that paragraph 37 of the Government's paper means that this will be done. If the authority is to be restructured, it is essential that it receives a clear definition of its future role and a commitment to adequate funding to carry that out.
Any such restructuring should take full account of the interactive and multi-disciplinary nature of the authority's programmes and capabilities. The
520
authority should continue to provide this country with the scientific and technical expertise both in support of safety and efficiency in the nuclear industry and in nuclear applied research and development. I wholeheartedly support the Committee's conclusion that there is a national need for continuing to work in the fields now covered by the authority. In order to do that the authority will require substantial special support from the Government, otherwise it fears a progressive wasting away of its magnificent and first class team of scientists and engineers. That would result in an inadequate underpinning of the country's nuclear programme. That is something which is absolutely essential should not be allowed to happen.
1.56 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I join in this debate entirely as a layman. I did not sit on either of the Committees whose reports we have before us and to whose convenors we have listened with respect and admiration. On my own account as a layman I have raised the general problem of government funding for energy research. That is what brings me into the debate today. I raised the matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech, and I received a friendly pat on the back for what was described as a "thoughtful speech". But I received no answer then or since.
I am reminded of an occasion some 15 years ago when two young people who are now both doctors of science, but then a girl aged 9 and her younger brother aged 7, had tea with me and I took them in for a Wednesday debate. At the end of it the little girl slipped her hand into mine and said, "Yes, but what happens at the end of it all?" I said, "You must not expect the Minister on the Front Bench necessarily to understand all that is said, let alone remember it. But there is a pew of civil servants who are very highly qualified. They are looking for new ideas for government and if they once get an idea into their heads it has a way of surfacing years later as the Government's own thinking".
In addition to my noble friend who will reply to this debate, I hope that others within earshot will take note of one or two of the points I raise. What stands out in this debate is that since the convenors of the two committees spoke, all but one of the successive speakers have laboured and laboured again the call for the Government to think again about their funding of energy research. I believe there was only one speaker who did not really push that matter in the way that everyone else has done. That is little wonder when we have the opportunity to read the Government's response to this report. We have seen it all before; it was as usual and as expected. It was drafted to sound sympathetic but all its qualifications reduced it to damning with faint praise especially as regards the fast reactor and fusion.
It is worthwhile to draw attention to some of these qualifications. In paragraph 19 we are told that the nuclear R&D programme needs to be maintained and that is the recommendation of the Committee. The paragraph states that the Government are "in broad agreement". That is not full agreement. It is

521
a good deal less than full agreement and it may be only half agreement. However, that is the phrase used to make it sound as nice as possible. In paragraph 25 it is stated that,
"The Government has decided to retain a position in fast reactor technology".
What does "retain a position" mean? Does it mean a couple of office boys or professors? What on earth does it mean? It is supposed to sound a great deal. It may mean very little. It is not an unqualified assessment.
We are then told that there will be no need for a fast reactor in the next 30 to 40 years. If that is not a mortgaging of the future, I do not know what is. I suppose the idea is that if we leave it aside, then in 30 to 40 years' time, when it is found to be necessary, we shall buy it from the Japanese or the Americans.
Let us take the Government's reply again. On fusion, at paragraph 29, it states:
"1990… will be the most appropriate time to consider" —
only to consider—
"what further part the UK should play in this particular field of research",
as if it is a branch of painting or something. If that is not playing the issue down, I do not know what is.
Then on long-term R&D, following privatisation, the reply accepts that the Government have an important role—not a critical role—a mere oversight, in seeking to ensure that strategic options are being maintained. This really is not good enough. However, it is the kind of thing that civil servants are adept at drafting. It reads all right but means little.
Paragraph 32 states that,
"the department…[will] assess the long-term implications and decide whether or not to fund the work"
referred to in that paragraph. Paragraph 35 states:
"The Government agrees generally and will be keeping under careful review"
—how often have we heard the phrase, "keeping under careful review", usually the Treasury having a hand in it as well? All this relates to the need for effective and expert continuing nuclear R&D capability. This simply will not do. If the Government are going to go further and say that there is not the money for it, or if they are going to vary their theme and try to push responsibility on to private enterprise, while being very vague indeed about the future of long-term research in the electricity supply industry, that will not do either.
I am using strong language. I shall now use other strong language in the Government's favour. One of the most important things in our national life, which has happened in the past few years, has been on the economic side. I refer to a critical change with regard to the public sector borrowing requirement, as it was known until 18 months ago. Year after year we were piling up national debt, borrowing anything from £3·5 billion to £12·5 billion in a single year between 1974 and 1987. Now the situation has been reversed. The technical term is no longer public sector borrowing requirement. It is public sector debt repayment. Even the language has changed.
522
What do we find? We find that in this year past the Chancellor has announced debt repayment of something like £12 billion with the advantage to the economy, or to the Treasury, of reducing annual interest charges on national debt by about £1 billion. This is greatly to the Government's credit. That alone in my view would justify any amount of privatisation although I have reservations about the ESI.
However, that is the context against which I draw your Lordships' attention to some figures that I obtained from Cabinet Office papers—they are quite open—about the amount invested by government sources in energy research in Germany, France, and Britain. I shall give the figures in pounds. The figure for Germany in the past year for which figures were available was £500 million a year. The figure for France was £380 million a year. What is the figure for Britain, with a booming economy, unemployment falling and a great sense of buoyancy? It is not £500 million. It is not £380 million. It is £190 million. This simply is not good enough. I hope that Select Committee Members continue to press the Government relentlessly, reminding them that, as the Select Committee on R & D concluded with such a satisfactory phrase, the Government are responsible for the long-term security of the nation's supply of energy.
