Sitting of 17 April 1989

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

    Widows
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to help those 20,000 widows caught in an entitlement trap on the basis of the age bands operating before April 1988.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We intend to restore entitlement to widowed mothers' allowance and widows' pension to all women widowed before 11 April 1988.
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that proposed action, which will negate the trap. How is he identifying the widows concerned and how soon will the exercise be completed?
    Mr. Scott: We estimate that about 20,000 widows are affected. We have checked our records and we have contacted all those whom we have identified. We believe that we have done so accurately but if anyone feels that she might be entitled and has not been contacted by the Department, she should get in touch with us.
    Mr. Fearn: Has the Minister any proposals for increasing war widows' pensions?
    Mr. Scott: Apart from anything else, I do not think that that supplementary question arises from the main question.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the effect of the proposed changes in national insurance contributions on the low paid.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): The proposals have been widely welcomed. I have received only one representation about the effect on the low paid.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed changes are one of the most effective ways of giving help to those earning relatively low wages? Is he aware that 4 million people earning up to £115 a week will benefit by as much as £1·51 per week?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is precisely right about the number of beneficiaries and the amount by which they will benefit. About 15 million people earning more than £115 per week will also gain considerably. They will benefit by £3 per week.
    We are seeing the completion of the initial changes in the national insurance contribution rates that we introduced in 1985. The combination is an effective way of trying to help and to remove the two awkward steps that are part and parcel of the first stage of the reform.
    Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the changes, but I ask the Government to go a stage further. Are the Government aware that Britain has 40 per cent. of all part-time workers in Europe? That is because the national insurance system rigs the labour market in favour of part-time work. Will the Government consider imposing national insurance contributions on employers from the first pound?
    Mr. Moore: We always consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and we shall keep this area of the Departments responsibilities under constant examination. I should stress, however, that I do not share the essential

    3
    analysis which lies at the back of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The growth of part-time work in most western societies, and certainly in Britain, is a feature of the changing pattern of work. It is welcomed by employers and employees alike and is important in terms of work incentives and disincentives.

    Transitional Benefit
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost transitional benefit during April of the current year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Some 610,000 income support recipients have been lifted out of transitional protection as a result of last week's uprating.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that that reply is somewhat disingenuous? Would it not have been better to spell out the fact that last year 2·2 million recipients did not receive the full uprating in line with inflation and that about 1 million lost money? This year, about 500,000 will not receive any uprating and 3·5 million will receive less than the amount necessary to keep up with the inflation figure that the Government have picked. How would the Minister explain to one of my constituents—Mrs. Bridget Williams of 123 Wordsworth road, Haughton Green, Denton—that her uprating this year will be 24p? Does he agree that it is entirely unacceptable in what is basically an oil-rich country for pensioners such as Mrs. Williams to lose in that way?
    Mr. Lloyd: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question precisely as he asked it. It is right that some recipients will not gain from this year's uprating, and I have given the number of recipients who will find themselves in that position. The number on transitional protection remains at about 14 per cent. of all those entitled to income support. The hon. Gentleman refers to a particular case, but I believe that it would be wrong to discuss that case across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contact me about a particular matter, I will reply to him. The overall position of those on transitional support is that while they are on that support they receive more than those in similar circumstances coming newly on to benefit.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the entitlement to income support of the overwhelming majority of claimants will be greater than it was under the supplementary benefit system—those who atcually receive an increase—and that for the 14 per cent. who are not in that category and who are entitled to transitional payments £200 million has been spent on transitional payments in the first year alone?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is correct. At the point of change two thirds of those on income support received either the same amount or more. That explains why 32 per cent. of claimants received transitional payments.
    Mr. John Evans: The Minister must be aware that the withdrawal of transitional payments has created widespread hardship in many parts of the country, but is he aware that a 66-year-old widow in my constituency has
    4
    just received an increase of 35p per week, giving her a weekly income of £45·75? Does the Minister agree that that is a poverty wage?
    Mr. Lloyd: There were massive changes under the new rules which came in last April. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), those changes brought real gains to many people. The changes also produced far greater simplicity in the system and greater fairness as between claimants in similar circumstances. It is not possible to make such massive changes without there being some sad and hard cases during the period of erosion of the transitional payments. I accept that, but I repeat that in all cases where the transitional payment is being made or being eroded, the individual concerned has been receiving payments greater than those to which people in similar circumstances are entitled when coming newly on to benefit.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Under-Secretary of State listen to the BBC feature last week on the loss of transitional protection by disabled people, for which the BBC could not find a Minister willing to take part? Did he hear of the case of Mrs. Hodgson of Northumberland, who cannot even turn over in bed unaided? Is he aware that when her teenage son became 18 he had to leave home so that she would not lose her severe disablement premium but that, as a result, she lost £7 per week in transitional protection? Is the Minister prepared to defend rules which penalise disabled families when they stay together and also when they break up, and if he cannot defend those rules, how does he intend to change them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to defend rules which bring in a special disability premium and make it absolutely certain that the premium reaches everyone in that category. I repeat that I cannot comment across the Floor of the House on particular cases for which I do not have the full details. I did not hear the programme, but it was not a question of a Minister being unwilling to take part —the programme makers did not accept our suggestion that a Minister should make a recording for the programme because the time suggested by the BBC was not possible for us due to other departmental commitments.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Minister claims that many people are better off as a result of the upratings, has he taken into account the real situation facing many people, especially disabled people and single parents? Will he give an analysis of the 610,000 and tell us how many are better off in real terms? Will he also give details of any regional variations as the loss of transitional benefits at the time of uprating has severely hit many people in Scotland, who now also have to face the reality of the community charge which came into effect on 1 April?
    Mr. Lloyd: All those who had an uprating are better off as a result of it. The question that has been at issue is the difference between the old system of supplementary benefit and that of income support. The figures on transitional protection show clearly that two thirds have gained or are in exactly the same position as previously. As to community charge rebates, that aspect is generously organised and rebates are available to at least 1 million people in Scotland if they will apply for them. Those receiving housing benefit will automatically have rebates incorporated in their community charge bills.

    Widowers' Pension
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange that all public sector staff pension schemes incorporate provision for widowers as a matter of course.
    Mr. Scott: From 6 April this year, all occupational pension schemes used for contracting out of SERPS must provide benefits for widowers. Many public sector schemes have provided widowers' pensions for a number of years, and others are currently amending their rules to introduce them.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that now that membership of all pension schemes is voluntary it behoves public sector schemes to keep at the forefront of current thinking on pensions? Does he also agree that in introducing funding for widowers' pensions these can be no question of retrospective funding at the taxpayers' expense where the unions did not bother to argue for it in the first place as in the case of teachers?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's comment that the question of who pays for any retrospection would arise. Many schemes introducing widowers' benefits provide a way for contributors to purchase backdated entitlement. That is a sensible provision. It is right that the Government should set an example by providing for widowers' benefits in the public sector.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is being done to make it easier to claim family credit.
    Mr. Moore: Last December we amended the regulations to make it easier for claimants who are self-employed to use their accounts as evidence of their income. This month we are bringing into use a simpler and shorter version of the family credit claim form.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I recall that when we reviewed the social security system in 1986 the extension of family credit was an important part of the process. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the extended help that he mentions will be greatly welcomed throughout the country. I am pleased to hear that the system has been made easier. As part of the publicity campaign, will my right hon. Friend tell the public of the significant number of claimants receiving more than £20 per week in family credit and perhaps comment on the recent uprating at the same time?
    Mr. Moore: Approximately 60 per cent. of recipients receive £20 per week or more. My hon. Friend is right to say that that has been widely welcomed. The average payment per week under family credit is £25 per week compared with £15 under the old family income supplement. I have made it clear to the House in previous answers that we are now spending £422 million on family credit compared with £180 million on FIS.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government spend billions of pounds advertising the sale of state-owned industries and public bodies? Why does he
    6
    not find money to advertise family credit properly so that the public will understand their entitlement to benefits and claim for them? The Secretary of State is always moaning and groaning about the lack of take-up.
    Mr. Moore: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a very old friend of mine, for having arranged so carefully to allow me to express my congratulations to the media on the way in which they handled the family credit launch campaign last week. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn that £7 million is being spent, quite rightly, on an excellent campaign to encourage low-income families to claim those benefits for which they are eligible under family credit. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's warm congratulations in anticipation of that.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the family credit uprating increases benefits more effectively for target families and children in need than would a simple increase in child benefit across the income board.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, with the new structure of family credit combined with the system of income support, we have been able in last week's uprating to add substantially to the support that we give to families with children. Had there been a straight across-the-board increase in child benefit, more that 1·1 million families—counting those on family credit, 1·4 million, with more than 3 million children—would not have benefited as they have.

    Young People
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to help youngsters who for good reason cannot live at home.
    Mr. Scott: I recently announced a package of measures which will be of real help to those relatively few 16 and 17-year-olds who have no choice but to live independently.
    Mr. Hind: I am grateful for that answer, especially because, having promised to monitor the effects of income support, the Department is now matching words with concrete proposals. Will my hon. Friend explain how 16 and 17-year-olds will benefit from the proposed changes?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that we are fulfilling our pledge to monitor the impact of the new reforms and, where necessary, to make changes. In effect, 16 and 17-year-olds who have to live away from home will enjoy the enhanced benefit equivalent to that paid to 18 to 25-year-olds.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister do anything to help families in my city, with 18-year-old children who next year will have to pay a sum approaching £300 in poll tax that will break up a number of families?
    Mr. Scott: The main question relates directly to 16 and 17-year-olds, not to 18-year-olds, so the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.
    Mr. Stanbrook: In the light of the campaign by the Children's Society, what is my hon. Friend doing to protect organisations which attempt in good faith to assist children forced to live on their own?
    Mr. Scott: Not only have we changed the rate of benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds who have to live alone, but we have announced changes in the support that the Government give to hostels, with a long transitional protection period both for individuals in hostels and for hostels themselves.
    Mr. Flynn: May we, with our customary magnanimity, welcome the improvements that have taken place? Now that the Government have acknowledged the existence of a labour market which does not differentiate between adults when deciding what is necessary to cover their housing costs, will the Minister go the whole way and pay the full adult rate to these people? Is the Minister not concerned that we may be going down the same road as America where a decade of neglect of social security has created an army of 3 million homeless tent people? When will the Government's actions match the growing and very worrying crisis for young people without homes, money or hope?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the restricted welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given to our proposals. I have to say, however, that I am certain that the broad thrust of our policy on 16 and 17-year-olds is right. It is wrong to give people of that age a perverse incentive to leave home. [Interruption.] I represent a constituency where in years gone by—and, indeed, all too often nowadays—young people believing that they could come to the city and chance their luck have been drawn into all kinds of temptation. I do not want to offer that kind of incentive. I believe that we are right to try to identify those who are estranged from their parents and have no option but to leave home and live independently, and to give them extra help.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had recently with local authorities on housing benefit.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The Department has regular meetings with the local authority associations throughout the year to discuss housing benefit, and we consult them formally on proposals for regulations.
    Mr. Jones: The Department of the Environment is forcing councils in my area to put up rents. When will housing benefit be raised in line with those increases?
    Mr. Lloyd: All those who pay rents at or below the market level will receive the full housing benefit appropriate to them. There is no problem about that. More people on lower incomes will have a wider choice of accommodation than they had before.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important that local authorities and local DSS offices should work closely together and co-ordinate their efforts to reduce delay and uncertainty for individual claimants?
    Mr. Lloyd: Housing benefit is paid by the local authority, not by the local DSS, but I agree that there should always be close co-operation between local authorities and DSS offices.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister take steps to consult one of my local authorities—the borough of Trafford—
    8
    about my constituent, Mr. Riley? When Mr. Riley's wife died, the joint pension that he and his wife had received was cut to a single pension. As his housing benefit was also cut, he ended up paying more rent out of a smaller income.
    Mr. Lloyd: Again, I do not wish to talk about particular cases, but the personal allowance will be adjusted to meet the person's new and sad circumstances as a single person, which will have an effect on his entitlement to housing benefit. The rule is that people in similar situations should be treated similarly. A married person who, alas, becomes a single person through bereavement will find that the regulations which apply to him are the same as those which apply to unmarried people.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the root cause of the problem—and of the previous question about young people who cannot find housng on their own—is the fact that antiquated Rent Acts prevent many people from letting a room, a flat or part of their house because, rightly or wrongly, they fear that if they cannot get on with the tenants it will be impossible to get them out? Is my hon. Friend aware that Sweden faced exactly the same problems and has done away entirely with the legislation governing rent which has resulted in a flood of property on to the market and a surplus of accommodation?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot follow my hon. Friend down that track because those are matters for the Department of the Envirionment, but to repeat what I said in reply to an earlier question: where market rents are charged in order to draw more property on to the market, full housing benefit will be available.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Minister must be aware that his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) was a little misleading. He must be aware that in the future, and even in some cases now, it is likely that the ceiling at which housing benefit is paid will not be the same as the rent demanded. If part of the mechanism for deciding the ceiling is to penalise elderly people who keep a spare room for their relatives, is the Minister aware that that will cause not just hardship but outrage?
    Mr. Lloyd: When a person claims housing benefit, the rent officer will take into account the market rent for property of a size suitable for that individual, but the changes will result in a far wider choice of housing than there is now. For suitable property, housing benefit will be paid up to market levels.

    Income Support
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding those pensioners on income support who receive no benefit uprating in April.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Various representations have been received on this subject.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not recognise that when he replies to cases taken up with him it is no good just saying in his letters that the claimant will find the answer "disappointing". For the second year running 1,700 of my constituents in Burnley and Pendle, who are paid by the Burnley DSS office, have received no benefit uprating, with

    9
    the result that they are at least 10 per cent. worse off than they were two years ago. They do not find the position disappointing—they find it appalling. Is it not time that the Government did something for those people?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman's question refers to pensioners on income support, let me tell him one thing that the Government are doing. From next October, we are raising the rate for couples aged 75 and over by £3·50 a week and the rate for the disabled by the same amount.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The income support premium for pensioners is most welcome but it applies to people aged 75 and over and does not, therefore, help many women who retired at 60 without an occupational pension before the state earnings-related pension scheme was introduced in 1978. That applies to women now aged between 71 and 74, many of whose incomes have not risen by 23 per cent., more than the rate of inflation. What does my hon. Friend intend to do to help them?
    Mr. Lloyd: The changes that have been announced in benefits for those who are older are not necessarily the last of the improvements that we shall make to the system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promised to consider carefully all aspects of the system and no doubt when change is demonstrably needed it will be effected in good time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If change is contemplated, will the Minister seriously consider helping those elderly people to whom the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) referred, who have lost out and have no cash increases because transitional protection has been withdrawn? Is the machinery available to ensure that, if pensioners in that category can show, in good faith, that they have not been able to take account of the change—which some of them did not anticipate and of which they were ignorant—the Department can deliver cash help to them immediately?
    Mr. Lloyd: The point about transitional protection being eroded is that it ensures that at no point will there be an actual cash loss or a surprise reduction such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Was the Under-Secretary of State present last Tuesday when the Prime Minister said that she took credit for the fact that 98 per cent. of pensioners had received this year's uprating? Has he since had the courage to tell her that her figures were misleading? Will he take this opportunity to correct her and confirm that of those pensioners claiming income support, not 98 per cent., but fewer than 68 per cent., received the full uprating? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is to the credit of the Government that they have just cut the standard of living of a third of the poorest of all pensioners?
    Mr. Lloyd: I was not present last week, but I understand my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have said that 98 per cent. of pensioners would receive an increase—not necessarily the full increase, but an increase.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my hon. Friend care to remind the House what has happened to the standard of living of pensioners over the past 10 years and how that period compares with the previous five years?
    Mr. Lloyd: The figures have often been raised at Question Time and my hon. Friend is right to draw the
    10
    attention of the House to them once more. The total income of pensioners has risen by 23 per cent. since 1979. That includes SERPS, interest from savings, changes in benefits and the uprating of pensions. All those go to make up an increase of 23 per cent. in total income.

    Disability Benefits
    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has drawn up proposals for the review of disability benefits; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman may have heard my exchange with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in our debate last week. We have made it clear that we welcome comments and discussion on each of the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys, when they are published and in the subsequent period. When we have all the reports, which will be in July, we hope to announce a timetable for further action.
    Mr. Morris: In advance of that review, is it not both shocking and utterly wrong that tens of thousands of severely disabled people should have had not an extra penny from this month's uprating to protect them against an inflation rate that is nudging 8 per cent? Is the Minister aware that, for them, so-called transitional protection is fancy ministerial language for cutting their benefits last year and freezing them this year? Why should any severely disabled person have to sit up and beg for charity to protect already low living standards?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made it clear, in his answers to a number of questions, that the essence of transitional protection is that it is eroded over time. Otherwise, we should extend indefinitely the inequalities between claimants in similar circumstances. We should look at the question against the background of a 90 per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure on the disabled and the long-term sick under this Government. Our record compares favourably with that of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Mr. Hannam: In looking at the basic financial costs faced by disabled people, will my hon. Friend ignore the ridiculously low figure of some £6 a week in the OPCS report which was based on far too wide an average of disabled people? Will he consider the costs of £40 or £50 a week to disabled people in trying to live normal lives? That estimate was worked out by the disability organisations including the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance?
    Mr. Scott: Of course I shall not ignore anything in the OPCS reports as the Government commissioned them and they provide a tremendous source of information on a scale that never existed before. But I recognise my hon. Friend's point. I shall be meeting a deputation, including DIG, in the not-too-distant future, and no doubt that will be one of the matters to be discussed.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the ways in which we can help the severely disabled is massively to increase the amount of money paid in constant attendance allowance, which is currently at just over £34, to those who

    11
    look after disabled people? When compared with the amount of money that the state pays to private registered nursing homes which cost way over £200 a week for one individual, does it not make sense to give more money to those being paid constant attendance allowance so that more people can look after their friends, relatives and others?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point as we consider the balance between the need for institutional care and care in the community. He will know that Sir Roy Griffiths produced an important report on the subject and the Government are considering their response to it. One of the most important matters that will have to be considered in the light of that report is the balance between domiciliary care and care in institutions.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how far up the income scale family credit goes.
    Mr. Moore: Family credit is not just for those on very low wages, and thousands of people have not yet realised the high levels of income that they can have and still get family credit. The level depends on the number of children in the family and their ages. For example, a family with three children aged three, eight and 11 could be taking home up to £141 a week and still be eligible for family credit, and if the children were all teenagers the amount could be over £170 a week; both those amounts are net pay after tax and national insurance deductions.
    One of the main objectives of the major advertising campaign which has just begun is to ensure that people are more aware of the high levels of income at which family credit is payable and how it applies to their families.
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend's answer highlights the fact that many people do not realise that they qualify for family credit. What is the current take-up in terms of expenditure, and, given my right hon. Friend's answer about the advertising campaign, can he reassure me that if there is a much greater take-up in the future, the speed with which settlements will be made will be at least as good as now, if not better?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend confirms the point identified in the research—people's failure to understand that they are eligible—which we are trying to address in the advertising campaign. In answer to his specific questions, the expenditure take-up is running at 65 per cent. at the moment. In regard to the clearance times, when we introduced family credit, we set up a target of 18 working days. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and the House that in March the department averaged 17·1 days in clearance time of which only five days involved departmental work and the rest was incurred when we had to receive information from employers.
    Mr. Frank Field: Now that the Government have launched the advertising campaign, which I welcome, will the Secretary of State tell the House what level of take-up of benefit the Government will consider satisfactory?
    Mr. Moore: I shall continue to pursue as hard, as fast and as carefully as I can all those who are eligible. After one year we have reached 65 per cent. of the approximate expenditure, a very sizeable achievement, as the hon.
    12
    Gentleman knows. While I thank him for his generosity in welcoming our campaign, I prefer to aim for a sizeable increase in take-up and I am not prepared to put a precise figure on the advertising campaign at present. I know that the hon. Gentleman will delight in joining me in welcoming the more than doubling in expenditure on families on low incomes in comparison with FIS.
    Mr. David Nicholson: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, family credit is an excellent benefit in that it is well targeted. However, is he aware of the strong pressure on both sides of the House for its take-up to be increased? Could an improvement be made by simplifying the application form?
    Mr. Moore: We have just been through a process of simplifying the form. The new form is shorter and is not difficult to fill out. The research that has been done—it has been placed in the Library at the request of the Opposition —shows that the length of the form was never seen as a key problem in take-up. I think that my hon. Friend will agree, when he looks at the new form which was published last week, that it is a considerable improvement on the earlier one.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Retirement Housing
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what assistance the Church of England gives to its ministers in obtaining housing when they retire and are obliged to vacate their tied accommodation.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The retirement housing scheme administered by the pensions board and largely funded by the Church Commissioners enables all retired clergy, assistant staff and their widows to obtain suitable retirement housing. This can either be by way of an equity sharing mortgage or by renting a property, both on advantageous terms. Full details of the scheme are set out in the pamphlet issued by the pensions board entitled "Retirement Housing", a copy of which I am arranging to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reassuring answer. Can he clarify and confirm that spouses of retired clergy can enjoy henceforth security of accommodation for the remainder of their lifetimes?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, I can confirm that. The widows of deceased clergymen who are in houses provided by the pensions board can stay in them and may be eligible for extra financial help. There are some 4,200 clergy widows receiving general assistance from the Church Commissioners at present.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Church's record towards retired clergy is rather good but what is poor is the amount that we pay clergy when they are working? What plans does he have to improve that?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that although the average clergy stipend of roughly £9,100 a year is on the low side, it has been increasing dramatically

    13
    in recent years. Also, the factor of help in kind which could be worth an extra £4,000 or £5,000 a year in respect of housing help and so on is not an inconsiderable sum.

    Drugs
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what activities the Church Commissioners plan to counter the growing threat of drug increase.
    Mr. Alison: This is not directly a matter for the Church Commissioners whose principal responsibilities relate to the financial support of serving and retired clergy. However, the General Synod's board for social responsibility has published valuable information packs on drugs and alcohol. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall arrange for the packs to be sent to him. Individual clergy at parish level have access to the information through their diocesan organisations.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that answer and I accept my right hon. Friend's offer to send me the information packs. However, is there no way in which the Church Commissioners can increase the training of clergy so that they can make a greater contribution to the prevention of drug misuse by closer liaison with parents, teachers and social services and through their Church activities?
    Mr. Alison: There is no shortage of the necessary funding for such training. My hon. Friend's point is that there needs to be the greatest possible motivation by local parochial clergy. I shall take note of his point. It is up to the diocese to promote such special interests and the availability of useful information is one way in which the motivation can be stimulated.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the strong connection between the Children's Society and the Church of England, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is impressing on the Government the need to accept their amendments in the Lords.
    Mr. Alison: That is a Parthian shaft that I must deflect over my shoulder because I have no direct responsibility for that.
    Mr. Skinner: Is this what is known as the opium of the people?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a renowned spokesman for the people. I am glad to say that the Church of England is the largest and most representative body of voluntary subscribers to an institution in this country. We would vie with the hon. Gentleman in claiming to be fully representative of the people.