2.5 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, like those who have spoken before me, I should like to thank both the chairmen, the members of the committee and the authors of these two very interesting reports and to follow this up with an apology to both of them. It was only the day before yesterday that I knew that I was going to be free this morning of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Select Committee and able to participate in the debate. The result is that I have not studied the reports in depth as I shall, or would have done if I had had more time for preparation. I have been able to scrutinise them only for those matters that are already on my mind to see what they have to say about them.
These are all rather disconnected points because they are simply what are on my mind. The first is the reprocessing of spent fuel versus the non-reprocessing of spent fuel under two headings: first, postponing the reprocessing; and, secondly, the storage of it as if it were waste to which one would not have access. Both of these are I think wrong although one of the reports suggests that they are worth looking into. The reason I think they are both wrong is that by postponing the reprocessing we are passing the burden of cost over from our generation to the next. If we were to seal them up as if they were waste, and render them inaccessible for any kind of reprocessing, the spent uranium—which could be the basis for the fast reactor or the mixed oxide reactor—would become unavailable. One would be restoring it back to the earth; and one would practically have to mine it out; but one cannot do that because it will still be highly radioactive for quite a long time to come. Some of these materials have half-lives of something like 30,000 years. It would therefore be 300,000 years before the activity had sunk to one-thousandth of its original level

523
I remember very clearly a comment made by a speaker at the Nuclear Forum. The forum consists of a collection of people who are knowledgeable about nuclear power, nuclear energy, and so on. It has an annual meeting and an annual lunch. Indeed, the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, was its president or its chairman (I am not quite sure which) for many years. I went to one of its annual conventions and on that occasion the forum included an authority on waste storage who said that,
"to fail to take action now is pure cowardice".
That comment seems to me to be very much in line with the contents of the report and I congratulate its authors on coming down so formidably on the right side of the fence.
I turn now to the issue of Dounreay. There are two things which you cannot accelerate: one is the corrosion test, and the other is the ageing test. God has set his seal against accelerating them. A thing ages at its own speed, like me; it becomes corroded at its own speed. Whether I have become corroded yet I do not know, but I probably shall be one day. If one wishes to build something which is liable to age effects and corrosion, and one wants it to last for 30 years, then I am afraid that one must build a prototype and run it for 30 years so as to be sure that one has got the bugs out of one's technology.
The original reactor at Dounreay was primarily a materials testing reactor. The one which is presently installed there—the original having been shut down—is still a materials testing reactor; but it is also generating a significant level of useful power, I think that it is 600 megawatts thermal. However, I am quoting that figure from memory. That reactor must go on running because when it was built it was found that the design was in some ways at fault, just as the Super Phénix has been found to be at fault in some ways. The heat exchangers were suffering from corrosion and some new method of welding the tubes into their end plates had to be found which was more reliable than that which had been used originally. The authorities have found now that the technique known as explosion welding appears to have done the trick. However, those heat exchangers were re-tubed a few years ago. They must be allowed to run on to ensure that there is not a hidden snag before we eventually commit ourselves to building a full-scale fast reactor for power generation purposes.
There will of course be a tremendous hurly-burly about having any kind of fast reactor. The Green Peace voice and the "eco nuts" will disregard the fact that we have had one working at Dounreay for 30 years. The NIMBY factor will come into the matter and no one will want it. Possibly the best place to put such a reactor would be in Dounreay because the local population is used to having one there. It would really consist of nothing more than six of the nuclear boilers which we now have sitting in one large sodium pool which is shared between all of them.
I should like to put on record my memory of a piece of advice that the late Lord Hinton gave the House on this topic. He said that scaling up by a factor of six was the kind of mistake we made too often. Let it be scaled up by a factor of three; that
524
would be much more satisfactory. Therefore the work at Dounreay must continue. The team must not be dispersed; indeed, it has taken years to put it together. Some of the older members of the team are ageing, for example, Cliff Blumfield, who used to run it, is now in retirement. However, his successor, who has been trained for the job, is now there. We must keep that team going so that it is there in reserve. Let us not think that it is just a matter of keeping going because the burn-up rates which are now being received are very high and significantly high. They make all the difference to the economics of the fast reactor because reprocessing fast reactor fuel is, in its own way, quite expensive
We must also remember that there is the mixed oxide reactor now coming forward. There you take the spent uranium oxide, after being reprocessed and recovered, and mix it up with plutonium as the fissionable element. I have no doubt that as uranium becomes scarcer we shall want to have the mixed oxide reactors alongside as thermal reactors. The whole system of nuclear power generation will never be mature and complete until we have thermal reactors working into fast reactors so that the two are in harmony with one another. You can breed enough plutonium in a fast reactor to re-fuel it about every 25 years. You can produce enough plutonium to fuel the initial fuel for a fast reactor in thermal reactors in about 15 years. I am quoting the figures from memory, but I believe that I am right.
The other point that I wish to pick up is the phrase that states that the PWR was a correct policy. It was a tragic mistake. I shall leave it to the historians of 30 years hence, when we are all dead and gone. They can get out the papers and see who influenced whom and how internal and external politics came into the decision. I shall not deal in personalities. I say only that it was a tragic mistake.
Let us take our latest AGR. Perhaps I may remind the House, as I often have before, that we do not talk of "the AGR" because there were three different designs, two of which were failures and one of which was a success. It has been duplicated at Heysham II and Torness. Torness was designed to produce 660 megawatts in each of the twin reactors; each of them is now turning out 688 megawatts continuously into the grid. That is about 4 per cent. more than their design rate. That AGR is one of the most superb pieces of engineering going. It is intrinsically safe. It has a monoface coolant. There is no reaction between the coolant and the metal of the construction, the moderator or anything like that.
The PWR that we shall have at Sizewell B will be out of date by the time it is installed because Westinghouse and Mitsubishi are working out a derated reactor with higher safety factors. If your Lordships want a good statistic, take Hunterston B and Longannet. Longannet power station is sitting on top of a drift mine. Its coal is about as cheap as anything one can get. Hunterston B is one of the successful AGRs. The 1987–88 figures for Hunterston B were 1·65p per kilowatt and for Longannet 2·2p per kilowatt. That should dispose of the idea that nuclear power is ceasing to be economic in comparison with fossil fuels. It is not.
Lastly, I wish to deal with a factor which has been introduced during the course of the debate. I owe

525
this point to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who talked about the need to get the press to educate the public. The press is a broker; no more than that. It sells advertising and buys entertainment, making a profit from the difference. As to what entertains, it of course depends upon who one is, but it has to cater for a broad range of people. There is a curious factor in human nature. We run a love-hate relationship with what frightens us. We hate being frightened, but at the same time we are rather fascinated by it. That is why bad news is cheap copy for the newspapers but good news is not. The press will never educate the public, because the circulation of a newspaper depends upon the public being in a muddle so that they buy it to find out what the muddle is all about.
That may be taking a cynical view of the press. Everyone thinks that its liberty is sacred, but I have no illusions about the sacredness of the liberty of the press. It is out to make money by selling advertising space and buying entertainment, and any kind of public disaster—Lockerbie, for instance—is merely cheap copy. The press does not have to pay people to think it out. It is there on its doorstep.
I have made a short speech, without much preparation, drawing on my long background in the subject, both as a member of a consortium that built nuclear power stations, most of which I have clambered inside during the course of building, and a long membership of what used to be Sub-Committee F (I believe that it still is). I believe that I did three four-year stints on that sub-committee. Finally it got rid of me. I should think that it was about time too.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, and because he referred to me, he may be interested if I point out that he, rightly, has underlined the success of the AGR at Torness. That reminded me of the demonstrations in Scotland of all those who were against it being built on the site when the bulldozers were going in. That was front-page news, with photographs. The tremendous success and safety which the noble Lord has just described do not normally hit the front pages.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for introducing the radioactive waste report and to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, for introducing the research and development report. The debate has sparked off a series of interesting interventions from a number of noble Lords whose expertise outstrips mine. That is not difficult. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has just given us an impressive technical display of pyrotechnics—if I may put it like that—on a matter to which he only addressed himself this morning or yesterday because he thought that he would be unable to speak.
I rise as an amateur in this business to put forward one or two thoughts to your Lordships. I only disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on one point and that was when he said that the committee which he chaired with such distinction was composed of a group of ordinary Lords. His
526
committee, if I may say so, was a group of extraordinary Lords, who were able to get their minds round an extremely difficult and technical problem. The report which he and his committee produced was, in my view, an excellent example of how people who are not trained in the business can come to understand very difficult and technical problems. So I congratulate him on that.
I enjoyed very much the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, not least because he seemed to me to put his finger on the fundamental problem of electricity privatisation: who, at the end of the day, is responsible for keeping the lights on? He quite rightly pointed out that it would be the Secretary of State. It is no good simply trying to cast off that responsibility and devolve it to any authority, privatised or otherwise. We shall come back to that debate, I have no doubt, when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
The two reports have a somewhat different tone. One is a European Community report and the other a domestic R & D report. Therefore, in some sense, the radioactive waste report addressed Community issues—quite rightly, because that was its remit—but adopted a slightly different stance from that of the R& D report (if I may refer to the two reports in shorthand) which seems more to address the national issue. Also, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, have pointed out, the radioactive waste report imposed on itself a self-denying ordinance as to whether or not it was right to go ahead with a nuclear programme, whereas the R & D report considered that point in great detail, as the noble Lord told us, and came down very firmly in favour of it.
I shall respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, that his committee came down very firmly in favour of a nuclear programme. I understand perfectly the reasons why the committee came down on that side. There is however a problem, not as to whether it is right or wrong but in practical terms about the decision. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, I believe, raised the problem about R & D under privatisation; the report also raised it. The problem is whether in real life under privatisation the idea that we can build a series of nuclear stations in this country is realistic. Is it realistic in financial terms? Who will put up the money? Is it realistic in technical terms, realistic in commercial terms and realistic in the terms in which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, were discussing it? Is it realistic in terms of what the public reaction will be?