    Easter Communicants
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the trend in Easter communicants since 1980.
    Mr. Alison: The number of Easter communicants each year is gathered from parish returns by the central board of finance of the Church of England, not by the Church Commissioners. The downward trend in Easter communicants from about 1·7 million in 1980 to about 1·5
    14
    million in 1986 contrasts with the upward trend in weekly communicants on a normal Sunday from 699,000 to 716,000 over the same period.
    Mr. Marshall: Would not the trend be more favourable if certain leaders of the Church, such as the Bishop of Durham, did not use Easter as an occasion to declare spiritual UDI? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leaders of the Church should confirm the faithful in our faith rather than sow the seeds of doubt?
    Mr. Alison: I gladly remind my hon. Friend of the upward trend in weekly communicants. The main line to observe is that taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose clear and forceful exposition of the fundamental truths and doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ was a prominent feature of his sermon on Easter Sunday.
    Mr. Cormack: Would it not be helpful if my right hon. Friend took aside the Bishop of Durham, told him that he is likely to go down in history as the Salman Rushdie of the Church of England, and advised him to stick to politics rather than religion?
    Mr. Alison: I am not sure where I would draw the Bishop of Durham aside. If I bring him to the Palace of Westminster, there may be a local riot.
    Mr. Latham: At the risk of seeming to support a theocratic state, does my right hon. Friend think that the number of Easter communicants in 1989 is seriously a matter for the House of Commons?
    Mr. Alison: I think that it is. The existence of a leaven of believers in the most fundamental and relevant of all human truths affects and benefits a lump of secular and civilised society, although it may not have a direct connection with it.

    Sales of Goods
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much money was raised from sales of goods in cathedrals and churches in each of the last three years; what account the commissioners take of these finances; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners do not hold statistics of the amounts raised from the sale of goods in cathedrals and churches. In so far as income from this source forms part of cathedrals' overall income, the commissioners take account of it when they make grants on a selective basis towards the pay of cathedral staff.
    Mr. Greenway: Is it not a fact that many shops, churches and cathedrals open for long hours but would like to be able to sell a wider range of goods than they are currently permitted by the Sunday trading laws? Will my right hon. Friend impress on shopkeepers that they should observe a national compromise like everyone else and not open for four hours on any Sunday?
    Mr. Alison: The laws governing Sunday trading apply to cathedrals and churches in the same way as they do to other bodies. It is in the nature of the Church establishment that it should observe not only the letter but the spirit of the law. I take note of my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Church Commissioners are increasing their investment in retail businesses? Will he ask them whether they intend to take advantage of the offer to purchase the House of Fraser—whose owner said, "Only God can take it from me."?
    Mr. Alison: I shall seek divine guidance before I reply to that sensitive and rather puzzling question.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for some of our greater and finer churches and cathedrals to be turned too much into places of commercial activity? Many people are already, to some extent, put off going to them by this activity when they wish to worship privately.
    Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I hope that he will bear in mind that there is a genuine and legitimate tourist interest—not least from overseas visitors —in the heritage of our churches and cathedrals. It is up to the day-to-day management of the churches, by responsible parochial church councils or cathedral staff, to ensure that the proper balance is struck between those who wish to sightsee and those who wish to worship.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Food (Health Implications)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will post a notice in all cafeterias and restaurants open to hon. Members, giving advice on the health implications of various foods available.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a notice would fulfil any meaningful purpose.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to advise colleagues about whether the Government think it is reasonable, right and safe to eat, for example, eggs, mayonnaise, chicken meat or apples, or to drink water? As most of us are against by-elections—although we are prepared to make some exceptions—does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that, having failed to advise the country competently on what foods are safe, he at least ought to advise Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept a single word of that. As my previous replies on this subject have shown, the Refreshment Department places great emphasis on making available food and menus of good quality, which provide a nutritious and balanced diet. However, there is a point where the Department's responsibilities end and the individual's good sense must prevail.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are much heartened by his response? Will he continue to bear in mind that this is not a kindergarten, but a place for responsible adults who are quite capable of looking after their own health?
    Mr. Wakeham: Certainly. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Mr. Walley: Is not the reply that we have just received indicative of the fact that there is no health policy for eating in the Palace of Westminster? The Government
    16
    allowed the Catering Sub-Committee to consider for 18 months how to introduce healthy food and then to come up with a decision to employ consultants who, we are told, are not suitable to do this work. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the person who was going to do the consultative work had a degree in hotel and catering management, was a state registered dietician and, what is more, co-ordinated the textbook on GCSE nutrition? Why cannot we have a proper, healthy eating policy in the palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Lady knows, the Catering Sub-Committee retains the services of a qualified nutritional and dietary expert. The Sub-Committee put forward a proposal and I understand the hon. Lady's disappointment. However, the Services Committee is entirely free to accept, change or reject any resolution from its Sub-Committee. There would be little point in it reconsidering such resolutions if it were not able to do so.

    Table Office
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the new procedures for access to the Table Office; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have received only one such representation since Monday 6 February, the date on which the restrictions came into effect. The representation was in the form of a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the crush in the Table Office is much eased after tea time? Will he consider allowing those research assistants who have Library passes to enter the Table Office after about half past four?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Wakeham: The rules on access to the Table Office were agreed by the House as part of its endorsement of the Services Committee's recommendation in its second report of the Session 1987–88. Any modification to those rules would first be a matter for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. As my hon. Friend may be aware, the rules which were agreed by the House prohibit Members' staff using the Table Office after 2 pm, Mondays to Thursdays. However, during those times, Members' staff may deposit questions and notices of motion in a box which has been installed outside the Table Office and which is regularly cleared.

    Accommodation
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that the standard of accommodation and fittings to be provided for Members and staff of the House in phases 1 and 2 of the Bridge street development will be at least equivalent to that which has been provided for Ministers and their civil servants in the recently completed Richmond terrace development.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am fully aware of the need to ensure that the accommodation and fittings in the Bridge street development are provided to a standard sufficient to meet the needs of right hon. and hon. Members and others who will be using them. Immediate responsibility for the

    17
    achievement of these standards lies with the New Buildings sub-committee of the Services Committee, which I am sure is aware of the need to protect and promote the interests of the House.
    Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that as much money will be spent on the accommodation of Members of Parliament as has been spent on Ministers' and civil servants' accommodation in Richmond house?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is thinking of the restored eighteenth century rooms fronting Richmond terrace. A decision was quite properly taken to restore and refurbish these rooms in a way that was appropriate to their age and artistic distinction. The other accommodation in Richmond house is equipped from standard Civil Service ranges, and, as I have said, the standard of furnishings and fittings for Members in phase 1 of the new buildings is already being looked at.

    Terrace
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to arrange for the establishment of permanently constructed reception and dining areas on the Terrace of the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. The Terrace pavilion is intended to operate from Easter until Christmas.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about the facility that was unveiled last week? How much did it cost; how many will it accommodate and for what principal functions; and when does he expect it to be in general use?
    Mr. Wakeham: I can tell my hon. Friend some of the information that he requires. The total cost is not expected to exceed £150,000; 75 per cent. of that will come from the Refreshment Department's trading fund account and the remainder from the parliamentary works account. It is planned as a viable project that will not only pay its own costs but is expected to contribute to the general running costs of the Refreshment Department. It will operate from Easter until Christmas each year.
    Mr. John Evans: Was the green and white candy-striped edifice that has just been erected sanctioned by the Royal Fine Art Commission?
    Mr. Wakeham: I think that it was to replace a temporary building that was put up before. That question did not arise.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but does he accept that the first priority should be to provide a reception area at the Norman Porch, so that when constituents come down they do not have to stand in the rain to wait to see the place to which they should have access?
    Mr. Wakeham: There is a question later on the Order Paper on that subject. Certain proposals are being discussed by the authorities in this House and in another place. We hope to make some progress shortly.

    Closed Circuit link
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to make available to all Members who wish it, a closed circuit television link from the Chamber.
    Mr. Wakeham: As Chairman of the Select Committee that is currently considering the televising of our proceedings, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such matters before the recommendation of the Committee are known.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Lord President aware that in the United States members of Congress have access to a sound link and to closed-circuit television? Will he at least consider incorporating such a proposal for the consideration of the House in the forthcoming report?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for our report. I am sure that a number of hon. Members feel that colleagues already spend too little time in the Chamber and would strongly oppose any further move that would worsen that situation.
    Mr. Latham: My right hon. Friend is right. Is not the best way to find out what is going on in the Chamber to come in here and listen?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will have to await publication of our report to see our views on that.

    Visitors
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any further statement to make with regard to providing improved facilities for visitors to the Houses of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has submitted specific proposals to the Administration Committee of the other place, where it is generally recognised that there is a need to improve the arrangements for visitors at the Norman Porch. Those proposals are, I understand, receiving sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does it take so long to resolve this problem? For donkey's years questions have been asked in the House about improving facilities for visitors coming to this place, yet when somebody decides to build a boudoir with Liberace-type candelabra on the Terrace for the top people, the necessary money can be found at the drop of a hat. If we cannot get the other matter resolved would it not be a good idea to allow visitors to occupy that place?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the problems in dealing with this are not just concerned with money, because there is also the question of security. Some steps have been taken but, unfortunately, discussions are still going on and at this stage I am not in a position to say anything further.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been here for nearly 19 years? During that time I have had over 300 visitors and not one of them has ever complained about the facilities.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am delighted to hear that.

Hillsborough Stadium Disaster
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the disaster at the Sheffield Wednesday football club ground at Hillsborough on Saturday. Everyone has been horrified by this incredible tragedy in which 94 lost their lives and 174 were injured.
Shortly after the start of the match, there was a surge of spectators on the Leppings lane terrace, which crushed many at the front against the perimeter fence. This accounted for most of the deaths and injuries.
The match was due to start at 3 pm. To help ensure orderly access, the gates of the ground were opened at 12 noon. At 2.30 pm most of the Nottingham fans were in the ground, but many of the Liverpool supporters were still arriving. It was clear to the police officers in charge that there was ample capacity still to be filled in some parts of the enclosure allocated to Liverpool.
At about 2.45 pm there was a large crowd of Liverpool supporters at the turnstiles in Leppings lane behind the west stand. There was difficulty in coping with the pressure on the turnstiles, and the police used loud hailers to urge the crowd to be patient. At about 2.50, more Liverpool supporters arrived and the numbers in front of the turnstiles increased. Some supporters started to climb the walls and turnstiles, and those at the front of the crowd outside the stadium were under considerable pressure from those behind.
The senior police officer present considered that there was a possible danger to the lives of the spectators at the front of the crowd outside the stadium. In order to relieve the pressure, he arranged for an exit gate near the turnstiles to be opened to let a section of the crowd through. The relationship of that action to the disaster on the terrace shortly afterwards is clearly a central question to be investigated.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I yesterday visited the football ground and the two Sheffield hospitals which received casualties. I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations at the ground, including the many spectators who gave their help, and to those others, including the hospital staffs and voluntary agencies, who have since been working so hard treating the injured and consoling the bereaved. We heard many accounts of courage exerted on behalf of others.
I have asked for further factual reports from the police and other services, the local authority and the Football Association. Inquests will be held in due course. But over and above this, there is clearly need for a full and independent inquiry to identify the causes of the disaster and to examine what needs to be done to prevent such an accident happening again. I have therefore asked Lord Justice Taylor to carry out an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the events at Sheffield Wednesday football ground on 15 April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds."
Mr. Brian Johnson, the chief constable of Lancashire, has agreed to assist the inquiry as an assessor, and arrangements will be made as necessary for other qualified assessors to be appointed and for the inquiry to be provided with technical advice and support. I am asking that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed.
20
Lord Justice Taylor will visit Sheffield tomorrow to begin his investigation. I am grateful to him for agreeing to undertake this task.
However, we need also to take a wider view. The Government believe that the future of football in this country lies in a national membership scheme in designated grounds—[Interruption.]—and now, it seems, also in providing all-seated accommodation at major football clubs. This would involve the disappearance of terraces at those grounds. It might also involve amendments to strengthen the Football Spectators Bill so that its provision for the licensing of grounds matched this concept. We shall be considering these matters urgently.
An appeal fund is being set up by the civic authorities of Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield. The Government will be contributing £500,000 immediately towards this fund.
This was a devastating tragedy. Our deep sympathy goes to the families of those who died, to those recovering, and—particularly moving yesterday—to those young people who are still fighting for life and health. We owe a duty, it seems to us, to these passionate supporters of football to examine urgently and thoroughly the causes and the background, and to do all in our power to prevent such a thing from happening again. We have to set our sights high and find a better way for British football.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I, first of all, offer the deepest sympathy of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to all those who were injured in or bereaved by this terrible tragedy. Little that we say will help them at this moment, but I hope that they find some comfort in the knowledge that the whole country shares their grief and suffering. We also offer our hopes for a full recovery to those 17 patients still in intensive care.
May I also express our gratitude to and our admiration for all those individuals who did such remarkable work saving lives, comforting the dying, and helping the injured —police, fire officers, the ambulance service, St. John Ambulance Brigade, doctors and nurses, the staff of the club, and the football supporters who acted with such great discipline and compassion?
May I go on to welcome the Home Secretary's decision to set up a public inquiry, and express our hope that its report will lead to immediate and decisive action? May I ask the Home Secretary about the police inquiry that is to be carried out at the same time? Can we be assured that neither its proceedings nor its conclusions will delay or inhibit the public inquiry that he has announced today? We need an unequivocal and authoritative account of what happened at Hillsborough, why it happened, and what must be done to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. On the face of it, two parallel inquiries are not the best way to achieve that result.
The report emanating from the public inquiry must be followed by a reorganisation of football ground control, which may take some time to achieve. I refer, for example, to the replacement of terraces with seats. But some action must be taken at once. Will the Home Secretary issue an immediate instruction to those safety committees and chief constables who have insisted upon football clubs installing perimeter fences? Many football clubs have warned for years that perimeter fencing is a potential danger. On Saturday it proved lethal. It must not be maintained where lives are put at risk.

21
We assume that the recommendations of the public inquiry will concern crowd control outside the turnstiles and on the way to matches—not simply organisation and accommodation inside grounds. In the light of that, will the Home Secretary consider the implications of any policy or legislation that results in concentration of crowds outside grounds immediately before matches? The potential consequences of football supporters being held in large numbers outside turnstiles was demonstrated yesterday. Nothing must be done to make such concentrations more likely or more frequent.
Most informed opinion, including that of the police, insists that the concentration of supporters outside turnstiles would be the certain result of part I of the Football Spectators Bill. This morning's decision to push that Bill through Parliament even while the inquiry is sitting is neither rational nor sensitive to the mood of the country. We shall oppose it with every legitimate means at our disposal.
I offer the co-operation of the Opposition for any legislation that is genuinely concerned with football safety. Indeed, I do more: I assure the Home Secretary of my party's profound wish that proposals on safety at football grounds can be made with the general support of all political parties and wholly free from political controversy. It will clearly be in the interests of everybody to obtain unanimous agreement on a subject that has nothing whatever to do with party politics. I ask the Home Secretary to try to achieve that agreement.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which expressed sentiments on which the House is united. He raised several particular points. The chief constable of South Yorkshire took the view, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably consider right, that since the actions of some of his force will be central to any inquiry, it is right that another force, and one with experience in these matters, should undertake the police work that is necessary both in preparation for inquests and to submit the necessary information to Lord Taylor's inquiry. Therefore, he made the announcement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think that there is any confusion or duplication. The work to be carried out by the chief constable of the West Midlands force will be at the service of Lord Justice Taylor, and will not cut across what he does.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about barriers and perimeter fencing, and it is worth answering that point in a little detail. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they are not a statutory requirement, but they are in many places a requirement imposed by the local authorities as a condition of the safety certificate, which is required under the law. The purpose of the barriers and in particular of the perimeter fences is to increase security and improve protection from one type of threat—that of violence.
Mr. Hattersley: Not violence—hooliganism.
Mr. Hurd: That is their purpose. We have yet to find satisfactory means of ensuring that, in removing one hazard, the authorities do not create another.
The Home Office guidance, which the right hon. Gentleman will have studied, specifically lays down the importance of exits on to the pitch through the perimeter fence for emergency purposes. No one who saw the fence and the gate at Hillsborough or listened to those who tried
22
to get through it, often in vain, can believe that the right answer was found on that occasion. It must be for Lord Justice Taylor and the inquiry to look into that. He is aware—I discussed the matter with him this morning—that if he believes, as he may well, that there are certain matters—perhaps this one—that require an urgent interim report, so that steps can be taken in advance of the next football season, he will be able to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Football Spectators Bill. The next stage of the Bill was to have been Third Reading in another place, on Monday next. We believe that the House and the other place will agree that it is seemly to have a short delay in that. Perhaps after that delay, the best course would be for the Bill to complete its stages in the other place so that any additions that we propose in the light of my earlier statement can be introduced when it comes to this House. In the first instance, that is a matter for the usual channels in another place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we are all appalled at this tragedy. Our sympathy goes out to the relatives of those who have been killed and to the injured. It may not be possible for me to call every hon. Member who wishes to ask a question, but I propose to give precedence to those whose constituencies are most directly affected.
Mr. David Blunkett: As the Member of Parliament representing the area that covers the ground and the Northern general hospital, I wish to reiterate what has already been said in paying tribute to those who helped, in the ground, in the community around and at the two major hospitals in Sheffield, to deal with the dead and injured. I offer my sympathy and those of colleagues in the city of Sheffield to the bereaved arid to those families whose relatives have been injured. I am sure that we all want to consider every possible way of avoiding such an incident ever occurring again.
I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that the Sheffield Wednesday football club has done more than most clubs in investing more than £1 million over the past 10 years in improving safety and facilities in a ground that must be one of the best of the top two or three football league grounds in the country.
I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm that the inquiry will accept the task of considering how we might change the image of football. Will it be possible for us to take a fresh look at how we treat football spectators? The behaviour of a few has led to a concentration on actions and attitudes whereby fans are treated as hooligans, or potential hooligans, rather than as human beings.
No one would condone the pressure and the late arrival of fans outside the game on Saturday, but we want to see facilities for entertainment, catering and comfort in grounds begin to restore decency and a sense of purpose. I speak as someone who sat on a small wall behind the goal at Hillsborough when I was a child without fear or anything happening to me or to those around me.
I ask the Home Secretary to reject the alleged statement this afternoon by the president of UEFA, in which he described fans as "beasts". I hope that the Home Secretary will say that we shall restore dignity and a sense of decency to our football supporters and to the viewing of football in Britain.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree willingly that Sheffield Wednesday has put massive investment into modern facilities at the Hillsborough ground. The terms of reference of Lord Justice Taylor are wide and will enable him to range over what he thinks is essential. I agree that those whom my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visited yesterday in the hospitals were human beings who had suffered greatly in body and, sometimes, in mind as well. No one who made those visits could conceivably think of them in any other way.
I agree also with the main thrust of the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). It is by building up the comfort and the conditions of the game and its high reputation that we can attract more and more people to become spectators and restore the attractiveness of the game. That will mean raising our sights, and thinking of new ways of doing that. That is why we have come to the conclusion that seated accommodation in the larger stadiums is an important part of the objective which the hon. Gentleman states.
Sir Bernard Braine: Our hearts go out to the bereaved families, but surely our thoughts should be concentrated on what lessons should be learned for general application thoughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not refer to one pressing matter. Is he aware that, over the past three years, ever since the inquiry of Mr. Justice Popplewell, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, which has unrivalled experience in providing first aid at sports grounds, has been pressing the Home Office, local authorities and the Football Association to provide much higher standards of medical care and equipment at football stadiums throughout the country?
If it has not been possible outside London to achieve these standards—in London it has been all right—will my right hon. Friend take appropriate action in advance of the inquiry? There is clearly a need to ensure that, in any breakdown where injury is inflicted, the rescue services and the magnificient work done by the St. John Ambulance Brigade are not frustrated by a lack of proper facilities.
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the criticisms that have been made. He may have heard the doctor from Glasgow give his considered talk on that matter on the radio this morning. I understand that before the match began two ambulances were at the ground together with attendants from the St. John Ambulance Brigade. The first call for additional ambulances was received by the ambulance service at eight minutes past 3 and within 17 minutes a total of 10 additional ambulances had attended. We spoke yesterday to the head of the ambulance service. Its record of quick recourse is a good one. However, it does not help with my right hon. Friend's point about the facilities already at the ground. I imagine that that is a matter to which Lord Justice Taylor will want to give urgent attention.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: These are probably the most difficult questions that I have ever had to ask in the House of Commons. I say that because many of my constituents and many of the constituents of my colleagues who represent Liverpool and Merseyside, as well as elsewhere, are dead or injured because of the great tragedy at Hillsborough. I am thinking of the families and of the people who are bereaved.
24
It is a tragedy that should never have happened. The people of Liverpool in particular are in deep mourning but there is also a measure of anger because, as has been urged elsewhere, they feel that steps should have been taken well before the match to avoid such things happening.
Although the attitude that the Government have adopted has been sympathetic, may I urge them not to go ahead at the moment with their proposals? Please be sensitive to the feelings of our people. Is the Home Secretary aware that I have recently received letters from some of those who died urging that the Government should not introduce the scheme because they felt that it would add to the existing problems? I urge the Government: please desist at least until the report is published. Let us have another look at the situation.
May I also urge the Government to take some immediate steps? For God's sake, do not let our people be trapped like animals again. I am an Evertonian—I do not often attend Liverpool matches and I was not at this one—but I saw on television the agony and the dreadful scenes when young people, children and others had their lives crushed out of them, not only because of the perimeter fences but because of the barriers. We must ensure that this never happens again anywhere in the country.
Those who are in authority and who had not foreseen that such a situation could develop cannot run away from their responsibilities. The last thing that I want to do is to create a scapegoat and I do not want to condemn the policeman outside the ground who made a decision, thinking, perhaps, that he was saving lives. I just want us to look at the whole situation again, again and again, so that such a tragedy does not happen again.
The interests of the spectators should be put before the interests of everybody else. They must be treated as civilised human beings, not as the enemies of society. Yes, a few enemies of society may get into football grounds from time to time, but our lovely people of Liverpool—and those elsewhere—must never suffer again because they have suffered too much already.
Mr. Hurd: Anyone who watched on television the reaction of people in Liverpool, particularly at the services in and outside the cathedrals yesterday, will know that the hon. Gentleman was right in the way that he started his question. There is also absolutely no doubt from what we heard yesterday that the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about people being trapped, crushed and helpless. That leads back to the point about perimeter fences. The hon. Gentleman is right also to advise against a rush to judgment. Yesterday, we listened to many accounts of what happened from casualties and witnesses. The broad thrust of what they said tallied. However, there were discrepancies—as there usually are—on many important points of detail. It is for precisely that reason that an inquiry is needed.
There is no particular difficulty about part II of the Football Spectators Bill. As to part I, the national membership scheme is designed as a remedy against violence. Violence was not present at Hillsborough on Saturday, but it has been the curse of the game and might be again unless we find the right remedy. The remedy in the Bill flows from the Popplewell report on the last disaster—[Interruption.] In considering the Hillsborough disaster, it would be foolish to forget the lessons of earlier disasters.