If noble Lords want a demonstration of the problem, I refer them to the experience in the United States of America. That country is a major exponent of civil nuclear power. It has something like 100 out of a total of 350 operating nuclear stations worldwide, so it is a major factor. But because of the regulatory problems in the United States, the environmental problems and the media problems, if I may put it like that, or perhaps because of the public opinion problems there (we should bear in mind that industry in the United States is privately owned) no nuclear plant has been ordered within the last 10 years. There are 12 plants throughout the

527
United States which were ordered between 12 and 15 years ago. They have still not been commissioned because the environmental or public opinion problems associated with commissioning are so great. All this has happened since Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island turned a 1 billion dollar asset as it was before the disaster, into a 1 billion dollar clean-up problem. That problem occurred even though the disaster was an on-site disaster and did not go outside the perimeter of the site. If any noble Lords think that under privatisation, after a Sizewell B or Hinkley C type inquiry, the appropriate authorisation for nuclear plants will be given, they are mistaken. If any noble Lords think that it is not possible—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned Torness in this regard—for the people living near a plant to stop the plant operating, and if they think that setting up a nuclear plant will be an easy exercise for a private operator, they should think again.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I should explain that the people shown in the newspapers as demonstrators were not people living in the immediate area of the plant but representatives for organisations who had gone there in order to demonstrate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I should make my point clearer. The other day I went down to Hinkley Point because I thought that I should at least familiarise myself with what was going on at a rather controversial station. I was told quite clearly by all sides on the inquiry that if the people round Hinkley C—the PWR reactor at Hinkley C was the object of the inquiry—decided they were not going to co-operate with the evacuation plans in the event of a major nuclear incident, Hinkley C would not be able to operate. It would simply be cut off. This has happened in the United States. Local authorities have said to bodies wishing to build nuclear reactors in their areas that they are not going to co-operate in the safety plans. Once that happens, as I was told time and time again by management and objectors, there is a fundamental problem. That has happened in the United States, and it is my strong belief that it will happen here if the industry is privatised.
Up to now the CEGB has received a great deal of public acceptance. It has behaved like a good citizen, it is trusted, and at least at the end of the day people can say that the Government are standing behind it and it is a governmental problem. But when the nuclear industry is privatised, I think that assurance will be removed. Whatever the R&D report may recommend, I believe there will be a major problem in constructing nuclear plants in this country over the next few years.
I accept automatically what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, as it came from him. However, I was told the same thing by someone else. I was told that Heysham II and Torness are now superior, in terms of technological output, to the PWR being built at Hinkley C, and that Sizewell B is 10 years out of date compared with the PWRs the French are building. There are a lot of arguments on that
528
particular issue. I prefer British technology; nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, I believe there will be a major problem with an intensive nuclear programme.
It is for that reason that I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, in saying that if that is the case we really must devote more resources to research and development into non-nuclear sources of energy. We must devote research into the greenhouse effect and see how far it is possible to desulphurise and remove carbon dioxide. We have to see whether that technology is remotely near for the next century. I do not know the answer, but we must certainly go down that road. We must look at cold fusion and the Pons/Fleishmann operation. That may be completely pie in the sky. We do not know what will come of it, but we must look at these issues. The consequence of not being able to adopt a nuclear programme, as recommended by the R&D report of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, will be serious.
Any nuclear programme will cause problems. We are now starting to close down the Magnox reactors. Berkeley has finished its 25-year life. It has now been shut down and will be there for 100 years. The programme in which we have engaged will leave us with a series of what I shall call nuclear cathedrals around the landscape as they are shut down. Medieval cathedrals, being of great Gothic design, are visited, but nuclear cathedrals will not be visited in any circumstances. We are leaving to our children a whole block of sites around the country that will be seen as a monument to an age that had not really understood what it was doing to posterity.
This leads me on to the issue of waste. In the short run, decommissioning of stations means more waste. That is one of the inevitable consequences of running down the Magnox programme. I leave aside the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, however sympathetic I am to his view that we should be scuttling nuclear submarines in the sea and surrounding their nuclear cores with concrete. That seems an excessive way of dealing with our out-of-date nuclear submarine fleet. I also leave aside the more sensational idea put forward in a number of newspapers that jumbo jets full of plutonium will be flying into Sellafield from Japan and other countries, and may blow up in the air. I accept the assurance given by the Minister yesterday that the THORP programme will not lead to the United Kingdom being a nuclear dustbin for the rest of the world. The Minister said that only two bus loads of waste had come out of THORP. Two busloads are two busloads too many.
What are the real problems? As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said, nobody really thought about these problems when the nuclear programme was first embarked upon. I remember expressions such as "radioactive residues" and "atomic ash". Those were nice, comfortable expressions about which people did not have to worry too much. Until 1983 it was general policy to dump all the waste in the sea. It was then decided that perhaps it was too dangerous to dump the waste in the sea. In July 1983 the Government announced that we would no longer dump waste in the sea and that we would have to think of something else.

529
There was also the issue of land disposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, rightly said, governments have been extremely pusillanimous in their approach to this problem. There is the "not in my back yard" syndrome. A number of Members of Parliament and local authorities complained when it was proposed to dump radioactive waste in their constituencies or in their local authority areas. What, I ask myself, happened to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which reported in 1976? It said:
"There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future".
That was said in 1976. Due to the vacillations of governments—governments of both parties; I am not trying to defend one party against the other—we do not seem to have come much further. We are in a difficult position.
Where are we now? On the question of the R&D report—subject to what I have said about the difficulty, in my view, of implementing, under privatisation, any major nuclear plant programme in this country—I accept what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lords, Lord Plowden and Lord Sherfield, have said about the role of the Atomic Energy Authority. That must be right. I also argue that we have invested so much in Dounreay that it would be a great mistake to downgrade it now. To return to my point about the United States—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made this point—if one has something there, one does not have to go through the business of setting up a greenfield site operation and all the inquiries related to it. One has it there, so for goodness sake, let us keep it there. One should not shut it down or downgrade it and so have to start it up again somewhere else with all the problems that that involves. I certainly support government funding for Dounreay and keeping its present capability and present research programme, but I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—it was a very pertinent point— that, if one has a pilot project, it must be a pilot project. One cannot upgrade it half-way through into something else. If one tests metal stress or corrosion, one must test it right down the line and should not try to believe that one has tested it when one has not.
The report on radioactive waste must be right in stating that this is a European problem, not just a United Kingdom problem. Different countries will treat radioactive waste in different manners. Nevertheless, there must be close European co-operation. There must also be close European co-operation with regard to a fast breeder reactor. I do not deny that, but the radioactive waste issue is so environmentally sensitive that European co-operation in some form or another is essential.
I am a little doubtful about deep disposal. I believe that the report just brought itself back from the brink by stating that, even if we go in for deep disposal, it should be retrievable because there may well be technologies in other countries—I shall deal with that point later—about which we do not know at the moment, but which can reduce the radioactive life
530
of the waste. Certainly, there will be surface storage before the deep disposal opportunities become available. I wonder—the report referred to this matter—whether on-site storage is not just as relevant and something that we should pursue more closely.
The problem with deep geological disposal is the transport problem which the report addressed. I find it a very difficult case to argue. I could drop so many boxes from so many metres on to so many points and platforms and everything would be all right and nothing would happen. The trouble is that one never quite knows whether, at the end of the day, the box will be defective. Perhaps the 50th box, the 100th box or the 150th box is dropped on to a point and then something goes wrong. We must pay a little more attention to the question of transport to site than the committee was able to do. We should prefer to see low level and intermediate level waste deep stored rather than stored in shallow trenches. We are still a little doubtful about the exclusion of very low level waste from the definition of waste. Some of the local authorities that have read the report have represented to us that one could find some such waste on local authority tips—although one could just as easily find cocoa beans—which might lead to environmental problems.
I have taken up sufficient of the House's time. However, I wish to draw two conclusions. First, I believe that both reports show that no one is infallible and that we have had many changes, both in nuclear technologies and in the technology of radioactive waste, which we could not possibly have foreseen 20 or 30 years ago. We cannot predict future technologies. Everything that we say today should be adjusted to that uncertainty.
Secondly, although several noble Lords have said that governments have been pusillanimous or that the media have been at fault, I believe that the agenda is changing. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, and my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby in this matter. It is not just a question of a PR campaign. People have fundamental worries about the nuclear programme and in particular about radioactive waste. Environmental consciousness is certainly rising.
The Government and the industry may believe that the probability of a major accident in 1 million reactor years, which is the present estimate, is both demonstrable and tolerable. However, so far the public remains unconvinced. In my view it is quite certain that unless the industry, government and perhaps the European Community can demonstrate to the public that they can dispose of waste and build a nuclear programme in an acceptably safe manner, the future of the entire industry will be under threat, as it is in the United States. If they believe in their nuclear programme, that is the problem which the Government should address as their highest priority.
2.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is a daunting prospect to respond to a debate of such scope and significance, given the calibre of the participants. Nevertheless, I assure my noble friend

531
Lord Lauderdale that I have tried to understand and will endeavour to remember what has been said. I start by wholeheartedly thanking both committees for their excellent reports and my noble friends who introduced them this morning. We are all very appreciative of the time and consideration that committee members put into these most topical reports and their recommendations on important but distinct aspects of the nuclear industry.
As is so often the case on such occasions, the contributions to the debate have been most stimulating and constructive. As well as attempting to answer specific points that have been raised, perhaps I may make a few general comments in the course of my remarks.
I turn first to the report on radioactive waste management published last September. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the committee was indeed composed of extraordinary Peers. It is most timely that its report should be debated today now that NIREX has submitted its report with recommendations for developing a deep disposal site. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook pointed out, the Select Committee on the European Communities reported that it is a key environmental issue in the European Community.
But the problems that we face are no longer technical. Like other noble Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on this point, although he directed most of his remarks to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and his committee. Much work has now been done which shows that the waste management issue can be solved. The committee confirmed that when it concluded that safe disposal routes could be developed. The Government welcome the conclusion and agree with it.
The main difficulties to which the committee has drawn attention are those of public understanding, confidence and trust. I regret that alarmism should be advocated, as the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, so temperately remarked, even in the course of this debate. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the nuclear industry funds major programmes of public information. Perhaps the best known is that of BNFL at Sellafield, although the CEGB, the SSEB and the AEA also have programmes. Indeed, the latter is funded by the Government.
It has been alleged that shifts in government policy over the years have tended to undermine public confidence. The Government believe that safe disposal routes for radioactive waste are available in the United Kingdom. The main task has been to identify the most appropriate method available for managing each category of waste. The strategy will continue to be fine-tuned in the light of advice that the Government receive from a wide range of independent bodies and the results of its ongoing research programme. We recognise the importance of this issue.
The Government's policy on disposal is quite clear. Heat generating waste will be stored at Sellafield for at least 50 years to allow much of the heat and radioactivity to decay. A decision can then be taken whether to store it still longer or to dispose
532
of it deep underground. The Government are confident that the methods of storage envisaged are safe and acceptable and that disposal facilities can be built when needed. This is based on the results of extensive research in this country and overseas. The Department of the Environment retains a research programme which has been reoriented to check that findings from research in other countries also remain applicable to the United Kingdom.