25
The action that we propose is reasonable. I mentioned the parliamentary delay that we believe to be seemly. I mentioned also that we want to go forward and not back on the Football Spectators Bill and on the concept of a national membership scheme, which we believe to be necessary and right. We must go forward, to see whether the Bill's licensing provisions need to be strengthened, to make possible the move to all-seated accommodation in big stadiums, which we believe is the right way to proceed. There will be consultations and discussions about that possibility. If we reach the conclusion that the Bill needs to be altered and strengthened in that way, we shall bring that conclusion to the House.
Sir Neil Macfarlane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House wholeheartedly share his sentiments about the heroic acts that took place on Saturday? I shall be grateful if he will address his mind to two points that I will put to him. I associate myself in many ways with the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry will be all-embracing, because the disaster has major implications for many other major spectator sports? Also, can the inquiry be speeded up? Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that the inquiry is desperately important, even allowing for the recommendations made four years ago by Mr. Justice Popplewell. If some of them had been acknowledged, perhaps we would not find ourselves where we are today.
Does my right hon. Friend hold the opinion that it would be premature and foolhardy to proceed with the national membership scheme until he has an opportunity to consider all the contributory factors, both inside and outside the ground, to the Hillsborough tragedy? Those factors clearly included panic on the part of the police and of spectators. I am certain that it would be premature to proceed with the scheme until the inquiry has been concluded.
Mr. Hurd: Lord Justice Taylor's report must be speedy and thorough. In theory, there can be a contradiction between the two. However, I have made it clear to Lord Justice Taylor—and he accepts this—that he may encounter matters and issues that need to be tackled with particular urgency and upon which he may wish to make pressing recommendations. If that is the case, it will be open to him—and I have the impression that he will take this course—to submit an interim report on such matters before he has finished reaching all of his conclusions, so that they may be acted upon. Lord Justice Taylor has it in mind that, as with the Popplewell inquiry, the proceedings of his inquiry will be in public, unless there is a particular reason in any case against allowing that. That is the procedure. I do not want to pin Lord Justice Taylor down to a specific timetable before he has even visited Sheffield, which he is to do tomorrow, but I hope that my hon. Friend feels reassured.
I note what my hon. Friend said about the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and he will have noted what I said in reply. I agree to the extent that we need to set our sights high, and that, apart from other considerations, a delay would be seemly. As I have said, we shall need to look at the Bill to see how it might be strengthened to meet the extra points that I have mentioned. I do not consider that it would be right or
26
sensible to resile from the concept of a national membership scheme or from that of designated grounds, for reasons that I have already given. If Lord Justice Taylor wishes to comment on that, nothing in his terms of reference will prevent him from doing so.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, let me offer my sympathy to the bereaved and injured. Let me also acknowledge the efforts of those who rendered assistance, especially the unsung acts of heroism performed by many young people.
I should like to press the Home Secretary a little on the scope of the inquiry. Will it be wide enough to enable the inquiry to consider whether lessons should have been learned from an alleged incident in 1981, in the same part of the same ground? It is said that there was severe overcrowding on that occasion, but mercifully no one was killed or injured.
The Home Secretary would receive support from both sides of the House if he took a much more robust attitude to the football membership scheme. Many of us feel that even proceeding in the way that he has outlined will inevitably pre-empt Lord Justice Taylor's report.
Mr. Hurd: On the second point, I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have already said. As for the first point, Lord Justice Taylor will of course be able to look at evidence from the past if he considers if relevant.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the kind of issues that Lord Justice Taylor will need to address. I have already mentioned the decision to open the outside gate. There is also the question why, once in the ground, fans were propelled into the central tunnel rather than to the side entrances to the terraces, and the question why those responsible did not notice earlier what was happening on the central terrace behind the goal posts. Then there is the whole question—which we have already discussed—of the perimeter barrier and the gates within it, which were designed to serve as an emergency exit but which obviously failed to do so.
Mr. John Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am one of the strongest supporters of the Football Spectators Bill, and I remain committed to the principle of membership to combat football hooliganism. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that in consideration of what has been said this afternoon—and, indeed, of the tragic circumstances—it would be wise to postpone any further discussion until the full results of the public inquiry are known? I hope that my right hon. Friend will then bring to the House a Bill that will receive not merely all-party support but support from outside the House, to combat the terrible problems that have been highlighted by Saturday's tragic events.
Mr. Hurd: As I have said, there will be a pause for the sake of seemliness—as the House would wish—and also for consultations on the possible strengthening of the Bill. Both purposes are, I think, important from the point of view of my hon. Friend.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the events at Hillsborough ought to make us all step aside from preconceptions and look afresh at how we are to find a better way for British football. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree, even if the Opposition do not, that an important part of that must be protection against hooliganism and violence,

27
and that in that context a national membership scheme, or the kind that flows from the Popplewell report, has a crucial part to play.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I was at the match on Saturday and saw everything that happened. If those events had taken place at a mid-week Cup tie replay on a black, dark January night, with people dashing from work in the rush hour trying to get in, it would have been twice as bad. Most of the fans had a ticket, which is a form of membership card. If the Secretary of State introduces a computer system and a membership card, all we shall need is one idiot to take a piece of chewing gum and jam it into the slot. That would put the turnstile out of action. The police would then have no option but to allow people to rush into the ground through the emergency exit. They would not then be in a position, especially on a dark night, to direct the fans to the proper entrances.
If this tragedy had happened after the Football Spectators Bill had been introduced, the Secretary of State would certainly have had to resign. Will he not wait until the report is published? In the meantime, will he not arrange for the barriers to be taken down? Will he not insist that all big matches are played live on television on Sunday afternoons so that there is less reason for people without tickets to turn up at the ground, as they did on Saturday, and fewer traffic problems? If the Secretary of State took those interim measures and introduced in the next Session of Parliament a safety of sports grounds Bill, we should certainly support him.
Mr. Hurd: The tragedy happened under the existing system, not under any future system. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman has not proved that point. Part of the problem on Saturday, as on other occasions, was that people turned up without tickets, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the belief, which tragically turned out to be correct, that some of them would find a way in. Under the scheme, that would not have been possible because they would or would not have a football membership card. They would not travel to the game in the expectation that they would be let in without one.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Police Federation welcomes both the public and the police inquiry? Will the inquiry particularly consider the safety of stadiums and will it have the power to recommend temporary closure, should that prove necessary? Can he also say whether the inquiry will further consider how supporters travel to matches, the parking arrangements and the way in which supporters approach the ground? Can he further say whether the inquiry will consider the role of the Football Association in connection with the proposed football membership scheme?
Mr. Hurd: We have deliberately cast very widely the terms of reference for Lord Justice Taylor, so that he can examine all those matters that my hon. Friend has listed, I believe without straining at the terms of reference. There are many angles to this—many points of comment and criticism that have already arisen, even in the last 48 hours—and it is right that Lord Justice Taylor should be able to look at them all. The existing system of safety certificates under the 1975 Act and the responsibility of local
28
authorities—how that works out in practice and whether it is right, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out earlier, that perimeter fences should in many cases be regarded as a requirement for a safety certificate—are matters on which Lord Justice Taylor could comment.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: We all grieve today, but some of us are angry. I speak not only as a Sheffield Member of Parliament but also as someone who still stands on the popular side week in, week out. Is the Home Secretary aware that, in the aftermath of Heysel and Bradford, I wrote to his Department and described the extensive improvements that had been put in hand at Hillsborough, costing £750,000 for crowd control and police liaison, and that I invited the Minister who was then responsible for these matters to come up and see them? He did not. Will he caution those who would make whipping boys of Sheffied Wednesday and the South Yorkshire police? Will he concentrate on those who, in trying to shape our safety requirements since Heysel and Bradford, have taken us in a impractical and unreal direction?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look hard at football—its structure, greed and psyche, and its contempt for ordinary working-class lads—and ask how far the football establishment is responsible for the continuing slaughter? During the past three or four years cages have been set up to contain visiting supporters at football grounds that detain them more severely than prisoners of war were detained in world war 2 Britain.
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is unreal and wrong, at this stage and with our present knowledge to look for, or talk about, whipping boys. I am glad that, from the Opposition Benches and from all parts of the House, that has been stated clearly. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have endured—and football supporters in particular have endured—a series of tragedies at home and abroad. We have had a tragic fire, a number of tragedies brought about by violence—Birmingham and Heysel—and now a tragedy brought about not by violence but by physical pressures because too many people were concentrated in one narrow part of the ground.
Each of those different tragedies has brought forth a series of answers, inquiries, reports and guidance designed to avert a recurrence of the most recent tragedy—the one that is on everyone's mind. We must not forget the earlier lessons as we concentrate on the new lessons. We must look at the whole picture. That includes protection against violence and hooliganism and what Popplewell said about fire. It also includes the problems that we have naturally been discussing following the Hillsborough tragedy—the problems of perimeter fences and pressure exerted on people by physical objects that can wound and crush them. Unless we are prepared to consider all these matters, we shall continue to chase partial solutions. That was the nature of my statement today.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: May I join the hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and Sheffield, Atterliffe (Mr. Duffy) in speaking about the tragedy that occurred in Sheffield? I pay my compliments to the emergency services on the way in which they handled themselves at the weekend and to Sheffield people who volunteered to give accommodation to those from Liverpool who were bereaved. When I visited the

29
temporary morgue that had been set up with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport I was appalled by the tragedy. Only when one sees the bodies laid out can one fully appreciate the extent of the tragedy that happened in Sheffield.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bear in mind that it was apparent to me that there was a lack of a disaster plan for that sports ground, which is one of the major sports grounds in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe said, there are few better grounds than that ground. Nevertheless, shortcomings were apparent.
I congratulate the two radio stations, Radio Hallam and Radio Sheffield, which kept up a non-stop commentary on what help was needed for people in the area and the Sheffield Star on its special edition—a copy of which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—which showed graphically the horror and mayhem.
Will my right hon. Friend examine two questions—first, the apparent lack of a disaster plan and, secondly, the part that alcohol played in the disaster?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that Lord Justice Taylor will have to look very carefully at the shortcomings in control and communication which seem to have been present at the crucial moments that afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman's second point becomes substantiated, it will certainly fall within Lord Justice Taylor's terms of reference.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can I say to the Home Secretary that I am probably one of the few people in the House who was at the game, if it can be called a game. I was in the Leppings lane area and I was pinned against a wall for about 20 minutes. One of my immediate observations was the inadequate policing of the Leppings lane entrance. People were coming down the road in quite large numbers and there was virtually no direction. What could have and should have happened is that the outer gates to that enclosure should have been closed to limit the number of people within it. That did not happen, and the police cannot be blamed for removing themselves from within that enclosure as the crushing became greater.
In my view the disaster had nothing to do with late arrivals. When I go to Anfield road to see a football match, I arrive at ten to 3 and walk through with no problem at all, because the policing there is quite adequate and the crowds are broken up by the police outside the ground.
As has been said, football supporters have been virtually disregarded because of the behaviour of a tiny minority of fans, and have been typecast as gorillas and inhuman people. That image develops in the mind of police, politicians and others the idea that everyone who goes to watch a football match falls into that category, and that influences the way that people treat football supporters. That did not happen in Sheffield, because the community around the football ground understood the situation, because their sons, daughters, fathers and brothers are probably football fans. They gave immediate sustenance and help to the football supporters. I wish to express my gratitude to the working-class people in Sheffield who did all they could to assist those who were distressed and injured and to deal with other minor matters.
I do not understand how the Home Secretary can continue to defend a scheme that, had it been in operation
30
on that day, would have caused even greater damage, if that is possible. It is about time that the football industry, the Home Secretary, the House and society in general concentrated their minds on bringing in legislation to make football grounds safe and deal with the hooligan element. No genuine football supporter wants to tolerate that. We want those people rooted out of our sport, and they can be rooted out.
But let us not categorise football spectators so that anybody and everybody will look for an excuse not to listen to them. They know about the grounds, as they visit them week after week, and they know where the faults lie. I hope the Home Secretary will say that the inquiry will have full regard to those people who go to foot ball matches and know the problems. If we listen to them and act upon what they say, the game will be brought back to what it was—a game that families can watch and enjoy without any danger to themselves or to other people.
Mr. Hurd: I hope indeed that football supporters will find their voices and mobilise their ideas and put them to Lord Justice Taylor, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. As regards the police, there was no shortage of police officers—there were upwards of 770 police officers in or around the ground. The hon. Gentleman will agree that many of them showed great heroism for an hour or more trying to extricate people, help people and restore people to consciousness and life.
Of course he is right to say that, as the chief constable has recognised, the decisions of the police and the general question of control and communication will have to be examined by Lord Justice Taylor.
Because of the passionate loyalty of so many for football—we all know of it even if we do not share it—it must be right to do everything we can to restore the game's reputation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions on this matter, please, because a great many hon. Members wish to take part, and it is difficult if long questions are asked.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I am sure the House and the country sense the feeling of tragedy that every person on Merseyside feels today because of the events of Saturday, when what should have been one of the great showpieces of our sporting calendar turned into such a tragedy. On behalf of my constituents and all the people of Merseyside who were helped, I thank the people of Sheffield for all they did. I am sure that I can speak for all my colleagues on Merseyside when I say that our heartfelt sympathy goes to the families of all those who were bereaved, including the family of a 17-year-old boy from Crosby who was named today as one of the dead. It is an absolute tragedy.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about a wide-ranging inquiry. May I ask him to take one particular thing on board, because many lessons must be learned from the events at Hillsborough on Saturday? Will he see that part of the inquiry looks at the way in which the Football Association allocates tickets to the clubs involved in major sporting occasions? For clubs such as Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton, Arsenal and Tottenham, with huge followings, the allocation is often fearfully

31
inadequate and exacerbates a problem which should not exist but which we all know was part and parcel of the problem causing the fatal events on Saturday.
Mr. Hurd: That point will certainly come within the review. There seems to be a general opinion—Lord Justice Taylor will test this—that there was still room at the Liverpool end of the ground. The trouble was not that the total space was overcrowded but that particular area—[Interruption.] Yes, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, the distribution was wrong. That is what I was referring to when I talked of people being propelled through the central tunnel rather than directed round the sides where there was access to parts of the Liverpool terraces. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw also mentioned that people came from Liverpool without tickets in the hope of getting in. Both those facts aggravated the situation.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Yesterday afternoon at this time, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and myself, together with dignitaries from the three cities involved, were standing on the turf in front of where all those people were killed. Everyone stood silently; there were no photographers present. Our hearts went out from Sheffield to the people of Liverpool. The heart of Sheffield is collectively a great heart and the people of Sheffield are appalled at what happened. The last time I stood in such a way was a long time ago during the war. The sense of what had occurred was horrific to me, and, I hope, to everybody.
We all have our opinions about what went wrong. I know the ground intimately, the exact spot and all the details, but I do not want to apportion blame now. When the inquiry takes place, we should all realise that it is the most important inquiry in the history of football in this country and what it decides will decide the future of football. Football is a dynamic, not a static, sport. It will not stand still and will never go away—thank heaven—but we want to make the proper decisions.
Therefore, I want voices that say, "Do it rapidly," to be listened to with much care. I do not want skimping. The decisions that we take must be long-term decisions. Every aspect must be considered; otherwise, this will occur again and we shall once again need to have another melancholy inquiry into what went wrong. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State that we shall have such an inquiry and that it will not be rushed in any way whatever.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I should like to mention the generosity of the people of Sheffield, which has been evident. I have heard many stories of offers of help, accommodation and transport to complete strangers from his constituents and other citizens of Sheffield.
I repeat, without wishing to be tedious, what seems to be the crux of the matter. We have had a series of disasters and tragedies arising from different causes and circumstances. We must not simply ignore the earlier lessons and concentrate on the latest ones. The latest one is terrible and perhaps more appalling than the others because of its nature. It therefore needs to be thoroughly and urgently investigated, and the totals must be added together to find a new way for British football. The hon. Gentleman rightly
32
said that the inquiry must be dynamic. There must be no resting on ancient attitudes as the right foundation for the future of the game.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am sure that the House will join me in sending condolences to the families of Colin Sefton and David Rimmer, constituents of mine, who died, and Robert Graham, who is fighting for his life in intensive care. May I express, on behalf of the people of Skelmersdale and Ormskirk, who are ardent Liverpool supporters, our appreciation of the Sheffield services, which acted so quickly?
I support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the introduction of all-seated grounds, which I have advocated for some time and regard as a solution. Will he return to the Bradford City fire report by Mr. Justice Popplewell, in which he will find among the 63 recommendations one that says that it is essential to have exit gates in perimeter fencing that keeps in the crowd to give an exit on to the field should there be disturbances? Will he reconsider that and bear in mind that such gates do not exist at 16 first division grounds, including Manchester United's ground, Old Trafford, where it is proposed to hold the rematch of this game in the next week or two?
Mr. Hurd: One point on which we can all agree is the absolute necessity of emergency exits through perimeter fences. As my hon. Friend said, that is contained in the Popplewell report and is clearly spelled out, with specifications about the widths of gates, in paragraph 215 of the Home Office guide to safety at sports grounds. Anyone will agree that if the guidance is implemented it is adequate. There must be an investigation in to why the exit gate was not an effective way in which desperate people could get on to the pitch.
Mr. David Alton: In the face of this terrible and wholly avoidable tragedy—many of the fatalities were young children, including a 13-year-old boy from my constituency—expressions of condolences and sympathy seem inadequate to sum up the enormity of it for a city that is mourning its dead and is united in its grief.
A time will come when grief will give way to anger and questions will have to be answered. I should like an assurance from the Home Secretary that it will be made clear why the gate was opened and who took that decision. Why were emergency arrangements so pitifully inadequate? I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the provision of seats in our national stadiums, but will he take urgent action to ensure that those terrible metal cages are put on the scrap heap and people are treated like human beings instead of animals?
On 22 March, I wrote to the Minister about the ticket allocation for Saturday's match. I enclosed a statement from Mr. Peter Robinson, the chief executive of Liverpool football ground, who said:
"I made it plain that there was no way I could support the choice of Hillsborough this year with the same ticket allocations applying."
When I received a reply dated 11 April from the Minister of Sport, he said that the mater was entirely for the football authorities. In the light of what has happened, will the Home Secretary accept that the Minister should take an interest in this matter? Will he confirm that which the Minister said, that the allocations were made on the basis of police advice? I ask that because there have been conflicting statements in the past 24 hours.

33
Liverpool is a city schooled in adversity. However, not since the blitz has it had to face a tragedy on such a shocking scale. I am sure that the House today will wish to express its solidarity with those who grieve and those awaiting news of loved ones, whose lives still lie in the balance.
Mr. Hurd: All the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are clearly covered by the terms of reference of the inquiry, and Lord Justice Taylor will be able to look into them. I am slightly surprised that he suggests that Ministers should become involved in deciding, match by match, how tickets should be allocated. He is perfectly right in his understanding—these are matters for the football authorities. They consult on them and are guided by the police. I shall repeat my earlier point that, although the matter of total allocation will certainly be looked into, it was not the total allocation, so much as the concentration of that allocation in a part of the Liverpool terrace, which resulted in the terrible damage.
Mr. Jim Lester: May I, as a regular supporter of the Nottingham Forest team, speak on behalf of all its fans and the people of Nottinghamshire, and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller)? It was a most tragic accident and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, no words uttered in this place will fill the gaps in those families who have lost young people who went out on a happy day which ended in tragedy.
We should recollect that more factors unite football fans than divide them. That was clearly shown at the Hillsborough ground when the Nottingham Forest supporters—as soon as they realised that a tragedy was taking place—behaved in an exemplary fashion and helped in every way. The majority of people who follow football are united in the game's interests. The Home Secretary has an opportunity to utilise that good will on all sides. There is no shortage of suggestions or ideas. I beg him not to rush ahead too far but to think carefully before he proceeds in any direction. He should take all the advice given from all those of good will who want the future of football—this country's national game—to continue in a proper and rightful way.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend that the right sequence of action is thought, consultation, thought, action.
Mr. Terry Fields: Like thousands of Liverpool families on Saturday, my wife and I waited tearfully and anxiously because we had two sons and a nephew in that part of the ground where the disaster happened. My relief on discovering that my family was all right was tinged with the realisation that thousands of other Liverpool families would never see their kids come home as a result of the terrible tragedy. After the Heysel tragedy we were assured that the Prime Minister would leave no stone unturned in discovering who was responsible. I want an assurance today from the Home Secretary that, similarly, no stone will be left unturned when this incident is investigated.
Others have said that they are not looking for scapegoats, but the anger that permeates Liverpool today reflects the tragedy that occurred in Georgia in the USSR, after which the top tier of the country's leadership was forced to resign. We need assurances, because we do not
34
want a whitewash. The fans are paramount in this incident, and must be consulted when the in-depth inquiry takes place—no matter how long it takes for their point of view and experiences to be put across. If they were decent, honest and honourable, the responsible Minister, chief of police and FA officials would resign.
How long are we going to carry on treating fans like cattle? Their treatment contrasts with the champagne swilling that goes on in the plush directors' boxes. The views and conditions of the fans must be taken into account. If we lock people up we create a certain mentality, and it is little wonder that they react in these circumstances.
Mr. Hurd: Nothing that we heard yesterday at the ground or in the hospitals bears out the sort of rhetoric that the hon. Gentleman has sought to employ. It is precisely because of the incredible nature of the tragedy that we have moved quickly to set up what even the hon. Gentleman would agree is a fully independent inquiry with what even he would agree are wide and complete terms of reference. The proceedings will be conducted in public, unless there is a special reason for not doing so. It will be open to everyone to make their views and recommendations known. That is the proper way to proceed and then to reach conclusions afterwards—instead of gabbling with malice, as the hon. Gentleman has done today.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about putting the Football Spectators Bill on ice. Is he aware that many of the police are concerned that if the Bill is enacted and crowds build up outside stadiums the same sort of thing could happen again as happened on Saturday? Would it not be better to wait for the results of a full inquiry and then to bring forward a Bill that is acceptable to everyone concerned with football?
Secondly, was my right hon. Friend, like me, nauseated by some of the pictures in some of the tabloids, which must have caused enormous distress to some of the bereaved families? Would it not have been better if they had never been published?
Mr. Hurd: On the first point, perhaps I can add something to what I have already said. I remind the House, which has not yet considered the Bill, that it is an enabling framework and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already given a full commitment not to implement the scheme within that framework until the necessary technology has been satisfactorily worked out. My hon. Friend will agree that the point about terraces that I emphasised at the beginning is also relevant.
I note what my hon. Friend said about newspaper photographs, and I also note that the new chairman of the Press Council has said today that the Press Council should inquire into that matter.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I was at the other semi-final on Saturday at which the other Merseyside team, Everton, was successful, but there was no real rejoicing. When we came out of the ground and learned of the problems at Hillsborough, we were all united in grief with all football fans on Merseyside.
Will the Home Secretary use his influence to get football clubs to be more flexible about kick-off times? One of the reasons why crowds try to crush through turnstiles

35
quickly into the central areas of grounds is that they hear the roar from inside the ground when the teams run on to the pitch and play starts. Matches in Germany are often held up for half an hour to ensure the safety of the spectators, which should come first.
When, oh when, will the Government escape from the "We never make mistakes" syndrome? When will they learn from their Back Benchers, not one of whom has supported them this afternoon, withdraw part I of the Football Spectators Bill and start from scratch?
Will the Home Secretary ensure that the inquiry examines the location of football grounds? I know that there can be improvement—by relocating grounds when necessary—only in the long term, but too many of our grounds are in built-up urban areas. Because of the war, Germany and Holland have been able to build grounds in open space areas in which there are far more facilities for controlling crowds. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions; long questions are unfair to other hon. Members.
Mr. Hurd: I shall try to be succinct. I have much personal sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point about flexibility and timing of the start of matches. I am sure that that will be looked into. I have nothing further to say on the other matter.
Mr. Churchill: May I on behalf of my constituents and supporters of Manchester United join in the expressions of sympathy to the families of the bereaved? Will my right hon. Friend have urgent consultations with the football authorities to ensure that in future special coaches and trains for away matches do not leave their points of origin unless everybody on board is already armed with a ticket? That would avoid thousands of fans, many of them without tickets, arriving simultaneously five or 10 minutes before the start of a match.
Mr. Hurd: That is an interesting suggestion and I shall make sure that the inquiry takes it into account.
Mr. Robert Parry: I should like to be associated with the condolences and the messages of sympathy to the bereaved families. I pay tribute to the Liverpool supporters and the Evertonians for their tribute to Liverpool yesterday at Anfield and at Liverpool metropolitan cathedral. I was present at both those ceremonies and they were very moving. My brother's son lost three friends on Saturday, all of whom were in their twenties. That was a tragic loss of life. I welcome the public inquiry and hope that there will be no cover-ups. Such a tragedy must never happen again, although any preventive measures are too late for all those people who are now dead.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the way in which he expressed himself.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My constituents are shocked that even the London suburbs should now be associated with this terrible tragedy. Sarah and Victoria Hicks, two teenage girls attending the match with
36
their family, now lie dead. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the shadow of this tragedy it would be easy to jump to conclusions and adopt what might be fashionable solutions? Will he give us an assurance that the widest possible brief will be followed by the inquiry to ensure that we can genuinely call our sports grounds safe? Will he ensure that all recommendations by the inquiry are legislated into action?
Mr. Hurd: Certainly, as my hon. Friend will have seen, the terms of reference are very wide. When we receive the report—whether it is an interim and then a final or a single report—we will need to act quickly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we have a heavy day ahead of us. I shall call those Members whose constituents have been most severely affected, the Liverpool Members, and then we must move on.
Mr. Frank Field: May I, too, associate myself with the statements made to the families who lost people on Saturday? I find it impossible to express the despair that I feel and that suggests something of the utter desolation that those families must be experiencing at this time. While none of those families will today be thinking about compensation, does the Home Secretary think that we have a duty to them? Am I right in saying that some families who lost members on Saturday will receive no automatic compensation payments? Is that right or fair? If it is not fair, will the Government change the law?
Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is no automatic compensation. Of course I have read about the possibilities of civil action and I have also read and spoken about the fund that has been set up. I should like to look further into the matter.
Mr. Sean Hughes: I represent half the borough that is today mourning the deaths of 12 young people, including the infinitely tragic death of a 10-year-old child from my constituency. As an Everton season ticket holder, I was at the other semi-final. As a football supporter I share the disappointment of many people at the Home Secretary's reply about the ID scheme which demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the nature of the football fan. Increasingly, in the greatest spectator sport in Britain, the least important person is the spectator. We feel very deeply that the Government and the Football Association do not demonstrate an awareness of that fact.
Finally, in addition to the disappointment that has been caused by what we have heard about the ID scheme, there will be disappointment about the Home Secretary's response to questions concerning the allocation of tickets. I remain absolutely convinced that the allocation of tickets for big games, such as semi-finals and finals, is crucial. Going to a football match is not like going to the theatre; it is a way of life for an enormous number of people. Those people will be acutely disappointed by what has been said about the allocation of tickets. The fans who turn up without tickets, and those who pay exorbitant amounts to ticket touts, are not the ones who are intent on hooliganism; they are the ones who have been going, match in, match out, throughout the season, but cannot get tickets for the big games. Therefore, the Football Association too must be thoroughly investigated.
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely that the allocation of tickets—working out the totals between the two clubs—is extremely important. What I was arguing against was the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), that this is a matter that Ministers should decide.
Mr. George Howarth: I should like to associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed. At the invitation of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority, I visited Sheffield yesterday. I was very touched indeed by the response of some Nottingham Forest supporters, who had organised a collection in their pub the previous evening and had come to the ground to present more than £100 towards the appeal fund. It was very helpful of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) to make arrangements so that those of us who came over were able to find our way around and could go to the appropriate places.
Having spoken to several people who came over to Sheffield yesterday to find out what had happened to their relatives, I think it is clear that the emergency telephone system simply did not work satisfactorily on Saturday. I spoke to one woman who had tried for eight hours to find out what had happened to her son, but had been unable to get through. I understand from the fire and civil defence authority that an exercise was conducted recently—using the Bristol exchange—aimed at dealing with precisely such problems, and that that exercise was relatively successful. On this occasion, the provision of far more lines would have enabled the emergency telephone number to work more effectively. I understand that that system was used for the flotation of the British Gas shares. If it was good enough for the flotation of the British Gas shares, it would have been good enough as an emergency system.
Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Member has said, there certainly was a problem of swamped lines, as there often is on these occasions. I understand absolutely the distress, anxiety, and worse, caused by that, but I think that it is rather apart from the terms of reference of the inquiry. Perhaps I may look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and then get in touch with him.
Mr. John Evans: In view of the fact that fans from St. Helens died at Hillsborough on Saturday, I want to associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed.
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the trouble started outside the ground because of the late arrival of fans and the inability of the turnstiles to cope with them? Will he ask Lord Justice Taylor to look into the traffic arrangements for visiting fans, bearing in mind the abysmal signposting and the sometimes rather odd decisions of traffic police when they are directing fans towards the ground?
Secondly, can the Home Secretary inform us that the South Yorkshire police will reply directly to the inquiry, and will not allow the West Midlands police to answer on their behalf?
Mr. Hurd: The question of traffic and signposting is certainly within the terms of reference of the inquiry, and I shall make sure that it is noted.
On the second point, as I explained earlier, the chief constable believes—and I think that he is quite right—that since the actions of some of his officers are obviously a
38
matter for the investigation, it is right, for the credibility of the exercise, that the police preparing the information for Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry, let alone for eventual inquests, should not belong to the same force. Therefore, the chief constable looked for, and found, another force and another chief constable with a high reputation and with experience in these matters to do that job on their behalf. I think that that is the right course.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As somebody who has constituents who are now dead, or are relatives of those who are dead as result of this tragedy, and as someone who lived in Sheffield for 25 years, I have a dual interest in this matter. Will the Home Secretary take one urgent step, which I hope is non-controversial? Will he arrange that all the film coverage and the pictures that were taken on Saturday both by ITN and the BBC and by amateurs be made available to the inquiry? Unless we move quickly, that footage may be lost and it contains evidence that may be of great value to the inquiry, because it will enable the inquiry to see the pressures both inside and outside the ground, and allow it to draw some valuable conclusions.
Mr. Hurd: I know that there are sometimes difficulties about this material, but that is a valuable suggestion, and I shall pursue it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will now call two Back-Bench Members from each side, and then we must move on.
Sir Anthony Grant: I shall not comment on the Hillsborough ground itself, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that in many grounds, the facilities are deplorable. Will he have discussions with his colleagues in the Treasury to see whether the tax system can be adapted so that there is an incentive to invest in improved stadiums, and a disincentive to spend ludicrous sums on transfer fees? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to make any decision about the Football Spectators Bill this afternoon, but will he say that the Government will reflect on the views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon?
Mr. Hurd: I have noted those views on the Bill. I believe that the Bill, which addresses a different problem from the one that caused the tragedy at Hillsborough, is soundly based. There will be a pause, as I have said, and there is a case for adding to the Bill and strengthening it. However, the improvement that we are seeking for football cannot be total without a provision along the lines of a national membership scheme. On the first matter, my hon. Friend is touching on a point that is sensitive in the football industry, but he is right to say that those in it must examine carefully the priorities for spending their not inconsiderable resources.
Mr. Richard Caborn: I associate myself with all the remarks made by my Sheffield colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I was at the ground, with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I ask the Home Secretary to take action on perimeter fencing. Yesterday, I spoke to some experienced engineers, one of whom said that this was an accident waiting to happen. I call on the Home Secretary to ensure that no major games are played with fans kept behind perimeter fencing.

39
Today, the media have been singled out, and the local radio stations in Sheffield, both Radio Hallam and Radio Sheffield, played a major part in helping to co-ordinate the magnificent efforts made by the Sheffield people in, for example, blood donation and other services, and the arrangements between the Liverpool and Sheffield families. When the Home Secretary looks at the White Paper on broadcasting and particularly at that part dealing with local radio, I ask him to bear that effort in mind. Local radio showed what magnificent assistance it can give in a tragedy.
My main point to the Home Secretary is that he should consider carefully the removal of those fences. I think he will find that all the major engineers were saying that that was an accident waiting to happen.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about local radio. The perimeter fences are not there by accident. They are there because local authorities, to issue safety certificates, have often required them as a form of protection against violence.
Mr. Hattersley: No, against hooliganism.
Mr. Hurd: The danger of violence has not gone away. What is required is a way to reconcile the need to protect spectators against violence with the need for people to be able to get out on to the pitch, or to get back in the case of emergency. That is tackled in the Home Office guidance, but it did not work successfully at Hillsborough. That is the nature of the problem that the inquiry will have to tackle.
Mr. David Evans: Is not the Football Spectators Bill about separating the hooligans from the football fans? It is an enabling Bill and the FMA and football itself will put forward a scheme for the Secretary of State to approve.
Are there any plans to introduce legislation to remove the control of football from the Football Association and the Football League, which have consistently been incompetent and, some would say, bloody-minded in their attitude to football spectators? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that football families will be able to go to football grounds in safety and be safe within those grounds?
Mr. Hurd: On the second point, there is evidence of thinking ahead, which I welcome. I notice that Mr. Graham Kelly said on television that he supports the move towards all-seated matches in important stadiums, and I notice that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), with his experience, agrees. It is partly because of the evidence of fresh thinking among the football authorities that we have given that suggestion the impetus that I have announced today.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: At the end of these questions, I ask the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to reflect on the view, which has come from both sides of the House, that, in the light of Saturday—we all saw it on our televisions and have read the newspapers and the views of interested parties—the Government should withdraw the Football Supporters Bill? They would not be losing political face, in the light of the feelings that have been expressed. The Taylor report will look at these matters afresh—those are the words of the
40
Home Secretary. The police inquiry, under the chief constable of the West Midlands force, is a statutory inquiry. It will be looking, legalistically but carefully, at the role of the police.
Why not wait until those reports are out and come back with a new Bill? I am sceptical about the identity card scheme, and I say that from experience because I live alongside the Leeds United football ground. However, if the reports are in favour of identity cards, I would be prepared to change my mind. Therefore, the Bill should be abandoned until the reports are in.
Mr. Hurd: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and to others who have said this. The comments would be just if this tragedy had occurred under the new regime. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows the origins of this proposal. He knows the recommendation in the final Popplewell report and the nature of the scheme. He knows, as I have said and as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has just confirmed, that the Bill sets up an enabling framework. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already committed himself not to implement the membership scheme, which is the core of part I, within the enabling framework, until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out. He knows what is in the Bill about the making of those arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman is accustomed to seeing things in the round and I do not believe that he would argue that, because there was no violence at Hillsborough, which I concede, we can forget the lessons of earlier disasters where there was violence, and which were examined by Mr. Justice Popplewell.
Mr. Denis Howell: On behalf of all those who were present on Saturday to face first the trauma and then the grief of what happened, I ask the Home Secretary firmly to repudiate the provocative, inaccurate and disgraceful statements made by representatives of UEFA and FIFA. In particular, Mr. Jacques Georges said:
"This region seems to have a particularly aggressive mentality."
He drew comparisons with Heysel, and said that the fans were "savages". Sepp Blatter of FIFA said:
"Will the fans never learn?"
Will the Home Secretary support us—I speak with the authority of the Football Association and the Football League—in totally rejecting that suggestion, that the Liverpool supporters and fans were in any way responsible for this tragedy? The Home Secretary would carry us all with him if he did so.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to realise that there is a difference between crowd behaviour control and crowd safety. As one who was there on Saturday, I know that there was no crisis management there. There was no apparent relationship between the fears of those outside the ground and the danger to those inside the ground. There was no appreciation or understanding expressed about conditions and delays on motorways and of the effect that they would have on late arrival at the ground. There was no proper crowd control and no arrangements were apparent inside the ground for dealing with the disaster and with the mass of injuries and deaths which had to be dealt with. It was not apparent that any member of the police force—I do not say this critically—understood that the first priority was to get the fences

41
down and to get the 10,000 spectators on to the field, that being the only possible place to which they could be evacuated.
I turn to the controversial aspect of the Home Secretary's statement. Lord Justice Taylor's appointment to conduct the inquiry is a commendable choice and I fully support it. Is he to proceed with his inquiry on the assumption that the Football Spectators Bill will be enacted? It will have a profound effect upon his thinking, and that is one of the reasons why the Bill should be withdrawn.
Many of us are distressed by the adversarial philosophy that the Government practise on sport as in other matters. They never trust the supporters associations, and the Minister has not even suggested that the association be appointed a member of the Football Membership Authority. It is my experience, having dealt with the association in recent months, that there is enormous collective wisdom and good will to be harnessed, especially from football supporters and their associations' representatives. Will the Minister please take counsel from them? Will he listen to what they say, as should the police and the football authorities? The good will has to be tapped.
I say to the Home Secretary as gently as I can, but I am afraid harshly, that the decision to continue with the Football Spectators Bill in all these circumstances is a profound mistake. It is appalling arrogance for the Government to think that they know better than anyone else. The Government never consult the Opposition on these matters. They never consult football generally about these matters. As far as I can see—[Interruption.] It is true. The Minister for Sport may get upset, but three times I have offered from the Opposition Dispatch Box to formulate a policy that would, in effect, cross the House. I have never been invited to meet the Minister to discuss these matters. This is disgraceful and it is time that this lack of discussion came to an end.
I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on what he has said today. He keeps telling us that the Government will proceed with the scheme because of previous violence, but there has been no substantial violence within football grounds for three years.
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for remaining in her place throughout the exchanges to listen to what everyone has to say, but I say to her and to the Home Secretary that anyone who was present on Saturday, as I was, will know that advocates of a membership scheme that requires harassed gatekeepers, in addition to their great traumas and problems, to inspect cards, possibly to look at photographs, and then to put the cards into a machine, are saying, in effect, that they wanted the disaster to be aggravated. That is the essence of the problem.
I ask the Home Secretary to try to achieve a consensus within football generally and within the House so that we can all agree to get through this place a Bill to deal with football troubles, whether they be behavioural or are related to ground safety. If we are all convinced about the merits of such a Bill, we shall be happy to support it and to secure its passage in record time. I ask the Home Secretary to take on board the collective view of everyone in the country, except the members of Her Majesty's Government, that the Football Spectators Bill should be withdrawn in the interest of public safety.
Mr. Hurd: I have not read the generalisations which the right hon. Gentleman quoted at the beginning of his intervention. If they are as he stated, they are certainly wholly unjustified by what occurred at Hillsborough. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for getting in touch with me on Saturday night. He is correct in saying that the problems of control and communications, some of which he listed, are central to the inquiry.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) concluded the exchanges by using what happened at Hillsborough as a stick to beat the Football Spectators Bill—[Interruption.] That is what he did. He is straining and upsetting history to argue that the approach of my right hon. Friends has been arrogant or adversarial. I have been present at several meetings at which my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport have been straining nerves to try to carry football with them. They have done this year after year. What is the date of the Popplewell report? The answer is 1986. The effort which has been made by my right hon. Friends to build support and to carry the football authorities with them has been prolonged and conscientious. It is only because that effort did not yield a voluntary scheme on the lines which Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended that the Bill has been drafted.
I repeat that the Bill is an enabling measure. It has been worked out by my right hon. Friend's working party. The assurances that have been given about implementation are crucial to it. It is in the interests of football supporters—the right hon. Member for Small Heath rightly stressed their importance and their commitment—that there should not remain the gap in protection that the Bill is designed to fill.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the statement. The terms of reference of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry are clearly wide and the timing of the report is indeterminate. It surely follows that the conclusions of such an inquiry could be contrary to the views of House that are taken in pursuit of legislation of which we have just heard. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that in this instance the sub judice rule does not apply? Would not that be the view of most persons with legal training?
Mr. Speaker: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. The sub judice rule does not apply to legislation.
Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of the inquiry to our greatest spectator sport and to thousands of our constituents, can you assure us that the report will be debated before any recommendations or observations are acted upon?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words have been heard by those who are responsible.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4092/1/89 on pesticide residues be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day

  Dock Work Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we debate a highly controversial Bill, may I seek your advice on an issue that raises serious public concern? You will be aware of recent reports about hon. Members having interests outside the House and receiving rather large sums in remuneration for them. Is it acceptable for hon. Members who represent business interests in the docks and who are remunerated for representing those interests to debate the Bill or to vote upon it? Will you give me a clear ruling on that?
  Mr. Speaker: That question was asked of me last week. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present. I confirm that it has always been in order for hon. Members both to speak and to cast their votes on matters of public policy.
  Given the late start of the Bill, I propose to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. I ask those on the Front Benches and those who may be called before 7 o'clock to bear in mind that constraint.
  5.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  Before I begin my remarks, on the Bill, I associate myself with the words of sympathy from both sides of the House on the preceding statement.
  There are a number of ways of stating the case for this Bill. It is possible to set out the glaring but inevitable anomalies in a dock labour scheme which dates back to legislation passed just after the end of the second world war and which was designed to meet the needs of the ports industry in the 1930s and 1940s. It is possible to establish the cost of the scheme which has led to a bill of almost £1 billion for the taxpayer and the ports industry put together, plus the extra costs which the customers of the scheme ports have had to bear. It is possible to describe some of the restrictive practices which have grown up and which have made the ports covered by the dock labour scheme less competitive than they should be.
  Those are all strong arguments, and the House should consider them all. They all add to the overwhelming case for the abolition of the scheme, but I believe there is one factor which precedes all that. It is that the abolition of the scheme will ensure a better future for the ports industry in this country and will provide a better future for those working in the industry. What is more, abolition will provide a better future for the areas—often inner-city areas—around the ports themselves.
  The fact is that, for all its restrictions, the scheme has provided no security in the docks. Jobs have gone; companies have gone bankrupt; new recruitment of young men has been limited and sometimes non-existent; and long lines of workers have volunteered to leave the industry altogether.
  Clearly some of that change—some of that contraction—has been inevitable. Modern technology has meant that
  44
  fewer dockers have been required. Nevertheless, scheme ports have lost both jobs and trade. Twenty years ago, there were 45,000 registered dock workers. Today there are 9,400. Twenty years ago, scheme ports handled over 90 per cent. of our nation's trade. Today they handle something like 70 per cent.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: In view of the information that the Secretary of State has just given to the House, is it not misleading for Government supporters to go round the country talking about "jobs for life"?
  Mr. Fowler: The point about the so-called "jobs for life" is that in no other industry are workers guaranteed a job irrespective of whether there is work to do.
  The scheme has created surpluses, and those surpluses have threatened the viability of the ports. The only way to reduce those surpluses has been through voluntary redundancy, which has been massively financed by the taxpayer because the industry could not afford it. That is the essential case and it is a strong and unanswerable case.
  It is instructive to compare what has happened in the non-scheme ports. In the main, the reason why those ports are not in the scheme at all is that they were of no consequence for cargo handling in 1947 when the scheme was drawn up. Felixstowe, for example, was, just a wharf. Yet the ports outside the scheme now account for 30 per cent. of our trade in volume and half our trade in value. In addition, their employment of dock workers, has risen to nearly 4,000: nearly one in three of all dockers; and Felixstowe is today one of our leading ports.
  Non-scheme ports have gained trade year by year—and with the trade has come investment. In his response to my statement, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made much of the investment at four scheme ports—Tilbury, Bristol, Hull and Newport. Put together it is less than the £54 million committed to investment for 1989 at Felixstowe for the expansion of its container facilities.
  Over the past six years, Felixstowe has invested £92 million and Dover has invested almost £85 million. No scheme ports have come near that figure. It is that kind of investment that best ensures competitive ports and preserves jobs.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Even if one accepts what the Secretary of State has said, will he explain why the Bill came as a bolt out of the blue and without any prior knowledge, making it, under this leaky Government, the only piece of legislation that has been kept totally secret until it was sprung across the House of Commons? Would it not have been much better if the Government had proceeded to try to get discussions and agreement between the port employers and the unions? Why has the Secretary of State precipitately decided to bring the Bill forward in this way, instead of taking the path of conciliation and discussion?
  Mr. Fowler: I do not think that "precipitately" is exactly the right description for what the Government have done. There has been an evolving consensus about the need to abolish the scheme and to bring forward the legislation. There is no question—there has been no secret—about the review of the barriers to employment that the Government have carried out. I shall come to those points later.
  Mr. Graham Allen rose—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  However, nor has the advance of the ports outside the scheme been achieved either by low pay or by casualism. Dockers are well paid and the enormous changes in the way ships are unloaded—with new technology and with containerization—has transformed the nature of dock work and virtually eliminated the scope of casual work.
  Dock work is now highly skilled specialist work that often requires the use often of sophisticated machinery. It requires a permanent and well trained work force. The days when large numbers of unskilled labourers assembled waiting to see if there was work for them have gone for good—and everyone is glad of that. To underline that point, the employers in the present scheme ports have given an assurance that after abolition there will be no return to casual employment.
  Mr. Robert Parry rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  That assurance is both in my view, important and unprecedented. The reason we have a dock labour scheme is to prevent casualism. Port companies employing 93 per cent. of registered dock workers have now given an undertaking that there will he no return to the casual system of working and the practice in non-scheme ports already demonstrates that this is a bogus fear.
  Those who seek to argue that the scheme should be preserved to prevent casualism should have no public credibility. They are using the argument to cloak other reasons for resisting change.
  Mr. Parry rose—
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I give way first to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).
  Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that there will not be any casualisation—not even of one job?
  Mr. Fowler: I think that I have just repeated the assurance that the employers have given, which is that port companies employing 93 per cent. of registered dock workers have already, in the week after my announcement, given the kind of assurance that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
  That brings me to a fundamental point. The reason why ports covered by the scheme want to see those restrictions go is because they want to be able to compete better with ports outside the scheme and to compete with continental ports that have taken too much of our trade, and to compete in the new position created by 1992 and the single market, and with the railway competition of the Channel tunnel.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way on the point about casualisation?
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way at the moment. Let us be clear. Unless those ports succeed in competing, no conceivable dock labour scheme will prevent the relative decline of scheme ports and of employment prospects. As far as I know, there is unanimity among the wide range of
  46
  port companies covered by the regulations that the dock labour scheme has long since outlived its usefulness and should be ended.
  The men urging abolition are often those who have spent their lives in the ports industry, who are committed to the future of that industry, and who want to see a future for those who are now registered dock workers as well as for the other two thirds of the workers who are not in the scheme. It is their judgment that the scheme should go, but it is not just their judgment.
  Organisations such as the National Association of Warehouse Keepers have supported the change. It comments:
  "Over the last 30 years or more there has been a steady withdrawal of industry from the dock areas because of the restrictions imposed upon it by the Scheme and for a long time no warehouse keeper would willingly have built a warehouse in or near a dock area. All this will now he changed, and the Association regards this as good news."
  Respected transport organisations such as the Freight Transport Organisation take the same view. It says of the scheme:
  "It has acted as a barrier against investment and progress within the ports industry; undermined the competitiveness of British ports; and added to industry's costs. Rid of this massive millstone, importers and exporters confidently expect the British port industry to provide the efficient and competitive services long enjoyed by their Continental competitors "
  With the exception of the Morning Star, precious few newspapers—national or regional—believe that the scheme should stay. The Scotsman comments:
  "Old cargo no longer needed."
  The Glasgow Herald states: "Decisive action overdue".
  The Grimsby Evening Telegraph comments, "Death of a dinosaur", and the Hull Daily Mail states, "Handicap withdrawn". The Manchester Evening News comments:
  "The time for a change is long overdue."
  A whole range of national and regional newspapers have all come out in favour of the scheme being changed.
  Most significant of all, very few people outside the Transport and General Workers Union's docks section have been prepared to defend the detail of the scheme. All kinds of arguments have been used, but I have heard very few people on radio or television defending the scheme itself. The Leader of the Opposition most certainly has not done so, and nor has the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I refer to the Secretary of State's comments concerning lack of investment, of warehouse building and of new industries entering scheme ports. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited Liverpool free port, which is one of the few successful free ports that the Government have announced. The scheme operates there, and there has been massive inward investment. A very successful free port has been established at Liverpool because of the way in which the scheme operates there.
  Mr. Fowler: That success is not because of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in stating that that is the reason why there has been investment at Liverpool or at other scheme ports. While there has been investment at those ports, the industry says with a totally unanimous voice that if the scheme's restrictions go, investment will increase. One has only to examine the situation at non-scheme ports to see that that has happened.
  Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the container terminal in the city of