The Government believe that long term on-site storage of low and intermediate level waste is undesirable, since nothing is gained by delay in its disposal. They welcome the committee's endorsement of this policy of disposal. I welcome the confirmation of this today by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. There is also wide scientific and international support for such an approach. Any policy which opts for continued storage rather than disposal is simply putting off a decision that will have to be taken one day.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government have only recently received NIREX's report containing its plans for the disposal of low and intermediate level waste in a deep repository. NIREX recommends that a repository should be constructed in the form of a mine under the land, and that the next steps should be to carry out detailed geological studies, including the sinking of boreholes, in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay. The further evaluation of the geology of these two areas will enable NIREX to decide on their suitability for construction of a repository, or whether it will be necessary to evaluate other sites.
Perhaps because of the concern expressed, it may be helpful to the House if I go a little more fully into this timetable. NIREX's report and recommendations were submitted to the Government on 28th February this year. On 21st March the Government accepted NIREX's recommendations that a repository should be constructed in the form of a mine under the land and that the next steps would be to carry out the detailed geological studies that I have referred to. The Government agree that it is for NIREX to obtain the necessary planning permissions through the normal procedures, which will certainly include that of environmental impact assessment. Only when those investigations have been undertaken will NIREX be in a position to submit proposals for a substantive development to seek the necessary approvals.
The investigation programme, which will take up to 18 months to complete, will look not just at the geology but also at the social, environmental and radiological impact of such a development. NIREX is working to build just one national deep disposal centre to serve the nation for at least50 years. I am glad to hear that we have YIMBYs in our midst, and no doubt note will be taken in the appropriate quarters. The Government have, however, made clear that a public inquiry into the granting of the necessary planning consent for construction of the disposal centre will be necessary. An environmental assessment, as I have said, will be carried out in accordance with the guidance given by government departments under the current planning regulations.
The safety aspects will be examined in detail by the regulatory departments of government before

533
disposal can take place. Initial construction will take several years, and it is expected that the first package of waste will be consigned in the disposal centre in the early years of the next century. I understand that NIREX is working to the year 2005.
Detailed records will be maintained and designs adopted to retain an ability to recover the waste if this were deemed necessary, certainly during the operational life of the centre. The Government believe that the continuing availability of Drigg for low level waste and the interim storage of intermediate level waste at nuclear establishments will meet needs until the deep repository is available.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook specifically referred to RWMAC. The Government welcome the advice from the RWMAC, which it consulted on the NIREX Report. The setting up of a public interest panel is a matter for RWMAC, but the Government will take note of the outcome of any such meeting.
The committee has emphasised the need to proceed to disposal as soon as practicable. The Government welcome that conclusion. However, I emphasise that there can be no short-circuiting of the site selection procedure. It is for NIREX to obtain the necessary planning permissions; but only when further work has been undertaken will NIREX be in a position to submit proposals for a substantive development and to seek those necessary approvals. The development would have to comply with the strict safety standards laid down and enforced by the authorising and regulatory bodies.
The Government welcome the committee's acceptance of the conclusions of the report commissioned by the Department of the Environment on Magnox reprocessing. They also welcome the endorsement of government policy that THORP should be completed. The Government are confident that the methods of storage envisaged for heat generating wastes are safe and acceptable. We now have a clear duty to formulate the options for disposal as we see them at present, and to develop the supporting scientific and technical knowledge so that future generations will be better placed to make the eventual choices.
Reprocessing is a proven and safe technology which enables uranium and plutonium to be recycled as fuel. A change to a strategy of long-term storage and direct disposal would deny the strategic benefits of the recovery of uranium and plutonium. In the first instance it is for the CEGB to assess whether there are advantages to long-term storage of AGR fuel as an alternative to early reprocessing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, raised the question of cracks in a crane at the Wylfa plant by an earth tremor in July, 1984. In September, 1984, during the phased refurbishment of the Wylfa crane, small cracks were discovered in the support pillar. On examination, they proved to be aged cracks which would have occurred well before the earth tremor in July, 1984. That was confirmed by studies carried out by a civil engineering consultant. Those studies also confirmed that no damage to the reactor building had resulted from the tremor.
While on the subject of public perception I should like to take up the statement made by the noble
534
Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He said that in the United States no new nuclear stations have been ordered in the past 10 years because of the Three Mile Island accident. That is true, but many nuclear stations have been commissioned since that accident. Evidence now exists to show that public opinion is beginning to move back in favour of nuclear in response to concerns about: the greenhouse effect, acid rain and other environmental issues.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she produce the evidence? What is the evidence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the evidence is the interest which is being generated. It is demonstrated by the fact that in the United States commercial companies are showing themselves willing to start the generation of electricity in this way.
I now turn to deal with nuclear research and development. The topic was introduced by my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford with particular reference to commercial programmes.
As your Lordships will be aware, the non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Bill is intended to ensure that the overall nuclear programme is maintained. The Government expect that the privatised ESI companies will focus on research which is relevant to their commercial needs; on near market and on research supporting their operations; and that they will aim to do this in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The future of individual research programmes and facilities will therefore be a commercial matter for the CEGB and SSEB and their successor companies.
It is of course possible, even probable, that the new privatised companies will not always see their R&D priorities in quite the same way as their predecessors did in the public sector. And after privatisation, just as now, the Government will have to assess the implications of any changes and decide whether the Government should become involved and which programmes should continue in the national interest. The department's energy R&D programmes, including nuclear, will continue to be reviewed annually by the Advisory Council on R&D.
As regards the privatised industry, my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford asked whether, if the Government have accepted ultimate responsibility for long-term energy R&D, have they have not also accepted responsibility for long-term security of supply. It is correct that the distribution companies will have a duty to supply under the Bill and it will be the duty of the director general of electricity supply to regulate the companies in that and in other respects.
As the Select Committee on Science and Technology recognises, in the important area of safety, the licence requirements ensure, and will continue to ensure, that the generating companies carry out nuclear safety R&D as well as operate their nuclear stations safely.
The committee has endorsed the Government's decision to transfer overall responsibility for nuclear safety research to the Health and Safety Commission from 1st April 1990. Guidelines are to be given to

535
the HSC by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. These will ensure that adequate and balanced programmes of nuclear research into thermal reactor safety continue to be carried out. The HSC's programme will be determined in the light of consultation with the industry on the industry's own programmes so that the commission has a complete picture of the UK safety research effort. The Atomic Energy Bill, which your Lordships have already considered, provides for the HSC to recover its costs from the industry.
On the subject of longer term R&D, I welcome the committee's endorsement of the Secretary of State's announcement of 21st July 1988 on the future of the fast reactor programme. The Government have decided to retain a position in fast reactor technology although the programme is being reduced in line with the expectation that there will not be a commercial need for fast reactors in the UK in the next 30 to 40 years.
The continuing work and retaining a position in the UK will be carried on as part of the European integrated effort to develop a common European fast reactor design. The European collaborative agreements signed earlier this year on 16th February formalised the UK's position as an effective partner in the European programme.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale and indeed to others who raised that subject that the United Kingdom is retaining a position in the technology. It has reduced expenditure in line with the extended timescale to commercialisation. Our European partners understand that that is the basis on which we continue to collaborate with them. We have as much access to their information as they have to ours.
I fully recognise, in relation to the fast reactor, that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is particularly concerned about the position at Dounreay; as are other noble Lords. The Government's decision on the fast reactor allows time to plan for the future. The consultants' report identifies a range of opportunities which must be pursued with vigour, supported by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Government. With the skilled and dedicated workforce of Caithness, the Government believe that the area will remain an attractive location for employers in the private and public sectors.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, does that mean that we get the £30 million which the consultants recommend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that no decisions have yet been taken on the consultants' report. However, no doubt the noble Viscount's remarks will be taken into account when the decision is made.
In reaching a decision on the fast reactor, the Government very much hadin mind their obligations to the people of Caithness. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who agreed with the Government that their funding of the prototype fast reactor to 1994 will produce much additional
536
useful information on fuel development and the behaviour of materials. Funding of the reprocessing plant to 1997 will be necessary to enable the plant to assist in the de-commissioning of PFR. If PFR had been kept running until 1997, as the noble Lord suggested, the reprocessing plant would have needed to continue for a further period as the only plant designed and built to reprocess PFR fuel. As it is, the de-commissioning process will continue for a long time into the future.
In this context we are fully aware that the Japanese expenditure on fast reactor development is significant. However, the position in Japan is very different from that in the United Kingdom. The Japanese economy is much larger than ours and Japan has few indigenous energy resources, in which we are fortunate to be rich. Moreover, Japan is not as advanced in fast reactor technology as is the European collaboration.
In common with the Government, the committee takes a cautious approach to fusion, given its extremely long-term nature. The Government will, of course, fulfil their existing international obligations including the JET project at Culham. As the committee noted in its report, fusion research is such that international collaboration is the only practicable way forward. A review of the Community fusion programme is due in 1990 and that is why we are taking 1990 as the most appropriate time to consider what further part the UK should play.
I was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, to consider ITER rather than NET for post-JET projects. The Government recognise the importance of wide international collaboration as a means of sharing the cost of fusion research more widely. However, it is too early to say whether the original parties will wish to further worldwide international collaboration when the present ITER conceptual design activities are completed in December 1990.
There has been considerable worldwide speculation—surprisingly, voiced very little in this debate—on the growing number of reports that various groups of scientists have observed controlled nuclear fusion using comparatively simple apparatus in the laboratory at room temperature. The interest shown in these reports is understandable. If true, such experiments can have profound and far-reaching implications.
Speculation about the possible implications of these reports has come before the scientific evidence of the basic experiment has been validated. Due to the scientific uncertainties it would be quite wrong to speculate on the feasibility of scaling up the experiments to the point at which larger power outputs can be obtained. We must first establish whether it is possible and safe to do so. Experiments are under way at Harwell to validate and understand the electro-chemical processes that have been observed. I remind my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that if we put all our eggs in one basket, as I understood him to be advocating, and if we do not keep our programme under constant review we may not be ready to take up the challenge of such new developments.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The phrase "keeping under constant review" is one that we have heard for years and years, but it does not always mean very much. I hope that "constant review" means that. I am sure that my noble friend will see that it does.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his confidence. As the committee correctly notes and as was particularly pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and repeated by many of your Lordships, the changing picture of nuclear research and development will have a considerable effect on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I am very happy to have this opportunity to acknowledge the important contribution that the authority has made and continues to make.