  47
  Hull, which is represented by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is closed? There has been massive investment at that terminal, which has three gantry cranes. At Grimsby, those cranes are operated by 12 men, but at Hull the unions want 23 men, even when there are no ships. What is worse, they not only want to be paid ordinary time but overtime for tea breaks, lunch breaks and even until 6.30 pm when they are not working.
  Mr. John Prescott rose—
  Mr. Fowler: Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members representing Hull constituencies would like to conduct their own debate.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) does not represent any part of Hull. When he fought me, the electors threw him out.
  Mr. Fowler: I apologise for making that important mistake.
  Mr. Townend: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I was born in Hull.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Fowler: All that leads to my initial conclusion that the debate about Hull should be left to other hon. Members.
  The attitude of people in not defending details of the scheme is not surprising, because the scheme suffers from fundamental flaws. First, it creates a statutory monopoly for dock work in 40 of our main ports. That monopoly is enforced by criminal penalties, which is a wholly inappropriate use of the law to limit employment opportunities. Only employers and dockers registered with one of the local dock boards can undertake dock work in ports covered by the scheme. It is a criminal offence punishable by up to three months' imprisonment for anyone to employ without permission anyone who is not a registered dock worker to perform work covered by the scheme. No other industry in this country suffers from those penalties.
  Mr. Skinner: There is. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not.
  The effect of that statutory monopoly is to deprive employers in scheme ports of the ability to manage their own work force. It also fosters a belief that the scheme, not the performance of the port, protects jobs.
  Secondly, the scheme has bred restrictive practices. If unloading a cargo requires specialist skills that registered dock workers cannot supply, the employer is obliged both to pay specialist staff to undertake the unloading and to pay registered dock workers to stand and watch the work being done. Those practices remain widespread.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give way now?
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way again.
  48
  Those practices are sustained by the scheme's monopoly, which allows unions to insist on such payments on pain of blocking the loading or unloading of cargo.
  Thirdly, as a consequence of attempting to define in statute who should do a particular job, the scheme inevitably suffers from anomalies and bureaucracy. Each scheme port has a complex set of rules about what is, and is not, dock work—which are in effect demarcation lines frozen by statute. The definitions of dock work applied under the scheme date back to the second world war and beyond and take no account of the enormous changes in dock work since then.
  The distinction between ports inside and outside the scheme is now quite arbitrary. Southampton is in the scheme, but Portsmouth is not. Liverpool and London are in the scheme but Dover and Folkstone are not. The inexplicable differences in the treatment of the fishing ports of Aberdeen, Peterhead, Grimsby and Hull and their consequences for business and jobs—reveal the scheme's inadequacies. In Aberdeen, only registered dock workers can handle white fish, while herring and mackerel can be landed by the fishermen themselves.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on that point.
  Nearby Peterhead is outside the scheme and has captured a substantial part of Aberdeen's business. At Grimsby, only registered dock workers can unload fish from boats of more than 60 ft, while in nearby Hull all fish landings are excluded from the scheme—so Hull's fishing port has attracted business away from Grimsby.
  The common factor in all those cases is that business and jobs in operations covered by the scheme have been lost to ports free of its restrictions. Those restrictions are at the heart of the stresses and strains that we have seen in recent weeks in Aberdeen and Grimsby.
  Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State refers to the scheme's division of labour and to its restrictive practices, but the same could be said of the legal profession, as to the division of labour between solicitors and barristers. Why is that, when judges took the decision to go on strike today, because of the proposed reforms to the legal system, the Government decided to call off the dogs? If the Secretary of State is so concerned at people having jobs for life, why do the Government not use that argument to abolish the House of Lords?
  Mr. Fowler: I started this section of my speech by saying that every conceivable argument has been used except any defence of the dock labour scheme, and the hon. Gentleman has just underlined that point.
  The fourth characteristic of the scheme is that it adds to costs. The price of the inefficiencies that it has created has been paid by consumers through the higher costs of goods in the shops; by industry through the price of raw materials and exports; and by the taxpayer through the financial support that successive Governments have given to the port industry, and through Government contributions to voluntary redundancies.
  What has the scheme achieved? It has certainly not achieved a secure career for registered dock workers; nor has it achieved good industrial relations, although I have no doubt that the authors of the scheme thought that by

  49
  creating a statutory monopoly for dock work and ending the abuses of casual working they would bring about a significant improvement in industrial relations.
  There have been major strikes in every decade since the scheme began in 1947. The number of days lost as a result of strikes by registered dock workers in the scheme ports, according to the National Dock Labour Board, is still three times the national average. Between 1985 and 1987, the scheme ports lost 528 man days for every 1,000 employees, compared with a total of 183 in the rest of industry. In the 20 years between 1967 and 1987, there were 3,569 strikes involving registered dock workers, resulting in over 4 million working days being lost in scheme ports. That is a rate of more than three disputes per week.
  In his response to my statement the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that this was a relatively small scheme covering "only 9,500 workers". Let us be clear what we are talking about: we are talking about the future of the ports now within the scheme, which at present handle 70 per cent. of our national trade. Those who have argued that the scheme should be left to wither simply do not understand the facts. As long as the scheme continues to operate, our great ports such as Liverpool, London and Southampton will remain subject to all its restrictions. There are only two ways for them to escape from the scheme: either Parliament abolishes it or they close down completely. Abolition will ensure that all dock workers, wherever they are employed, will have the same employment rights and obligations as the rest of the working population.
  Dr. David Owen: Does the Secretary of State accept that employers now have a responsibility to negotiate with their employees? If they come up with agreed and more generous redundancy terms, will they be included in the legislation? If that is so, a substantial number of people will accept the case that the right hon. Gentleman has made for abolition.
  Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. I do not believe that anyone can negotiate on the scheme itself; that, I think, is a matter for Parliament. Nor do I believe that Ministers wish to prejudice the outcome of any talks taking place tomorrow: that would not be sensible.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since February 1984, the port employers have made six attempts to discuss the scheme with their employees in the TGWU, and that every such offer has been refused by the union, in defence of the indefensible?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall come to that point. If the House will forgive me, I will not give way again; otherwise, my speech will go on far too long for the confines of the debate.
  Ending the scheme will not affect either the pay or the pensions of those who are now registered dock workers. Neither is covered by the scheme or comes within the responsibilities of the National Dock Labour Board. Nor should anyone suppose that dock work, whether inside or outside the scheme, is low-paid.
  Over the past 40 years—I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr.
  50
  Sayeed)—there have been countless opportunities for negotiation to reduce the damaging controls imposed by the scheme.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. FowlerI am very sorry; I have given way a number of times, and I will not do so again.
  Throughout those 40 years the TGWU has shown no sign of willingness even to consider the changes needed to meet the competitive pressures on scheme ports. In 1986 my right hon. Friend the then Transport Secretary, now Secretary of State for the Environment, invited unions and employers to discuss voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme. The national secretary of the TGWU docks group, Mr. Connolly, replied—and he replied very quickly:
  "having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal."
  In 1987 he was reported by Lloyd's List as saying:
  "The policy of the Docks and Waterways Group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or revision of the Scheme, and that opposition will take the form of a national dock strike."
  The fact is that the TGWU has constantly sought the tightening and extension of the scheme's controls, not their relaxation. It has done so not by negotiation, but by using the power that the scheme's statutory monopoly of dock work gives it to bring scheme ports to a halt with strike action. The Bill aims to bring the scheme to an end quickly but in an orderly fashion, and with continued special provision for dock workers' severance.
  Clause 1 repeals the legislation that underpins the scheme, and preserves the board's powers to make provision for the training and welfare of dock workers until its dissolution. Clause 2 requires the board to wind up its affairs quickly but in an orderly manner. It makes provision for the disposal of its assets at less than market vaule, with my permission. The purpose is to provide an incentive for those in the industry who have already paid for the board's activities through levies on their business to take over any training and medical facilities that the industry needs.
  Clause 3 allows the board to be replaced if it fails to comply with its duties. Clause 4 writes off all the board's outstanding liabilities for loans that it has received from Government, and provides for its running costs. Clause 5 provides for any registered dock worker who becomes redundant within three years of the ending of the scheme to receive redundancy payments on a considerably more generous scale than those which are open to most other employees.
  After only 15 years' service, dock workers will be eligible for redundancy payments of £35,000 if they lose their jobs in the 18 months after the scheme is abolished—that is, until early 1991—and payment of £20,000 if they lose their jobs in the subsequent 18 months. The cost of the payments will be shared equally between the Government and the individual employer concerned. The detailed arrangements will be set out in draft regulations to be tabled shortly, and will be available to the Standing Committee.
  Clause 6 extends provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1978 to those who were registered dock workers immediately before Royal Assent. That means that registered dockers will acquire individual rights not to

  51
  be unfairly dismissed, for example, and to receive written particulars of their terms of employment, which the scheme denied to them.
  This is a statutory scheme. It was brought into existence by Parliament, and Parliament is the proper place for decisions about its future; there should be no attempt to usurp that role. I do not believe that there will be any public support for strike action that is directed towards retaining the provisions of the scheme.
  Furthermore, I believe that the House will want to hear that clearly and unequivocally stated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. His latest statements suggest that he now has doubts about industrial action, but I have to point out that, when the hon. Gentleman spoke to a meeting of the national ports shop stewards committee in London at the end of January, he had an entirely different message. According to International Freighting Weekly of 7 February 1989 and a similar report in the Morning Star of 30 January 1989, he gave the same message. I shall quote from International Freighting Weekly. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "An all-out strike by Britain's dockers in defence of their dock labour scheme would have the full backing of the Labour Party."
  Mr. Michael Meacher: If the right hon. Gentleman had bothered to check with me as to whether such press reports were accurate, I could have told him—I have here a copy of the speech that I made on that day—that I made no such statement, or anything like it.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Fowler: The same statement was reported also in the Morning Star: the hon. Gentleman
  "pledged his party's full support in any fight to defend the scheme."
  I imagine that that statement is also withdrawn. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have now made substantial progress. If I am wrong, I shall gladly withdraw what I have said.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fowler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow my to continue.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will listen to what I have to say. The House will expect him to make clear his views on industrial action. I take it, from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that he is opposed to industrial action to seek to preserve the dock labour scheme.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way—not even to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), and certainly not to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West made a statement about what was reported to be his attitude. He now refuses to make any statement about his view on future industrial
  52
  action. If he intends to make that clear in his speech, the House will listen to it with interest. He will also have to say whether it is Labour party policy to restore the national dock labour scheme. Few people would understand industrial action, and even less the hon. Gentleman's backing of strike action for a scheme that the Labour party would not restore, even if it were to form a future Government. Those fundamental questions must be addressed in the debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the labour party's attitude, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has just said that he made no such statement about a strike. I have the transcript of "BBC Lancashire News— of 10 April 1989. After being asked about whether there would be a strike, the hon. Member for Oldham, West said:
  "then frankly we have no alternative but to support, if there were a strike."
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West has a great deal of explaining to do. The hon. Gentleman characteristically says to audiences what they want to hear from him. We shall want to hear tonight what precisely is his attitude, and that of his party, towards a strike.
  The first dock labour scheme was approved by this House in 1947—over 40 years ago. At that time the ports covered by the scheme accounted for virtually all our trade and employed 80,000 dock workers. The work they did was labour-intensive and at best semi-skilled.
  The position today is radically different. Dock work has been transformed. It is now capital-intensive and it requires a permanent labour force with the skills to operate sophisticated equipment. There are now 140 employers providing jobs in dock work in the scheme ports, compared with over 1,500 in the 1950s. Fewer than 14,000 dock workers are now employed in all our ports, of whom 9,000 are in scheme ports. It is only improved output, taking advantage of new technology, which will guarantee continuing good pay and conditions for all port workers. The dock labour scheme can provide no such guarantee. On the contrary, the scheme ports have increasingly lost ground to the ports outside the scheme.
  The Government are now asking Parliament to bring the dock labour scheme to an end in 1989. It has manifestly become irrelevant to the needs of a modern port industry and it is manifestly damaging the efficiency of the scheme ports. In 1947, Parliament created the statutory monopoly in our scheme ports. Only Parliament can end the statutory monopoly of dock work and abolish the dock labour scheme.
  The Bill is vital to the future of our ports industry. More than that, it will remove a major barrier to the expansion of business and employment in this country. I believe that this measure is in the best interests of the ports now covered by the scheme, that it is in the best interests of port areas where development is now being constricted and, above all, that it is in the best interests of all the people working in the ports industry.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Despite the long diatribe to which we have just been treated by the Secretary of State on the dock labour scheme, the Bill has a great deal more to do with political diversion for the Government than with what is happening in the docks. There has been no unrest in the docks for several years.

  53
  Productivity in scheme ports has been bounding ahead, as it has in non-scheme ports. There was no mention of abolition of the scheme in the Tory party's 1987 election manifesto.
  The Government are slipping fast in the polls. All their main policies—for the National Health Service, for the poll tax and for water privatisation—are deeply unpopular and they are in desperate need of a scapegoat to provide an alibi for the continuing series of unprecedented trade deficits and the likely run on the pound that the Chancellor's bungling is expected soon to bring about.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, not for the moment.
  That is not just my view. It was confirmed by Tory Members of Parliament on 12 October 1988—more than six months ago. The Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" broadcast a documentary entitled "Trouble on the Waterfront", which discussed the dock labour scheme at length. During the programme the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—one of the leaders of the Tory Back-Bench campaign for abolition—said:
  "I think we could well have a sudden announcement rather than a preview in the Queen's Speech."
  The programme presenter then immediately spelt out what was meant.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman need not be so anxious.
  The programme presenter then made perfectly clear what was meant by those words. He said:
  "Saving it"—
  that is, abolition—
  "for a politically rainy day is the third option. Tory MPs and industry sources have suggested to Dispatches that should the Government get into serious difficulties, e.g. over the balance of payments, then they would use the repeal of the Scheme to rally their supporters and public opinion against the unions."
  Mr. Arnold: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that I was right on both counts? The proposal was previewed in the Queen's Speech in the words, "Other measures will be laid before you". It has now been well presented, and bang on time.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag. He was exactly right. He is one of those who were in the know about it. He knew about the long-term contingency planning taking place in the past 18 months. A Channel 4 programme six months ago blew the Government's cover on the introduction of this Bill as revealingly as the Ridley plan did for the miners' strike. Both documents exposed the Government's long-term plan to use industrial provocation for political ends.
  Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the Government have introduced the Bill to improve their electoral chances. That must mean that the proposals are popular with the electorate. If people like the Bill, why does the Labour party act against their wishes?
  Mr. Meacher: If the matter is so politically popular, why did not the Government include it in their manifesto in 1987? I use the words "gratuitous industrial provocation" because it is instructive to compare the ways in which the Government seek to bring about radical
  54
  changes in three different areas. In the case of the legal profession, we had three Green Papers and a gentlemanly debate in the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gentlemanly?"] It may not have been so gentlemanly, but at least it was a debate. The Lord Chancellor has been taking notes and listening attentively to all his critics and we now read in the press that the Government are having second thoughts about such matters as the licensing of advocates and possibly on contingency fees. When 100 High Court judges are so incensed by the Government's proposals that they threaten to take industrial action to disrupt the courts, they are given a ticking-off behind the scenes but publicly they are politely offered a four-month extension to the consultation period.
  What a contrast we have with the dockers. In their case, there is no consultation whatever. They are abruptly handed down a White Paper and—this is without precedent in my experience—a Bill is introduced the very next day. No doubt the proceedings on this Bill will be more telescoped than the proceedings on any major Bill this Session. Under the present Government, there is one law for the professions and another for working people. For the lawyers, we have change by consent—for the dockers, change by compulsion.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a dock strike should be called, and if one is called, will the Labour party support it? Would a future Labour Government bring in legislation to reintroduce the scheme? Would they activate the scheme as it would have been activated under the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976?
  Mr. Meacher: The only people who want a dock strike are the Government. I do not believe that the employers want a dock strike and we know that the dock workers do not want a dock strike. If there is a strike, it will have been caused wholly by the Government's gratuitous provocation. I unreservedly condemn that provocation which places responsibility for whatever transpires squarely on the shoulders of the Government.
  Mr. Fowler: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to return to the point about industrial action, or is that all that he has to say about it? That is an important point for the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Does the Minister want a dock strike?"] The whole House will want to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West condemn industrial action. I condemn industrial action. Does he?
  Mr. Meacher: For one who made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter with those directly involved, the Secretary of State is suddenly becoming remarkably interested in consultation. He should have consulted the right people at the right time—that is to say, earlier.
  Let us consider the Government's current struggle with the doctors about the National Health Service proposals. A week ago at Question Time we heard the Prime Minister say of the proposals:
  "They are not meant to be a specific blueprint and we will, of course, consider representations."—[Official Report, 11 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 737.]
  How different that is from her treatment of the dockers.
  I noted that the Secretary of State said that the role of this House should not be disrupted and that this was a matter for Parliament. He said that he did not want to prejudice the talks which are to take place tomorrow. If the dockers and their leaders make representations to the

  55
  Government on enforceable guarantees to prevent a return to casualisation and on other matters, will the Government consider those representations?
  Mr. Fowler: The whole of the dock labour scheme should be debated. The proposition is before the House, and the decision is for both Houses of Parliament. There will be a Committee stage, during which we can go through the Bill in detail. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked me a question. Precisely the same parliamentary procedure has been adopted as was adopted when the scheme was first implemented. The House still wants to know whether the hon. Gentleman backs industrial action.
  Mr. Meacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give one other instance in which the Government have brought forward legislation affecting an entire industry and not consulted the people in that industry or their representatives?
  Mr. Fowler: Can the hon. Gentleman give one instance when the Transport and General Workers Union has not made it absolutely clear that it is not prepared to negotiate in any way, shape or form? That has been its attitude.
  Mr. Meacher: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he is quite wrong. I am sure that the leaders of the TGWU would be perfectly prepared to enter discussions with him about the future of the industry and the dock labour scheme. Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer that he is agreeing to that?
  Mr. Fowler: I am most certainly not agreeing to that. The provisions have been on the statute book for 40 years. There has been one opportunity after another for the TGWU to seek reform and change, but on every occasion it has refused.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has made crystal clear his unwillingness to enter into discussions because the Government are hell bent on a strike. The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to prevent a strike by entering into negotiations with leaders of the dock workers and the TGWU. I am convinced that the strike could then be avoided and we could have a negotiated settlement on the future of the industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman do that?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman keeps accusing me of being hell bent on a strike. That is totally untrue. The hon. Gentleman continues to wriggle and refuses to denounce industrial action. The time has come for him to stand up and denounce industrial action.
  Mr. Meacher: I have said that we certainly do not want a strike. We want a negotiated settlement. The right hon. Gentleman can deliver a negotiated settlement. All that he has to do is to say at the Dispatch Box today that he is prepared to enter into negotiations. The fact that he is not prepared to make that statement will make it absolutely clear to everyone in Britain that if there is a strike, he and his Government will be the cause of it. [Interruption.]
  I am well aware of the Government's claim, which the Secretary of State repeated, that there has been ample negotiations by the employers about the scheme. I realise how the Government reached that conclusion, because the
  56
  Government's view of negotiations is, "I talk to you about an issue, and you agree with the decision that I have already made." That is their view, but the relevant national joint council minutes stretching back over the past seven years do not bear out the claims made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
  The NJC minutes of March 1982 spell out the agreed proposal to set up a joint seminar on the future of the industry. Crucially, the minutes state:
  "it was noted the the Working Party did not intend that the Dock Labour Scheme should dominate the discussions".
  In other words, the joint discussion between the two sides over the next three years was not, and was not intended to be, primarily about the dock labour scheme.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will finish this point and then give way.
  It is also perfectly clear from the minutes that the trade union side repeatedly stressed that it was ready to enter joint discussions on the future of the industry. It made that clear in March 1982, August 1982, December 1983, February 1984 and March 1986. I will give the House just one example. The minutes of December 1983 state:
  "the workpeople indicated that they were prepared to enter into a joint discussion on the future of the industry within the NJC Executive Committee".
  They continue:
  "they also considered that at the same time as any joint industry discussions, there should be contact with Government Departments to establish the Government's view of the ports Industry's future as part of a total transport policy."
  Mr. Prescott: The scheme is part of ports policy.
  Mr. Meacher: It is all part of the same thing.
  In March 1986, after the conclusion of the seminar on the future of the industry, the minutes state that "Mr. Connolly", the joint secretary on the trade union side,
  "recalled that when the Workpeople's Side had wanted to start a dialogue on the future of the industry with a view to a joint approach to the Government, the Employers' Side had declined to do so".
  It is perfectly clear that the trade union side has at no stage been unwilling to enter into discussions, and the employers' side has blocked a joint submission to the Government. As it is a matter of critical importance for the next few days, in view of what I have read out, I repeat my question to the Secretary of State. Will he consider representations made to him by the trade union side which in the past it has been prevented from making jointly? Will he consider those representations?
  Mr. Fowler: I should like to know why Mr. Connolly said on 24 February 1987, as reported in Lloyd's List:
  "The policy of the Docks and Waterways group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or revision of the scheme, and that opposition will take the form of a national dock strike".
  That is what Mr. Connolly said. He has never denied that he said it and he set out the position most clearly.
  Mr. Meacher: There is a very simple way of resolving the dispute. Mr. Connolly and the docks section of the TGWU are ready to discuss the matter with the Government, but the Secretary of State will not do so. The simple way to resolve the matter is to ask Mr. Connolly. Will the Secretary of State ask Mr. Connolly to negotiate?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall not. There is now legislation before the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1986 the Secretary of State for Transport asked Mr. Connolly to negotiate but he totally refused.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is making terribly heavy weather of this. Instead of relying on Lloyd's List for a telegraphic service, why does he not have the guts to invite Mr. Connolly to meet him face to face and to ask him?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman just read out the minutes of the NJC of 19 March 1986 and quoted what Mr. Connolly said. He stopped at the words,
  "the Employers' side had declined to do so.".
  Why did the hon. Gentleman not read out the rest of what Mr. Connolly said? The minutes continued:
  "He doubted however whether the employers wanted that kind of discussion, and suggested that they wished instead to talk about abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. He said that the trade union were not prepared to discuss abolition of the Scheme."
  Mr. Meacher: Absolutely. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) might like to listen to my answer instead of laughing like a hyena. It has always been the union's position that it would not discuss abolition independently of a discussion about the future of an integral ports policy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should understand that there are two genuinely different views between the employers and—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman merely giggles aimlessly because he does not have the slightest interest in the argument.
  The employers simply want to bring about the end of the dock labour scheme. The union's position has always been that it will discuss changes, modifications and improvements in the scheme within the context of a total ports policy. There is nothing remarkable about what Mr. Connolly said. One might have expected that a Secretary of State in a constructive Government not hellbent on confrontation—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. We are talking about the future of families throughout the country, but the conduct of Conservative Members is worse than anything I have ever seen in the House. If only out of respect for those who will be affected by the legislation, can you make them show some decency towards those families throughout the country?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I regret that there is an excessive amount of sedentary noise from both sides of the House. I hope that we can continue our business in a more orderly fashion.
  Mr. Meacher: One might have expected that a Government faced with genuinely incompatible views between employers and trade unions with regard to the future of an industry would set up a committee of inquiry or some similar body in order to assess objectively the submissions from both sides and to make recommendations. It is deeply deplorable that the Government have done the exact opposite and sought to establish a fait accompli in the most partisan possible manner.
  I can understand why the Secretary of State is so reluctant to set up an objective committee of inquiry. The last time he did so, it backfired in his face. Spurred on by
  58
  the Prime Minister's denunciation of the film and television industry as the last bastion of restrictive practices, he set up an inquiry which reported last week. The right hon. Gentleman must be desperately embarrassed about this, or he ought to be if he is not completely brass-necked. The Government's committee concluded that the labour practices in the industry were not against the public interest. Indeed, it went further and defended the closed shop on the grounds that it helped to regulate a casual labour market and provided a badge of skills competence.
  The docks industry is not a closed shop, but both those arguments apply strongly to it, so it is no surprise that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues are unwilling to set up an independent public inquiry into the future regulation of the docks industry. They are afraid of what the conclusions might be.
  I should make it clear that Parliament ought not to pass the Bill unless and until five central issues concerning the operation of the dock labour scheme are satisfactorily resolved. The Secretary of State in his speech today was so busy knocking the scheme that he scarcely bothered to acknowledge these issues, let alone resolve them. I beg him to believe that there is genuine and deep anxiety that the abolition of the scheme will lead to the return of casualisation in the industry. Naturally, the employers have put out a press release to say that that will not be so, but lest anyone is taken in by that press release—clearly the Secretary of State has swallowed it hook, line and sinker—I remind the House that that was exactly what the employers said in 1970 at the time of Devlin II. They stated that they had no intention of returning to casual labour and that every man would be allocated permanent employment, but within 18 months, following the collapse of two companies—Southern Stevedores and Thames 65—they tried to reintroduce the casual system by returning the men to the temporary unattached register. The Secretary of State may screw up his face, but that is what happened.
  The employers' assurances on previous occasions were clearly groundless and there is no reason to doubt that history is about to repeat itself. Anyone who doubts that need only consider the words of one major port employer—Mr. Peter de Savary—who has just announced plans to bring back casual labour on his new terminal on the Isle of Grain.
  On a Channel 4 programme—I quote from the transcript—he said:
  "There will be a combination of permanent dockworkers and casual dockworkers. That's a necessity of the industry."
  There can be no clearer signal that the employers expect and intend, in an industry where traffic constantly fluctuates, to reduce to a core labour force and employ the remainder on a casual basis. In Liverpool and south Wales, there have been recent attempts to do exactly that.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I had hoped to speak later and to remind the hon. Gentleman that he referred to this matter in a speech after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we intended to abolish the scheme. The managing director of Highland Participants, the company which will run Mr. de Savary's project, said that it would not be possible to run a container port of the type it has in mind using casual labour. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is trying to frighten dockers.
  Mr. Meacher: I can see the problem facing Conservative Members. However, the person in control of the project is the employer, Mr. Peter de Savary. I am afraid that I accept his view of what is likely to happen rather than that of a manager.
  Mr. Fowler: Geoffrey Parker, the managing director to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) referred, has given a clear assurance that that is not the case. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West understands, Mr. Geoffrey Parker is an experienced ports figure and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept his assurance.
  Mr. Meacher: If that is so, why did Mr. de Savary make those remarks and why has he not withdrawn them on the advice of his manager? If I can be told the reasons for that, I may give a little more credence to the hope and a prayer being offered by the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Godman: Casual dock work has already returned to the lower Clyde. I received a communication from the chairman of the docks branch in Greenock which said, among other things, that a shipping company which has recently moved to Port Glasgow has
  "hired a third party to take on dock labourers on what ranges from a casual to a buckshee basis."
  By the words "buckshee basis" Mr. Cannie, the chairman of the docks committee, means that the so-called shipping company is paying backhanders to men on the dole who are desperate for work of any sort. Therefore, we on the lower Clyde have experienced the return of casual dock work.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has made a relevant reference. We know that there is already in the non-scheme ports casualisation at a level of about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. The key point is that it will gradually seep in because of the fluctuations and oscillations in docks traffic. That is precisely the problem. Because of the forces of competition, on which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are always so keen, we shall be told by other employers, "We would like to provide full work but it is not possible because we are being undercut by other employers." That is precisely what we expect to happen. The press releases issued by 93 per cent. of the employers in the National Association of Port Employers are worthless compared with those economic forces.
  I want to say something about the genuine disputes over hiring and firing. The employers complain that it is a "jobs for life" scheme. We have heard that so many times. That can hardly be the case when there has been a cut of 47,000 in the number of registered dock workers in the past 15 years—a reduction of 80 per cent. Dockers can be sacked and are sacked for justifiable reasons such as misconduct. Registered dockers have a right not to be dismissed without cause and when most of them have worked in the industry for 15 years or more, they have a right not to be made redundant without entitlement to severance payment.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I have given way enough and I must make progress, because time is moving on.
  Bearing in mind—the Secretary of State referred to this—the oscillations and the peaks and troughs in traffic, there is a small measure of surplus labour which in 1987
  60
  was 9·5 per cent. However, the point to be remembered is that, under the system of casualisation before the scheme there was an average labour surplus per year of 31 per cent. That shows the improvement that has been made under the scheme.
  Employers have made the surplus bigger than it should be. In the past few weeks, Associated British Ports sought to employ 50 casual, non-registered dock workers at the port of Barry, while it reported a surplus of 40 in Cardiff, which is only six miles away and has a facility for daily transfers. If employers behave in such a way, of course there will be a surplus of labour.
  There has been a huge propaganda barrage against the scheme and allegations of restrictive practices. We do not condone cases which have no industrial logic and which are often the result of slack management. That is why we stated in our transport policy document in early 1987, before the last election,
  "We shall review the operation of the Dock Labour Scheme."
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Labour party's election manifesto. Let us suppose that the Labour party forms the next Government. Would a Labour Government review this legislation?
  Mr. Meacher: We shall do what the Government are so reluctant to do—get port employers and the union around a table and regulate the industry as is necessary in the circumstances.
  The truth is that many of the restrictive practices that were criticised in the White Paper result from the long-term and acute skill shortages that have been caused by employers' reluctance to train registered dock workers. Standby arrangements—so-called "ghosting"—have rightly been widely condemned, but employers preferred those arrangements to training dock workers. Those same employers are using the arrangements to blame the union for costly restrictive practices.
  The Government and employers have cited—the Secretary of State mentioned this when he announced the White Paper—welting or bobbing, which means being paid when one is not at work. The incidence of this is relatively rare, but where it occurs it can and should be dealt with under the dock labour scheme disciplinary procedures. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but perhaps the problem is the weak and feeble management of ports. There is no need to get rid of the dock labour scheme to get rid of such practices.
  Objection is made to dockers' guaranteed minimum daily pay, but many people receive such pay. Doctors do not lose their pay if patients do not turn up. Duty solicitors who are on standby over the weekend are paid even if their services are not needed. High Court judges are paid for the 10 or 12 weeks outside term when they are not trying cases. If dockers do not have the same right, we shall return to casualisation, which perhaps is what many objectors want.
  Despite all the talk about restrictive practices, productivity in scheme ports has been exceptionally high.
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way.
  There has been a 730 per cent. increase in productivity in terms of added volume per worker in 20 years. Few industries can match that record.

  61
  A further complaint made by employers against the scheme—the Secretary of State made special reference to this—is that it has driven port investment and jobs elsewhere. Major investments have been announced for scheme ports such as Immingham, Southampton, Bristol and London. I note from the annual report of Associated British Ports that there is major current or planned investment at King's Lynn, Goole, Hull, Ayr and Swansea. Investment is being made at Newport and Tilbury in new berths and terminals to the value of £8 million to £10 million. Of course there has been rapid growth in the non-scheme east coast ports, but that primarily reflects major changes in cargo handling techniques and the shift in trade to Europe. For exactly those reasons, other schemes on the east coast, such as Ipswich, have grown fast.
  Mr. Townend rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I will not give way.
  The White Paper—the most propagandist and partisan that I have read for many a year—claims that 50,000 jobs could he created if the scheme were abolished. That is simply repeating the conclusion of a paper prepared for port employers by an organisation called WEFA. The quality of work in the paper is laughable. The estimate of 4,200 new jobs for dockers is based on nothing more than an assertion by employers. Not surprisingly, the report has been described as
  "an exposition of the prejudices of the port employers with a bit of maths thrown in"
  to give it scientific validity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"] It is an excellent description, is it not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"] I describe it like that, and I am happy to do so because that is exactly what it is. It is not my description, but that of another body. [Interruption.] It may be Lloyd's List. It is disreputable for a tendentious and virtually worthless report to have its conclusions reproduced without qualification in a White Paper.
  Another charge made against the scheme is that it increases costs, but employers do not say that its administrative costs are negligible. Of the £7 to £15 per tonne charged in scheme ports for cargo handling, precisely 1·5p can be attributed to the scheme's administration. The levy pays for the medical and welfare amenities that most decent employers should provide. The biggest cost is voluntary severance arrangements, which are recouped later in higher productivity, and the Government meet half the redundancy costs.
  More important, employers do not say—because of their obsession with vilifying the scheme—that a much bigger part of the extra costs that they have to bear compared with their European counterparts arises from charges levied by the Government, including lighthouse dues, pilotage and Customs charges. Employers recently estimated that lighthouse dues alone could amount to £20,000 per call for a large vessel and well over £1 million per year for a single line. The Department of Transport estimated that they accounted for one seventh of the adverse cost differential between British and continental ports. As if that were not bad enough, in 1987 the Government announced a 14 per cent. increase in light dues and sought to raise a further £1 million a year by levying light dues on fishing vessels of a certain size.
  Those Government-imposed charges, which employers have described as a "real and dominant deterrent" to ship-owners, have caused the substantial loss of trade in British
  62
  ports. If the Government are genuinely concerned about freeing our ports for 1992 and the Channel tunnel ILIA, why do they not remove that major cause of excessive handling costs? In European ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp, such services are provided free.
  The central point is not that other European countries do not have a dock labour scheme and we do, but that they have a national plan for the development of their port industry and we do not. Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium have a dock labour scheme which provides for the direct involvement of a trade union and dock workers in recruitment, training, welfare, medical services and redundancy.
  The difference arises in two vital respects. First, competitor countries value their ports as part of their basic national infrastructure and therefore give them heavy Government support. Every coastal EC state on the continent—with the single exception of Denmark—provides either 100 per cent. or near—100 per cent. subsidies for port investment in and maintenance of maritime access channels, lights, buoys, navigational aids, sea locks, exterior breakwaters, docks, quays and reclaimed land. Britain is the only country which provides none of those aids. A spokesman for Associated British Ports recently confirmed that that, and not the labour scheme, is the reason for the considerable cost disadvantage faced by British ports.
  Secondly, unlike Governments in countries across the North sea and the Channel, the British Government have no national plan for port development. For example, on the Humber there are dozens of small ports. The area can already handle 20 per cent. more trade than it has ever had, yet new ports are being built and there are plans to build many more. A similar story of duplication, confusion and petty proliferation exists in other parts of the country. By comparison, the European ports, which the Government cite in the White Paper as being efficient, are massive because their Governments have a deliberate policy of concentrating on major ports to gain the maximum benefits from economies of scale. For that reason, Rotterdam handles nearly 40 million tones—50 per cent. more than London and three times more than our next three largest ports, including Felixstowe.
  The Government's view was set out by Lord Brabazon, the Minister for shipping, on a Channel 4 programme. His remarks are worth quoting verbatim. He said:
  "We have a free market policy. Market forces prevail. We believe the market is best to decide where new investment should go and which ports should be used by the ship-owners."
  He then added the immortal words:
  "The policy is, as such, there is no policy."
  That just about sums up the Government policy. That is why, in the run-up to 1992, we have been overtaken by so many European ports.
  The Bill involves just one proposal—the abolition of the scheme—but abolition is no panacea. Far more fundamental problems, on which the Government: are completely empty-handed, need to be resolved, including the lack of a national ports policy, planned investment or positive industrial relations. The Bill is the product of confrontation ideology and political opportunism. That is why it offers no answers for the future of the clocks industry.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has already said that speeches delivered between 7 and 9 o'clock will be limited by the 10-minute rule. I hope that those who speak between now and 7 o'clock will bear in mind the constraints upon their colleagues.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seeks to defend the indefensible. He has not done a very good job of it today. It is intriguing that he has backtracked on the statement which he made only one week ago, that the Labour party would support a national dock strike, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out—and the hon. Member for Oldham, West was unable to deny. On BBC Radio Lancashire news, a week ago this evening, the interviewer, Mike West, said:
  "The Labour party have made it clear it would support dockers if they decided to take strike action over the Government's decision. Shadow Employment spokesman Michael Meacher says the Government were taking a reckless gamble, and the Labour party would have to stand by the dockers."
  The right hon. Member for Oldham, West replied:
  "frankly we have no alternative but to support, if there were a strike."
  Clearly, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West has attempted to backtrack on that statement. So, too, has his leader.
  On the same evening of 10 April, the Leader of the Opposition, interviewed by David Walter on BBC television's "Newsnight" programme, said:
  "If it is necessary…for us to declare our solidarity for dock workers in their efforts to sustain operations and to maintain the continuity of dock working, then the Labour party won't be found wanting."
  Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Labour party will be found wanting yes or no? Will the Labour party back such a strike, as the right hon. Gentleman said just a week ago? [Interruption.] I give way to him—[Interruption.] My apologies—I meant the shadow Secretary of State. I see that he does not wish to intervene —instead I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).
  Mr. George Galloway: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand the simple point that, if there is a dock strike, the Opposition will feel it necessary to support the workers? However, we do not want a strike. Given his famous name, would not the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) accept that it would be better to get round a table and have some jaw-jaw, rather than war-war with the dockers?
  Mr. Churchill: I see no reason why there should be any war-war. I am delighted that the Shadow Secretary of State has thought better of his earlier intemperate and reckless commitment.
  Mr. Alan Roberts rose—
  Mr. Churchill: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  Significantly, the hon. Member for Oldham, West refused to give a straight reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would pledge the Labour party—if it were ever again elected to government —to reintroduce the dock labour scheme. The fact that the
  64
  hon. Gentleman has failed to answer that question is significant because it meant that the dock labour scheme —even in the Labour party's eyes—is now a dead duck.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend also recall that the Shadow Secretary of State refused to answer my four questions—including one in particular? I asked whether, if there were a Labour Government, they would activate the dock labour scheme, as Lord Callaghan's Government wanted to do. Such an activation would bring many other industries into the scheme—including those miles from the coast—and result in many industries not wishing to set up in scheme areas. The effect of the scheme on employment is worrying and it is that upon which we should focus our debate.
  Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am conscious of your request for brief speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish to confine my remarks principally to the port of Manchester.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: There is not a port of Manchester.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no port of Manchester. A significant part of the reason for that is the dock labour scheme. In its heyday, the port of Manchester employed nearly 10,000 people—including 3,500 registered dockers. In 1965, the port of Manchester moved 16 million tonnes, which represented 5 per cent. of the nation's imports and exports. By 1987, that figure had slipped to below 10 million tonnes, less than 2 per cent.
  The demise of the port of Manchester was, above all, due to two factors. The first was technological evolution —specifically, containerisation and the move to larger vessels. But secondly, there is no question but that restrictive practices and endless unofficial strikes and the dock labour scheme—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) thinks it funny to destroy jobs by endless unofficial strikes and restrictive practices. Those factors played a key part in the demise of the port of Manchester.
  Operations at the port of Manchester, which was a scheme port, were plagued by inter-union squabbles between the Transport and General Workers Union, known as the white union, and the stevedores' union, known as the blue union.
  The TGWU would not allow employers to negotiate with the blues and neither union could control its members. The Opposition Chief Whip is well aware of the problem—he has similar difficulty controlling his hon. Friends.
  It took just one militant on a bicycle to go around Manchester docks with a bull horn yelling, "Everybody out," for everyone to down tools. Disputes and unofficial strikes were endless, and ultimately customers and operators went elsewhere—to Felixstowe and the continental ports. This was one of the principal reasons why, in 1982, Manchester Liners, a key part of the operations into the port of Manchester, abandoned its home port and went elsewhere.
  After 80 years of operation between 1898 and 1979, the port of Manchester virtually ceased to handle general cargoes. The dock labour scheme acted as a barrier between employers and employees. Its aim, laudable in its time, was to provide regular employment, but it has long since outlived its necessity. Today it is an anachronism.

  65
  The Secretary of State has today assured the House that there will be no return to casual labour in the docks—an important assurance.
  The dock labour board proved utterly incapable of resolving the many disputes that arose in the port of Manchester and other scheme ports throughout the country. This inability was inherent in the board's make-up: The chairman might be a Socialist and his deputy a Conservative. Unions and employers took turn and turn about to occupy different positions on the board. Its constitution almost guaranteed that there was no means of resolving any impasse that might crop up.
  Today, the only cargoes going into Manchester by sea and ship canal are oil and chemicals, apart from grain to Cerestar in Trafford Park and a little scrap metal and lumber. There are no general cargoes any more, and there is no question but that the dock labour scheme played a significant part in the demise of the port.
  The port of Manchester is now coming alive, but not as a port. It is coming alive with the transformation of the Salford docks into upmarket housing and of Trafford wharf into a series of significant high-tech industrial developments. As long as the scheme existed, the port had no future.
  It is no coincidence that the non-scheme ports have thrived, while the scheme ports have declined in relative or even absolute terms. The Opposition have accused the Government of bringing forward this measure precipitately. This is nonsense. If anything, the Government have been too dilatory about scrapping the outdated dock labour scheme. Its abolition is long overdue. I warmly welcome this measure and the generous severance terms for any dockers who will lose their jobs within 18 months. This is a fair and necessary measure, and I wish it well.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: One does not have to search far to discover the real reason why the Government have introduced this Bill, callously and cynically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. They have made no effort to debate the subject in the House and given the unions no opportunity to discuss it with the employers. They are rushing through the Bill as quickly as possible.
  Everyone who knows the industry is aware of the Government's reasons for abolishing the scheme. When discussing why the scheme existed, Minsiters have in the past accused me of being out of date and living in the 18th or 19th centuries. When the national dock labour scheme was introduced in 1947 it had to be forced on the employers, who were unwilling to change the industry from what it then was—an industry of hyper-exploitation and low pay which imposed misery on those who worked in it and ignored the conditions in which they worked. The Government tell us, by implication, that employers do not act like that today, but I am afraid that I do not trust them. I do not trust any employer who wants to remove the rights—not the privileges—that have been achieved by dock workers over generations to enable them to stand against and remove the excesses of ruthless employers.
  It is not only the dock workers who are affected. Many books have been written about the poverty of the dock areas, which affected the women and children in dock workers' families, too. Anyone who has read these books will understand why intervention of the sort enacted in
  66
  1947 was needed. It was possible, right up to the 1950s and beyond, for employers to come into the port industry by putting a wooden hut on the quay and bringing with them three or four wire strops—and they had a business. They were responsible and accountable to no one. If the Secretary of State would listen to me he might learn something. He has clearly shown today that he knows nothing about the docks industry, except what he has heard in the Goebbels-like propaganda that keeps being repeated about bobbing and ghosting and restrictive practices. In many cases these practices are to do with rights that have been negotiated with employers, who are being allowed to hide behind the Government's skirts.
  The employers and those who represent the Conservative party never wanted the scheme in the first place. It gave workers rights that they wanted to deny them. One of the aspects of the scheme that really hurt the Conservative party and the employers was that for the first time in the history of industrial relations in this country a degree—only a degree—of democracy was introduced to the business of hiring and firing. The Conservative party and its backers outside will not tolerate giving workers a say in determining whether their employers have been justified in sacking them. This has nothing to do with casualisation or decasualisation. It is part of the Government's continued and relentless attack since 1979 upon the trade union movement. That attack was designed to weaken the movement so that it could not respond to the ruthless nature of some employers.
  All the signs are that the employers are taking great advantage of the Government's policies on industrial relations. That is the central issue. It has been argued that the dockers have been resistant to change. I am long enough in the tooth to have gone to the docks in 1946 after spending eight years at sea, including the war. At that time the docker's only equipment was a hook in his belt and he picked up a hand bogey when he went into the dock. The dockers did not decide on that method of work.
  At that time labour was cheap and there was plenty of it. Sometimes men went to the docks for work and were sent home for three days or a week. No wonder that was an attractive proposition to employers and it made them resist change in the docks industry. Labour was a cheap commodity available at any time and often without pay, and employers exploited that to the full. That is why there was no capital investment in the ports which would have changed methods of work and the lives of dock workers.
  What have we seen since that time? Instead of the hook and the hand bogey there is now capital equipment each piece of which is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps £250,000, and that equipment is operated by dock workers who were trained in the industry. There are side loaders, tug masters and other high-tech equipment. The industry is being transformed and the number of dockers is down from 80,000 to just over 9,000. In the pre-war era and in the immediate post-war era Liverpool employed up to 20,000 dockers and had a shipbuilding industry employing the same number. That has all gone and there has been no compensation and no replacement with new industry.
  In the general election campaign the Prime Minister paraded around the country talking about her fears and saying that she wanted to do much for the inner cities. Liverpool is still a port-dependent city and by what they are doing the Government will make the situation there