Nevertheless, prospects for the authority's traditional business over the next two to three years are clear following the decisions taken last year to scale down work on the fast reactor and fusion. The authority has therefore begun to restructure its business and it now operates as a trading fund. It is expected to make a return on capital. It has borrowing limits and it is expected to operate increasingly as a commercial venture. In particular, it recognises the need to reduce overheads to the minimum possible. The Government are providing financial support for restructuring costs.
The Government recognise that there is a need to examine the AEA's future role, and to this end a firm of management consultants has been working with the authority in looking at strategic options for the future. The Government will consider those at the appropriate time. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and others deprecated the uncertainty that this may bring. The Government recognise that a long period of uncertainty would not be helpful to the authority and its employees. A statement will be made as soon as the Government have weighed the options and reached conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and others referred to the greenhouse effect and the need for switching further to energy sources that are not producers of CO2, such as nuclear and the renewables. That is certainly an option that we intend to employ. However, in this context we recognise any effective response on climatic change and the greenhouse effect will have to be on an international scale. We are supporting the ongoing scientific programme in order to ensure that this is a long-term commitment because results will not be forthcoming for a number of years. The programme needs to be internationally organised because the whole world contributes to the problem and the whole world will need to work together towards its solution.
Our commitment to continued diversity of electricity supply will provide the basis for a flexible response to the situation as it develops and as we await the long-term scientific information. UK energy policies which are in hand will encourage increased energy efficiency, will encourage the use of natural gas as one of the cleaner fossil fuels and
538
will increase development of nuclear power and the development and exploitation of the renewable sources of generation where they are shown to be economically viable and environmentally acceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, referred to clean coal technology and Grimethorpe. The current phase of the fluidised bed combustion process research being undertaken there has come to an end and the new topping cycle process which is being proposed for that site is under consideration.
The Government take into account many factors in considering research and development expenditure on diverse sources of supply and energy efficiency. These include the state of development of technologies, their closeness to commercial exploitation, the size of their potential contribution and who was funding R&D in the private and public sector. This is why we believe that is necessary to keep it under regular, if not constant, review.
We also believe that the inclusion of the non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Bill will help to ensure that environmental problems such as climate change and acid rain are not needlessly added to. The noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, asked specifically about funding for the NNC design team. Funding of the design team at NNC is secure to the end of the first conceptual design phase. Decisions thereafter will have to be taken in the light of the progress made towards the design targets. This will be a matter for the electricity supply industry and the nuclear industry to take into account.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised. I shall of course look carefully at Hansard to ensure that this is so. In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords for the opportunity that we have had to debate these important issues. Although there may be some points of difference between us, there is, I believe, a large measure of agreement on the overall approach that the Government are taking both on nuclear R&D and on radioactive waste management. Overall the United Kingdom has a record of which to be proud in our development of nuclear power. In maintaining it as an option for the future the Government are determined that we can continue to be proud of our achievements in this field and that safety will remain paramount in all operations, from research and development, through the operation of nuclear stations, to de-commissioning and radioactive waste management.
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I am conscious that a specific question was asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I would not wish him to feel that I left it hanging in the air. He asked me what we meant in paragraph 181 by the "misapplication of resources". In essence, that was answered subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, who made it clear that we were worried that the chase for perfection with ever multiplying demands put upon nuclear organisations could lead to very expensive controls which did not achieve any great advantage and thereby was a totally unnecessary expenditure. That was the purpose of those words.

539
The other points were all dealt with later on in the debate. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the remarks on the use rather than the abuse. I was not talking about the abuse of the communication media. I refer to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was perhaps sensibly taking a lunchtime break.
However, in a powerful speech my noble friend has responded to many of the important questions that were raised today. I drew attention to the fact that there are many rather small recommendations in our report. Our report came technically from the Select Committee of this House appointed to consider Community proposals. Perhaps I may reserve my position. I shall read her speech carefully in Hansard. If there are any other points still outstanding to which I feel an answer is needed, I shall try to use the committee system to write a letter to her.
Having said that, I must add that I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. I feel that the debate has done a great deal to clarify the issues on this subject which is moving as fast as ever. In fact, it has picked up speed and there are some extremely important and interesting developments which are about to happen.
With those words, I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—although I know he is not responsible for this matter—will he agree with me that as we have all been in agreement on the necessity for genuine education to the mass media it would have been appropriate if the debate had been televised? Will he further agree that this matter should be brought to the attention of the television committee of the House?
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I have no personal feelings on the matter one way or the other.
On Question, Motion agreed to

R&D in Nuclear Power: Select Committee Report
3.15 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford Lord Nelson of Stafford rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on R&D in nuclear power (2nd Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 14).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those who have participated in the debate. What has been said has been an encouragement to those of us who worked on the committee. Indeed, much that has been said has endorsed the recommendations which the committee made. I shall not comment in any detail on those submissions.
However, I should like to make but one comment on the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made to the situation in the United States. It is often quoted that the effect of Three Mile Island has dried up all orders for the past 10 years. In fact, the position in the United States is as follows. The lack of orders in the latter 10 years arises largely from the over-ordering which was carried out in the previous 10 years. It does not arise from the effect of Three Mile Island. I think that people should understand that fact.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for her full reply to the debate. I am sure that we shall return to one or two of the points which have been raised, especially where the Government have also been asked to look at them again. I am sure that we shall come back to the question of where the responsibility for security supply really lies and who will take the responsibility for long-term R&D.
I think it only remains for me now to beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on R&D in nuclear power (2nd Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 14)—(Lord Nelson of Stafford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past three o'clock.