  67
  and in other ports in the north a damn sight worse than it is at present. We should lay bare the deception of the Government in putting forward this pernicious legislation.
  There is no doubt that the campaign against the scheme has been carried out with the support of the employers to the accompaniment of howling and baying by Conservative Back Benchers. The scheme is seen as the last bastion of trade union power and has to be removed because, ideologically, the Conservative party and the employers do not like the phrase "workers' rights". Those rights were forced upon employers. Now the Government say that they want to remove that and give the employers a free hand. To do what? It will enable employers to return to casualisation and to sack the shop steward who is a bit of a lad, a bit of a nuisance who may cause problems for employers. The joint boards can decide who shall be sacked and the Government see that as ending his complete control over hiring and firing.
  The Secretary of State appears to be chosen for the most outrageous tasks in the House, and that was illustrated by his performance on the review of social security that has left families all over Britain impoverished. People such as old-age pensioners are pleading for something to be done about what the Secretary of State did when he held another office. He has brought that philosophy and attitude to this industry.
  It is clear that the Conservative party and the employers have waged a carefully orchestrated campaign and they see this as the most convenient and appropriate time to bring it to fruition in a most cynical and ruthless way. I am surethat in the long term the Government and employers will have to pay a price that they would not be prepared to pay if they knew the outcome of their policies. I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what sort of case will be presented by the employers and the trade unions.
  The Government argue that they are a Government of non-intervention. However, their intervention is always in areas that affect workers and their rights and where they affect the benefits conferred on workers by the first post-war Labour Government, such as the Health Service and the welfare state. They do not like local authorities. They intervene everywhere except where it affects capital, the power of capital and the City. They have seen a shift of power and they want power handed back to the port employers. The dockers are quite right to use every method that they can to stop the Government's reckless actions. I shall give my support to dock workers for whatever action they take. They deserve it and they are right. For generations they have assisted other workers in dispute and in struggle. At the end of the day victory will be theirs.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I shall start by declaring an interest as a director of Tate and Lyle.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is a part-timer.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East calls me a part-timer. After he made that allegation last year, I looked at our relative voting records. I was in the top 100 because I voted 338 times. The hon. Gentleman voted in just over half the Divisions, on 248 occasions—90 times fewer than me.
  68
  I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on one matter. It is that, when the legislation that created the dock labour scheme came into being, it dealt with a real evil, the evil of the casual system as it stood then. The hon. Gentleman also explained why it is no longer a real evil. Time and technology have transformed the ports. He talked about expensive equipment, and that there may be cranes costing £500,000 or £1 million. People are not called off the street for half a day to operate a £1 million crane. A manager with a high capital investment in a port is interested in maintaining a continuous, maximum throughput. He has the same interest as the well-trained man who wants a permanent, highly skilled job. That is what has done away with the casual system.
  Dr. Godman: It is possible to bring highly skilled, professional men from the streets to work for a short time —if they are unemployed. That is precisely what happens in my constituency with shipyard workers.
  Mr. Davis: There are not too many unemployed heavy train drivers or container operators.
  The second point is that, in a company with a very high capital investment, there is pressure on the management to keep the throughput up, to keep sales up—precisely the same interest as that of men who want to have permanent jobs. There is no interest in having an "up and down" shipping pattern.
  I want to pursue some of the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He referred briefly to a number of malpractices that we have heard talked about. He said that ghosting was a result of unwillingness to train. In my port of Goole, there is a cement operation which unloads from self-discharging cement ships. When the ships come into port they are linked in one movement by sailors. There is no other work to be done, yet the customer has to pay for two dockers to ghost. I do not know how that would be dealt with by training; it is a simple additional useless cost.
  Let us go on to bobbing and welting. In my port of Goole there are Swedish liner services. When the lines come in, 27 men are allocated to them. They need 18, so nine men go home—they "bob off" or welt. That does not arise from weak management; it arises because the manning levels are set by the joint board for the whole port. There is nothing that the management can do about it. There is no way in which it can negotiate its way out of that option.
  Let us consider discipline. In Hull and Goole, which for this purpose are one area, 12 people were dismissed between 1980 and 1986. All 12 were reinstated. Among them was one man who had been convicted of smuggling and had gone to gaol for seven months. Despite the fact that he had committed a criminal offence, and the fact that that offence related directly to his work, he was reinstated when he came out of gaol. That sort of thing, plus similar gaolings for theft and other offences related directly to the work of the ports, is what drives customers away from those ports.
  On the Humber, there are a number of scheme ports. They are all on deep water, are all served by motorways and railways, and all have good facilities, yet customers go to little ports at the end of country roads—ports with no

  69
  railways, or shallow water in fast-running rivers—precisely because they cannot bear the costs, the malpractice and the unpredictability of the scheme ports.
  Mr. Prescott: The National Ports Council called for a report on the small wharves in 1972. It found that the capital costs in schemes were three times higher.
  Mr. Davis: Precisely—17 years ago.[Interruption.] I will correct the hon. Member if he will pay attention. I was talking about the period 1980–86, when the proportion of the Humber throughput that was dealt with by private wharves increased from 15 per cent. to 21 per cent., entirely because of the terrible practices in these ports. The hon. Gentleman has attempted on many occasions to rubbish my arguments. He says that I do not know what I am talking about. Before coming to this House, I started work at the bottom of a transport company. I worked my way up to the position of managing director, and had to deal with problems of this sort. Hon. Members can decide for themselves which they consider to be the more useful experience: that, or serving gin and tonic on a Cunard liner. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it would have been easy not to do so, and the laugh would have been sustained.
  People can make their judgments about the character and ability of hon. Members. I gave the hon. Gentleman the evidence of the National Ports Council, which is still relevant. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman must address.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman should learn to use the evidence of his own eyes. He should go and look at some of these ports. What is the advantage in going down a tiny country road to a port on a fast-flowing river that can be used only at marginal times by small ships? The hon. Gentleman's argument is ridiculous, and there is no point in pursuing it.
  Mr. Prescott: The Government accepted it.
  Mr. Davis: Seventeen years ago the Government accepted some other things, including this scheme.
  This practice drives trade to other ports, and, as we have seen in the White Paper, it drives trade abroad. In 10 years, the share of intercontinental trade going through European ports has increased from 4 per cent. to 11 per cent. In other words, it has more than doubled in that period.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the WEFA report. He said that he did not like it. I, too, read the WEFA report very carefully, and was rather sceptical about it because, after all, it was sponsored by the port employers. But I was surprised by something different. The report completely ignored the concentration of trade going through the ports after 1992. We must expect, particularly on the H umber and in the north-east, a massive expansion of trade through ports—if the ports are viable. I am thinking of firms like Toyota, Nissan and Fujitsu. I understand that when Toyota went to Derby, the first thing it asked was, "Which is the way to Felixstowe?"—from Derby, for heaven's sake. My judgment is that the WEFA report under-estimated the employment that would be created by the abolition of the scheme. It will not be 50,000 but 100,000 jobs by 1993.
  70
  This Bill gives registered dock workers the same rights as are enjoyed by the dock workers in Felixstowe, where there was a 21 per cent. increase in cargoes last year and therefore, an increase in recruitment, and where up to £700 a week was paid to dockers. In conjunction with Dover, that part has had more investment than the rest of the scheme ports put together. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And not a penny from the public purse."] Exactly—not one penny from the public purse, but no casualisation, yet massive investment and growth.
  I must draw to a close quickly, as the 10-minutes rule is in operation. I tried to look charitably at the perspective of the Labour party and the trade unions. I looked very carefully, and, like the Secretary of State, I found it very difficult to tie them together.
  Mr. Prescott: Did the hon. Gentleman talk to them?
  Mr. Davis: Yes, I talked to them as well. In a minute I shall come to the question of talking to the unions. It is an interesting point.
  Let me summarise Labour's position. It seems to be to support a strike that cannot be won, to sustain a scheme that it knows is wrong, against a reform that it will not reverse. That is not particularly logical. Opposition Members cannot fault our laws, but they fear their own paymasters. They accuse us of provocation.
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I raised with Mr. Speaker a point of order about declaring interests. Mr. Speaker told me that he had replied in full to it last week. When the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) started his speech, somebody said, "part-timer". The register of interests says that he is a director of Tate and Lyle plc. May I have your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In view of the concern outside this Chamber about the amounts of money that Members of this House are earning on a part-time basis, would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to declare how much he gets from Tate and Lyle, exactly what he has to do to earn it, and whether what he is now promoting constitutes an interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. At the start of his remarks the hon. Gentleman did declare that he was a director of Tate and Lyle. Whether the rules for the Register of Members' Interests require him to go beyond that is a matter of doubt.
  Mr. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Let us get back to the subject. Opposition Members did not like my reference to their paymasters, which is where their real interest lies. What do they really believe? In the past five years, there have been five attempts by the employers to negotiate with the unions—five attempts, five rebuttals, and any number of strike threats. However, I too was sceptical, so in January of this year, at a conference on the dock labour scheme, at which John Connolly was present, I raised the issue of negotiation. Mr. Connolly said no. He said that he was not interested in it.
  The Labour party is not the same as the trade unions, so last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill proposing, a negotiated settlement to the scheme.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is also now working within a 10-minute rule.
  Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am coming ton my last point. When I introduced my Bill, I said:
  "Finally and most important, the Bill aims to create a timetable for both sides of the port industry to negotiate an end to the current practices which cripple the industry, and to give us a new industry by the crucial date of 1992."—[Official Report, 11 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 321.]
  That offered four years of negotiation, but the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East and for Oldham, West voted against it. Where is their interest in negotiation now? Where is their interest in representing anybody except the 9,000 dockers? This Government and this party represent the 100,000; that is why we should not negotiate.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: As the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) said, the historical reasons for introducing the dock labour scheme in 1946 were valid then. As the Minister of Labour at that time said, the labour market was such that only the fittest survived. However, in the first part of his speech, the hon. Member for Boothferry also gave us examples of how that system has become anachronistic and outlived its usefulness.
  If there is any merit in consistency, I can point out that, in an amendment to the Loyal Address on 25 November 1975, the Liberal party tabled an amendment in which we said that we
  "regret that the Gracious Speech contains proposals for the docks which, if carried out by an extension of the areas covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme, will lead to further unemployment in those areas, further strangulation of Great Britain's successful ports and higher costs and inefficiency."—[Official Report, 25 November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 681.]
  History has shown those remarks to be relevant.
  In a sedentary intervention earlier a member of the Front Bench referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has made his position clear. I remind the Minister that, as recently as 10 March 1988, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said:
  "I cannot believe that the mere abolition of the scheme would have all the desirable effects that they seem to believe." —[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 600.]
  If he has changed his mind in a year, I have some time to persuade my hon. Friend to change his.
  The 1975 amendment referred to "higher costs and inefficiency." We have heard already today of practices such as ghosting and bobbing. Inevitably, the costs of these practices have been passed on to the consumer. In competition with both non-scheme ports and continental ports, many of the registered scheme ports have undoubtedly lost out. The "jobs for life" provision is not part of the statutory scheme. Rather, it is a result of the Jones-Aldington agreement. It has meant that dockers have been retained on at least basic pay. This has led to overmanning and levels of employment have been reduced only through voluntary redundancy which, since 1972, has cost the taxpayer some £420 million. As a consequence, the labour force has aged. For example, in the port of Tees and Hartlepool, there is a shortage of labour but there is also a reluctance to recruit new labour, and no one working at that port is under 35.
  The amendment warned also of the
  "strangulation of Great Britain's successful ports".
  Some have suggested that the scheme should be allowed to wither on the vine. I disagree with that suggestion because,
  72
  as the White Paper says, the scheme operates in ports that have been in existence since 1945, and are our best ports, because of strategic and geographical positions and water depths. Earlier this year, the great historic port of Aberdeen, with a history of 800 years as a fishing port, came within an ace of losing that fishing trade as a result of the scheme. As Aberdeen's fishing interests have declined, there has been an increase in the use of Peterhead as a fishing port.
  The amendment also warned that the scheme would lead to "further unemployment". Much of the unemployment has resulted not from the scheme but from the changes in technology and the move from the west to the east. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) referred to the difficulties at the port of Manchester, many of which are due to the fact that the Manchester ship canal is not capable of taking the larger ships on which so much trade is now carried.
  The dock labour scheme can hardly be said to be a guarantee of employment. Since 1972, only the ports of Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Poole have shown any increase in employment. I suspect that this increase, certainly in the cases of the first two and possibly in the case of the last, is related to oil and gas developments in the southern basin of the North sea and the English channel. The figures speak for themselves. Let us compare the figures in 1972 and 1988. In London they are 11,702 and 1,703; in Hull 2,064 and 665; in Liverpool and Birkenhead, 8,401 and 1,395. Clearly the scheme is not a guarantee of employment.
  Replying to an intervention from the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), the Secretary of State dismissed lightly some of the achievements made by the dock labour force in places such as Liverpool. In spite of the decrease in employment, there has been a considerable increase in productivity, and other advances. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) would want it to be recorded that, since 1982, Liverpool has been a profitable port. Last year, it made a pre-tax profit of £5,885,000, some 56 per cent. up on 1987. The port's industrial record has been transformed and tonnage has steadily gone up, with a 10·2 per cent. increase in 1987, to 19·5 million tonnes.
  Although Liverpool has shown great adaptation to circumstances and the capacity to develop as a port, we cannot overlook the fact that, according to figures that I have seen today, there is no registered docker in Liverpool under the age of 35, and the average age is 47·8. That is a matter for concern.
  Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wallace: I should like to give way, but I have only 10 minutes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand. If these ports are to develop and take the opportunities, new blood must be introduced and the present scheme does not encourage the port employers to do that.
  So far, much of the debate has concentrated on consultation. Introducing a White Paper one day and publishing a Bill the next is provocative, to put it mildly. I hope that Ministers will agree to consultation and that the unions will have a meaningful dialogue with the port employers. If the unions insist on changing a statutory scheme to a voluntary one, discussions will never get off the ground.

  73
  I can understand, from my examination of the history, the anxieties about the wide-scale reintroduction of casual labour. Why should there not be discussions between unions and port employers to try to get some contractual, negotiated guarantees that there will not be the reintroduction of casual labour, as the port employers have suggested? The general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union said that he found that as convincing as the statement that the National Health Service is safe in the hands of the Prime Minister. Perhaps with some negotiation he can get some firmer guarantees.
  There must also be negotiations about training after the interim period changes. My understanding is that, on 1 January, regulations that would give non-scheme ports a requirement to do with training functions came into being. What will happen after the transitional period to the provision on training in the scheme ports? The training of new recruits for those ports is needed above all else. If we are passing legislation to end that scheme, we cannot leave training hanging in the air without any sign from the Government about what they see as the provision of training for new recruits once the scheme is abolished and all ports become non-registered.
  I and many others believe that the abolition of the scheme will lead to an increase in jobs and employment opportunities in many ports, but it is expected that initially there will be a fall-off in employment. A reduction of 10 per cent. has been mentioned by some. That will be a matter of concern for those who are most directly affected. However, the redundancy terms are generous and many, especially those aged 50—about 40 per cent. of those who work in registered dock scheme ports are of that age—may be tempted to get out and to take the terms that are on offer. If they do, it is important that provision should be made to assist them in retraining for other forms of employment in addition to giving them money. I believe that getting out and taking the terms will be an initial response to the Bill.
  There will be opportunities in the long term, not least as a result of the competition that will come as we march towards 1992. We can look towards more jobs being created in many of our ports. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) fairly said, there is a need for a strategy for the ports, and that will not be introduced automatically through the operation of the free market. Many of the ports on the west coast, not least on Merseyside and the Clyde, can be entrances to the European Community for trade coming from north America. The Government have been silent on how they would like to see the ports develop the opportunities that are available to them, especially those on the west coast, in 1992. My parliamentary colleagues will support the Bill but we want to hear more ideas from the Government on a general port strategy.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I am glad to have been called to contribute to the debate. The Southampton docks, which constitute one of the largest scheme ports, have been one of my most prominent political problems since I entered the House. We have heard this evening about the rights of workers but we have not heard much about workers who were made unemployed as a result of numerous strikes. We have not heard much of the ancillary
  74
  workers who suddenly find that the port is not working, which means that their employers give them the sack and perhaps re-engage them later.
  I suppose that the Southampton docks have suffered more than most docks. The port was derelict for over 12 months from 1981 onwards. We had a succession of strikes and as a result the entire city began to suffer. No passenger ships came in and the channel ports operation ceased. The roll-on/roll-off activity moved to Portsmouth. That trade was lost. The atmosphere of the city was blighted by the atmosphere of the port. During this period there was a more militant approach to employment than one could even hazard a guess at merely by being in a place such as the House of Commons.
  There was an extremely fierce chief shop steward. Fortunately, that man took his redundancy pay about four or five years ago. I believe that he is now managing a public house in Southampton. He led a militant bunch of shop stewards who were only too anxious at any time to impose new obligations on employers.
  The Conservative party cannot be exonerated completely from blame for the legislation that was built up to form protectionism. It was during the time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister that we agreed to the Jones-Aldington arrangements. That was perhaps the greatest and most powerful lever that we gave to registered dock workers. There were two significant features of the arrangements. The first was that port employers would have to pay a basic rate—I believe that today it is near £150 a week—to any registered dock worker, even if there was no work to do. Secondly, and most serious of all, he survivors of the then strike had to take up their percentage of the dock workers who no longer had an employer. The costs of port employers escalated and at the end of the day there were very few employers. Townsend Thoresen became so fed up with the system that it decided to move to Portsmouth. That was one of its main reasons for the move.
  The passengers of the Cunard shipping company had to manhandle their baggage when the dockers claimed that that was part of their dock work. The QE2 had to go to Cherbourg on one of its trips to off load and load passengers. They were flown out from the United Kingdom and flown back. The baggage had to be handled by French dock workers. The problem was that registered dock workers were beginning to get a jugular-vein grip on the scheme ports.
  I do not blame the dockers. The Labour Government presented a scheme and a Conservative Government added to it the two conditions to which I have referred. If I were presented with Christmas every day, I would not refuse it. I would say, "No, I do not really want all these guarantees. I do not want to have a job when all those around me are losing theirs." My response would be, "This is obviously a good trade union agreement and we must stick to it as a matter of life and death." Unfortunately, it was the life of the registered dock workers and the death of many port employers. I imagine that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was a dock worker for many years. He said that the rights of the workers were such that they had to be protected. He appeared to have a wrong-end-of-the-telescope view of the problem. Not all dock workers are registered dockers. Indeed, in almost every port the registered dockers comprise only about one third of the labour force.

  75
  It has emerged clearly this evening that those on the Opposition Front Bench are running pretty scared. They know that there has been disagreement. I have a cutting from my local newspaper in which it is stated that the dock union chief in Southampton "slates leader Todd". The article reads:
  "TGWU docks officer Dennis Harryman said the union's executive should have plumped for an immediate ballot for strike action rather than Mr. Todd's policy of deferring the ballot".
  The article continues:
  "'Ron Todd has fragmented things by giving those ports who don't want to come out a legitimate way out of strike action'"
  When there is such discontent near the top of a large trade union, we must suspect that there will be trouble for the Trades Union Congress and for the Labour party. The Labour party has realised this and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has obviously been given instructions to play down what he has been saying and what has been read out on so many occasions today.
  As a constituency man, I can go only from what I read in my local newspaper. It has printed a good but short letter by someone who obviously knows a great deal about the ports. He writes:
  "'The furore caused by the Opposition and the trades unions over the abolition of the docks labour scheme strikes me as being hypocritical.
  Here we have organisations who are supposedly opposed to privilege and class distinction upholding working practices which, if applied to the workforce of the whole country, would be unworkable, resulting in bankruptcy and mass unemployment."'
  I do not know whether I go along with that fully, but there is certainly a reason for abolishing the scheme. I am surprised it has lasted so long—and I am surprised that the Labour Government did not kill it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it destroys jobs. It is as plain as that.
  In the future, when the scheme has been abolished, there will be further work in the port of Southampton. The Bill does not mean the end of those 700 dockers' jobs—it is a beginning. We have heard that the more aged dockers can now receive a redundancy payment of £35,000, practically unheard of in any other industry—and, in any case, we need to bring fresh people into the dock work force.
  The main thing that I like about the provisions is that in future workers in the port will be able to identify with an employer rather than be moved about at the whim of the dock labour board. There is a lot to be said for the Bill. I hope that it will have an easy passage through Committee and that it will be on the statute book by July.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Two versions of events have been given in the debate. One version has been given by Conservative Members, who generated the baying, howling and screeching that accompanied the initial announcement of the Bill. They have made deliberate attempts to attack the arguments of my hon. Friends, who are those most likely to have had experience of working in, rather than managing, the docks. Therein lies the difference in attitude.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has considerable hands-on experience not only as a member of the Transport and General Workers
  76
  Union, but of working in the docks. When we read the report of the debate in Hansard tomorrow, that difference in attitude will come across clearly. I shall not go over the ground so adequately covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, save to associate myself with all his comments. Instead, I wish to knock some of the suggestions that have been put forward about why the Bill is required at this time.
  The city of Dundee lies on the River Tay. For many years it has required the port to bring in the main sustenance for Dundee's manufacturing base—jute. Although Dundee has a long history as a port—dealing not only, but mainly, in jute—its history has not been recognised in the comments of the Secretary of State or his hon. Friends. In Dundee, which is a scheme port, approximately £1 million will have been invested by the Dundee port authority in the period 1986 to 1992. That investment has been made because the authority is confident of a return on it. Not only will that investment be made until 1992, but even now it is predicted that it will rise to £2 million after 1992. Dundee port authority can make that commitment because of its confidence in the adaptability and flexibility of its partner, the Dundee Stevedore Company, and in its dock-worker employees, all of whom are committed to the long-term prosperity not only of the port but of all the people who live in Dundee.
  The Dundee dock workers created the stability which led to the ending of the scandal of 250,000 tonnes of Scottish grain going south in lorries to lie in stores before being exported from ports in the south. In 1979, the port of Dundee handled 800 tonnes of grain. With a change of management in the 1980s and a new determination to work with the Dundee Stevedore Company and the dockers, four new sheds were built, and a new grain elevator and mechanised handling equipment were installed. As a result, the figure rose in 1988 to 128,000 tonnes of Scottish grain being exported from a Scottish port.
  That investment by the Dundee port authority has been possible because of the good working relationship in the scheme port of Dundee where there are no shareholders to pay off. There have been record profits because prices have been held steady for two years due to the flexibility and adaptability of the work force and, indeed, are likely to rise this year and next year by no more than the rate of inflation. As I have said, there are no shareholders to pay off, and because of the money that the port has managed to gain from the EEC there has been massive investment and development in Dundee itself. The authority's investment in Dundee's future started long before the Secretary of State's announcement in the House. Dundee is a scheme port and working together has meant that it has been able to provide for its long-term future since long before the announcement.
  The Secretary of State is no longer in his place, but in his absence perhaps I can address this point to the Minister who is present—the Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo)—and ask him whether, having started the precedent of using selected quotations from selected newspapers in support of the abolition of the scheme, the Secretary of State will accept quotations from the same Scottish newspapers about the abolition or otherwise of the poll tax in Scotland? I suspect that, if we asked the Secretary of State

  77
  whether he accepted the views of those newspapers on the poll tax as it applies to Scotland, we should get a quite different response.
  As the Secretary of State has referred to the efforts made by the port employers to discuss the scheme, may we have on record the dates when the port employers officially wrote, offered or asked for negotiations or when such requests were made formally, across the table, during negotiations? Let us have on record the dates of the five occasions when that occurred.
  The Dundee port authority is convinced that it does not need these provisions to ensure a profitable port in Dundee. Speaking the day after the Secretary of State's announcement in the House, the chief executive of the port authority, Captain John Watson, said that he had been taken by surprise, as he was sure had a number of people in the industry, by the speed with which the Government intended to proceed. He added:
  "The battle cry of late seems to have been get rid of the scheme with little done by anyone to assure registered dock workers that there is life after the scheme."
  Like other employers, the Dundee Stevedore Company has now responded to that statement. I remind the House that prior to the scheme, there were 68 companies in Dundee which hired men, mainly on a day-to-day basis, in much the same conditions as those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, which were not only archaic but an insult to the workers and to any form of employer-worker relationship.
  The Dundee Stevedore Company has made it quite clear that, because of the amount of work and because of its duty to those who use the port for jute, paper and BP oil, there should not be any reduction in the number of dockers employed in the port. The chairman, Mr. Ronnie Caldwell, has confirmed that to me today. More importantly, he confirmed it to the dockers in a letter last Friday in which he gave a guarantee that there would be no return to the system of casual labour and said that he looked forward to working with a skilled, competitive and motivated labour force. He emphasised the need for management and employees to work together to take advantage of the competitive opportunities which exist. I emphasise that that was said against the backdrop of a good working relationship.
  When I have asked dockers how they respond to those comments, naturally they have said that they are happy to hear that initial statement from their employer, but they have made the point that there is a thing called agency labour and that it is already used by several ports. It is also used in other industries in which there is a core work force, but where there is no continuity of employment. Continuity of employment should be a vital component of any new agreement. The dockers would not be asking or expecting too much to expect that the negotiations should start now so that conditions similar to those that they now have can be discussed and perhaps agreed with their present employers.
  The port employers say that they want to talk to the workers and the workers say that they want to talk to their employers, but they want to ensure that those discussions are not held in an atmosphere in which pressure is being put solely on the workers to give up something for which they have fought and struggled for many years. The Government could help that process by making clear in
  78
  Committee exactly what they would like to see replace the dock labour scheme, and what guarantees they intend to provide to the industry's workers.
  A characteristic of those who work in the ports is fear and uncertainty about an industry whose history is one of regulation being required to ensure decent, hurnane working conditions for those working in it. I do not want a return to the days when dock workers had to go round the various pubs in Dundee—whether it was Black Jock's, the Market Bar or Brady's—and bribe the gaffer with drink, and the next morning have to remind him or scrabble about on the ground for the few pegs that were left because the gaffer had forgotten that he had been paid the price of work the night before.
  We want the industry to be regulated. That regulation can only come through discussion, and the workers want that discussion. We shall not support the Bill because of the deliberate attempts by the Government to take away rights hard fought for by workers in an industry which requires regulation.
  7.41 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I intervene briefly, because there are no docks in my constituency. However, the towns of Andover and of nearby Basingstoke are major customers of ports, and in this debate I speak for the customer. Much of industry's competitive ability is affected by the cost of transport and of handling commodities through our docks. Cargo handling is more expensive in United Kingdom ports than it is in continental ports, to the disadvantage of our country's manufacturers, jobs and prosperity.
  The first question that arises from the debate is whether there is now a case for treating the 9,400 scheme port dockers differently from the remaining 3,600 port workers. Listening to the debate, it is clear why dock workers used to need different employment arrangements. I may be an unlikely ally for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—who has not yet caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but on many occasions during the 20 or more years since I entered the House, I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak out against the evils of the old system of casual labour.
  I agree with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), that the system of hiring casual labour was abhorrent and that employers behaved unacceptably. I join Opposition Members in looking back with anger at what used to happen. However, that was many years ago. Today, we must consider instead the current situation, by examining the non-scheme ports.
  Today's dockers in non-scheme ports are well paid. Many of them are better paid than those working in scheme ports. They are represented by the same trade union, and casual labour accounts for only 6 per cent. of their work force. That figure is comparable with the percentage of casual workers in catering and in many other industries, including no doubt many of the services with which right hon. and hon. Members are provided through the facilities of the House.
  The dock labour scheme may have been the right answer in its day, but times have changed. The House should look at the downside of that scheme. First, there is the downward spiral to consider. A port or firm may suffer contraction, perhaps because it deals in a certain

  79
  commodity, or because, as in Liverpool, of our trade with the European Community and the expansion of cargo handling through east coast ports. The contraction may be due to a commodity such as leather being replaced by plastic, or to some other change of pattern in trade.
  Whatever the reason, some firms within a particular port will suffer a decline and go out of business. When that happens, their dock workers are allocated to other employers who neither need nor want them. The consequence is a serious additional cost for those other firms, making their operations uneconomical and forcing them out of business. The downward spiral is exacerbated as their unwanted labour is in turn dumped on to other firms, who find themselves severely overmanned and bearing all the higher operating costs and disadvantages that follow from that situation.
  That downward spiral has two further effects. First, the profits of the remaining firms will fall, so that they are unable to finance the costs of modernisation and of installing new equipment on the scale that they should. Secondly, as modern equipment usually requires fewer people to operate it, the overmanned firms have no case for investing in it. One of the major downside effects of the dock labour scheme is the extent to which it inhibits and damages investment in the scheme ports on the scale that would allow them to compete effectively.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to investment in certain scheme ports, but it is way below the level required to achieve competitive, cost-effective handling of cargo through those ports.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he should give examples.
  Sir David Mitchell: One can clearly illustrate the downward spiral by examining the way in which scheme ports have lost trade to non-scheme ports. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends spoke of the way in which manufacturers avoid sending their goods through scheme ports because of all the damage that comes from doing that. Felixstowe's trade has increased 14 times over the past 20 years, but at the same time we have seen a decline in the volume of trade at scheme ports.
  Investment is the key to cost-effective movement of goods through our docks and ports. The abolition of the dock labour scheme will help to make more investment possible. I hope that the House will support the Bill, which will result in better-paid dockers and—speaking as the voice of the dock's customers—a better, more cost-effective service to manufacturers.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Robert Parry: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I am able to pledge my full support for dock workers in Liverpool and throughout the United Kingdom. I speak on their behalf because I probably have more relatives employed on the docks than any other right hon. and hon. Member. More than 80 years ago my great-grandfather worked on the Liverpool docks, as did my two grandfathers and my father's brothers. Recently, my own brothers worked under the inhuman and disgraceful casual labour system.
  80
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke of the way that workers were hired in Dundee. The same was true of Liverpool dockers. They were treated like cattle, and were employed only if they bought the foreman or the ganger a pint of beer, or even because they were of the same religion. We never want to see such things happen again in the docks.
  The Secretary of State says that abolition of the scheme will not mean a return to casual labour. However, I believe that employers will jump at the opportunity to make bigger profits at the expense of dock workers. In business questions last week, I suggested to the Leader of the House that right hon. and hon. Members who serve as consultants to port employers should not be allowed to participate in debates on the Bill or to vote on it. I was not satisfied with the reply from the Leader of the House, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised the same point with Mr. Speaker, he received a similar answer.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said earlier, some employers are inclined to bring back casual labour. This is nothing but a deliberate ploy by the Government to provoke a dock strike. Thatcher dogmatism is showing its hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger neatly on the button last week when he said that the Government would find a strike very convenient in cutting imports. He also referred to the Government's failure to refer the scheme to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  There has been no consultation between the port employers and the TGWU. The Government have been influenced by Conservative backwoodsmen—many of whom have never seen a dock in their lives—especially those in paid posts who will gain if the scheme is abolished. There is also an unholy rush to get the Bill on to the statute book, when more important Bills such as the Children Bill are awaiting consideration. The port of Liverpool employed 25,000 workers 30 or 40 years ago. Now it employs fewer than 2,000. That does not say much for the argument that jobs are for life, which the House should recognise as a myth.
  This Bill has been born out of party political considerations and expediency: action is being taken against dock workers in support of Tory dogma. I understand that Ron Todd, general secretary of the TGWU, is trying to open discussions with the port employers, but I shall support the Liverpool dockers whether or not they receive official backing for a strike. They believe and trust in us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has already spelt out what they have gone through over the years. Like him I pledge my support to the dockers, not only in Liverpool, but throughout the United Kingdom. We will not agree to any system that would bring back casualisation and use dock workers as chattels in the hands of unscrupulous employers.
  I shall conclude my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as I know that more than 40 hon. Members are trying to catch your eye—by saying that Opposition Members will give full support to the dock workers, and will oppose the Tory Government's deliberate attempt to provoke a strike that no one else wants and to put the clock back many years.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Mike Woodcock: It was the economist Milton Friedman who said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. He meant that in any industry, whatever the cost, someone somewhere must pay for waste, inefficiency, restrictive practices and a failure to come to terms with economic reality. Until a few years ago there were quite a few free-lunchers in my constituency: managements that refused to come to terms with market forces and trade unions that clung to restrictive practices.
  The history of my constituency is intertwined with ports. Neston, on the Dee, was originally Nelson's dockyard; it later became the main port for Irish trade. Ellesmere Port, on the Manchester ship canal, was a great transit port between the canal boats of the Shropshire union canal and the ocean-going vessels on the ship canal. Now, however, the largest employers in my constituency are not the ports but Vauxhall Motors and Shell, which have important lessons for the docks industry and which also rely on that industry.
  The Vauxhall site in my constituency was purchased by General Motors as a future expansion site for Europe. It could have been one of the largest vehicle manufacturing plants in Europe; instead restrictive practices, militant trade unions and repeated strikes ensured that almost all the investment went to Germany. As late as 1983 the Vauxhall plant in my constituency lost 60 man days per employee through industrial action; in 1987 it lost only two. Those figures illustrate graphically the change in attitudes over the past few years. Vauxhall has come back from the brink; there is new investment and a sense of reality, although the empty acres remain as a lasting monument to the missed opportunities of the 1970s.
  Similarly, the Shell plant in my constituency was once the largest refinery in Europe. In the early 1980s, however, an independent survey showed that it was one of the most inefficient in terms of labour utilisation and working practices. It was overstaffed and full of restrictive practices; it was an unpleasant place to work; attitudes were counter-productive, and employees were not involved in decision-making. Many thought that the company owed them a living. Profit was a dirty word, and people felt that they had a right to a job without any commitment. It was yesterday's operation with yesterday's ideas and practices. Without a fundamental change in attitudes and values, the plant would have closed.
  I am pleased to say that that plant now has a secure future. The company has invested massively; jobs are secure, and pay has increased. Why has that happened? It has happened simply because people recognised that there was only one forward and that a massive change in attitudes was required. As a result, the refinery at Stanlow is now a monument to the success of the second industrial revolution.
  Stories like those of Vauxhall and Shell are commonplace, not only in my constituency but throughout the United Kingdom. But what about the docks industry? Today it is nowhere near as important to the local economy in my constituency. The silting of the River Dee has meant the closure of the port of Neston. The major part of the Ellesmere Port docks is now the national waterways museum: although a major tourist attraction, it is not a working port. Some docks remain: in particular, we have an efficient, modern container terminal and a
  82
  regular roll-on/roll-off ferry service to the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the port would be much more efficient without the dock labour scheme.
  Many registered ports in this country are overstaffed and full of restrictive practices. They abound in counter-productive attitudes. They are unpleasant places to work, where some people think that they have a right to a job without commitment or that others owe them a living. Those are fundamentally the same problems and attitudes that characterised Shell and Vauxhall, and the national dock labour scheme has perpetuated them. It has stifled initiative, development and enterprise.
  Is it not ironic that the once great port of Liverpool, when it was registered in 1947, had a work force of 22,000? It now has a workforce of only 1,200, and no dock worker has been hired there for 16 years. There are dockers surplus to requirements and a shortage of work, and industrial disputes continue. By contrast, Felixstowe has seen prosperity. Wages are high: some workers are earning as much as £700 a week. Overtime is plentiful, and 2,000 people are employed. In the past two years the labour force has increased by 200. Last year the port handled 21 per cent. more cargo, and not a single day has been 'lost through industrial relations disputes since 1974. They are the sharp contrasts that highlight the capacity of the national dock labour scheme to stop progress and drive jobs away from registered scheme ports. Those attitudes and practices have not helped the nation, local economies or registered dock workers.
  When trade unions abuse the privileges that the law has granted to them, ultimately it is rank and file union members who suffer. To mix metaphors, all those free lunches eventually come home to roost. As John Harvey-Jones, the ex-chairman of ICI remarked:
  "the reality of the future is that the interests of trade unions, union members and management lie together."
  It is sad that entrenched attitudes have made the Bill necessary, but necessary it is. It is time for trade unions to realise the wisdom of John Harvey-Jones's words and it is time for Opposition Members to stop defending the indefensible. They do themselves no good whatsoever. They only show, yet again, that they are yesterday'smen with yesterday's ideas, yesterday's policies and yesterday's attitudes. The interests of dock managers and dock workers lie together. They lie in the abolition of this dreadful scheme.
  8 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: As one of yesterday's men, I am not delighted to follow one of tomorrow's casualties at the next general election.
  Mr. Woodcock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: No.
  I am sure that John Harvey-Jones will not be pleased about having been quoted by a Conservative Member of Parliament in a debate of this nature. I know of no other industrialist in this country who has such a progressive outlook towards the trade union movement as John Harvey-Jones, whose reputation has not been enhanced by what was said about him by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock). I am sure that he would want me to defend him.
  Earlier I raised a point of order and expressed my anger about the way in which Conservative Members were

  83
  behaving. We were talking about people's jobs and the future of their families. In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to emphasise that point of order.
  I do not apologise for my personal characteristics. I do not find it possible to mourn for the dead of Liverpool from 3·30 to 5 o'clock and then from 5 o'clock to 10 o'clock to bay at the dockers of Liverpool. What happened this afternoon was absolutely disgusting. I have never witnessed such reprehensible behaviour as that of Conservative Back Benchers when the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was speaking. They knew that he was dealing with the future of working people.
  I put that on record for a deliberate reason. Like most other hon. Members, I make available to local newspapers the comments that I make in the House. I want everybody —Conservative, Labour, nationalists, Democrats and those of no politics—in the Falkirk, East constituency to understand the contempt with which my dockers were treated by Conservative Members during the early part of the debate.
  The Secretary of State gave the game away. Part of the speech that he read and that he did not have time to change was written for him in the belief that today we should be at the start of a strike in the scheme ports.
  Mr. Fowler indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State can make faces, but the fact is that the Secretary of State wanted, and still wants, a strike by the dockers.
  Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: No.
  The Secretary of State wants a strike. When he spoke at a dinner last Friday evening, the Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged the dockers to go on strike. That is why I am absolutely delighted that Ron Todd and John Connolly have managed, by their wise counsel, to persuade the dockers not to strike. If working people go on strike, they must do so on the grounds they choose, not on grounds chosen for them by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Employment. They must go on strike at a time that they choose, not at a time chosen for them by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Employment. Furthermore, they must go on strike when they have a reasonable chance of success, not when working people and their families will be trampled on, as they were effectively trampled on by the conduct of Conservative Back Benchers during the early part of the debate.
  There are three elements to be considered in the ports industry, one of which has not yet been mentioned. The three elements are the port employers, the dockers and the shipowners. The shipowner plays an important part.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interventions. He should show some respect for dockers, if not for me, and be quiet for a minute.
  The shipowner plays an important part in the development of the docks industry. Reference has already been made to the Scottish ports. Scottish shipowners are
  84
  deliberately choosing not to bring their vessels to any Scottish port, be it a scheme port or a non-scheme port. They are paying the road haulage costs for goods to go from wherever they are manufactured in Scotland to Felixstowe, usually, because, from a shipowner's point of view, it is cheaper to steam his vessel into Felixstowe—it has nothing to do with the dockers who work at Felixstowe or at Grangemouth but everything to do with steaming costs—than to steam his vessel into Grangemouth. It is cheaper for him to pay the road haulage costs to take the goods to the vessel rather than to bring the vessel to the goods.
  The effect that that has had on the Scottish economy ought not to be under-estimated. Until about eight years ago, 75 per cent. of all the goods manufactured in Scotland for export went out through Scottish ports. Nothing has changed, except that only 23 per cent. of the goods manufactured in Scotland for export now go through Scottish ports. The rest go down to Felixstowe because of the grid system, or the cross-subsidisation that is employed by shipowners. The Government will do nothing about it. The shipowners will eventually close the Scottish ports. The national dock labour scheme will not close them. That is why the Bill is such nonsense. It does not even begin to tackle the root of the problem.
  After the shipowners have closed the Scottish ports, the cross-subsidisation will be withdrawn and the cost of taking goods from Scotland for export will be enormously increased. That is why one of our main industries, the Scotch whisky industry, is already taking steps to ensure that it does not fall into the trap that is being set for it by the shipowners. The industry is making arrangements—all credit to it—to construct a terminal so that it can export Scotch whisky from Scottish ports. As soon as Scottish shipowners succeed in closing the Scottish ports, the grid system will come to an end and cross-subsidisation will be withdrawn. There will then be an enormous increase in the cost of our exports.
  The Minister tells us that the Bill is crucial. It is so crucial that it did not form part of the Gracious Speech or of the Conservative party's 1987 election manifesto, only two years ago. It did not need to be introduced at this time without discussion. The Minister does not want discussions. He does not want the port employers and the union to get together, let alone to speak to the unions. The Bill is about confrontation. That is what the Government have wanted since the middle of last week when the announcement was made.
  The Bill has nothing to do with 1992 and the free market. If that is what it is supposed to be, it shows a complete failure to understand the nature of that free market. The Minister talks about the need to make our ports competitive for 1992. Why, then, did the Minister for Roads and Traffic come to the Dispatch Box some months ago and boast that this country has not taken a penny piece from the EEC regional development fund for transport to prepare our transport system for 1992? The French Government have taken 48 per cent. of all their rail network investment from the EEC regional fund to construct a brand new rail network to get their goods to their ports in 1992.
  The Bill has nothing to do with 1992 and everything to do with destroying the rights of the workers. I shall not go into the Lobby this evening happily, but with great regret

  85
  that it is necessary to oppose a measure designed to take dockers and the industry in which they work back to the Victorian age.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I am glad to have the opportunity to correct the record so eloquently distorted by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I remind the House that the Labour party, which is supposed to care so passionately about the Bill, is represented in the Chamber by only about a dozen supporters. A few more were present earlier, but only a handful. That exposes the myth that the Labour party is doing its utmost to support the dockers outside. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East is distorting history and doing himself a disservice by suggesting that the bad behaviour has been on the Conservative Benches given that earlier there was a tremendous amount of raucous noise from the Opposition, who sought to howl down my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker himself suggested that the noise was coming from both sides of the House.
  I certainly have no interest—I am not trying to be pious —in embarrassing the Labour party; it is sufficiently embarrassed already on this issue. We have no interest in trying to make Labour Front Bench spokesmen look even more uncertain about their position. We have no interest, either, in embarrassing the leadership of the TGWU. We certainly have no interest in a strike. That is the first and significant point that I shall make.
  We have heard a great deal of nonsense from the Opposition. Let us be sensible for a moment. A strike will do a lot of damage to the docks. It will do a great deal of damage to the industry that we seek to support, to the customers, and the companies and to employees throughout the dock industry. It would certainly damage the union. It will do much damage to the Opposition, who will be in a difficult position, and to the Government. Strikes damage the country, Governments and everyone else. We have no interest in a strike and there is no need or justification for a strike.
  I share the views expressed by many Opposition Members and endorsed by Conservative Members that nobody in his right mind wants a return to the sort of casual labour system that, as we all recognise even if we did not personally experience it, was an utterly intolerable feature of the immediate post-war period. The scheme was introduced as a means of disposing of casual labour. Opposition and Conservative Members alike understand that the world has changed dramatically. It is a totally different world—highly capital-intensive with totally new techniques—and employers need a highly skilled professional labour force. There is no way that one could run the business on a casual basis. A representative of the National Association of Port Employers said:
  "Over the coming weeks and months, I have no doubt that employers in each of the ports will he sitting down with their employees to discuss working arrangements which will enable them to realise the full potential of their port following removal of the Scheme and the extra competitiveness it will give the industry."
  The same press release says:
  "We will not be returning to systems of casual employment, nor any variant of it."
  When the scheme goes, and before any legislation is passed, there should be negotiations between different employers and their work forces on new contracts of
  86
  employment. That is the constructive way forward. The House has to make a decision about the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That is our decision. It has been made absolutely clear that the new contracts of employment will mean a guarantee that there will be no return to casual employment, and it is up to the employers and employees to negotiate that position.
  Opposition Members ask why we are abolishing the scheme in this way. One might say that it has been done rapidly but, equally, many Conservative Members would say that it is 10 years too late. From the debate so far, it has been painfully clear that we are faced with a simple proposition. The unions have made it clear that they are not prepared to negotiate about the abolition of the scheme. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has made it clear that the unions are not prepared to negotiate about the abolition of the scheme independently of discussions about the future of the port industry. Let us not be naive about it: Opposition Members know, and we know, that the simple issue is the abolition of the scheme itself. There is little room to negotiate on that. There may be plenty of room for negotiations between employers and employees about different contracts of employment; so be it. We have a very simple proposition with very little scope for negotiating about the scheme itself, given the attitude of the trade unions.
  Is it better to make an announcement and take six months of negotiation about something that is clearly understood by hon. Members and have six months of dispute, with threats hanging over the industry? Is it not better to deal with the matter quickly and cleanly and thus get both sides facing the key issue? The position that the Government have adoped is helpful to the industry, to the unions and to everybody. It means that a clear-cut decision will be taken rapidly. Is it not easier for Opposition Members to make up their minds about their position on a short time scale, rather than in a long drawn-out process of torture over many months ahead?
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred to the dock workers of Liverpool. Those of us in the south of England watched the port of London being destroyed by the dock labour scheme. The same was also largely true of Liverpool. The dock labour scheme has done more to destroy jobs in Liverpool, London and other ports than almost any other single factor. Those of us who are concerned about having a thriving port industry, preserving jobs, encouraging new investment and recapturing some of the trade lost to Europe say that we should end the scheme. We are the ones who are concerned about protecting jobs.
  The Government's method of handling the Bill rapidly is for the good of the industry and is not provocative. We have no interest whatever in a dock strike, and I hope passionately that it will be avoided. The abolition of the scheme will generate a great deal more in investment and will be good for dockers' jobs in the futúre.
  Finally, I have a story that might please the Opposition and might seem to make the Government's position more difficult. I represent a constituency which contains an immensely successful scheme port that has grown from virtually nothing 25 years ago to become Britain's sixth largest port in non-oil tonnage. It is a success story and I pay tribute to the management and to the registered dock workers who have helped achieve it. It was virtually a green field site and it is now the Medway port authority,

  87
  operating from the port of Sheerness. But its growth could have been greater and will be dramatically greater when the restrictions are removed. The port is in the south-east of England, it has superb deep water, it is strategically located for the continent and has many investment attractions.
  When the restrictions are removed, there will be increased incentives for new employers to take on much of the work that has not yet moved to the dockside, including much value-added work that could be done there instead of further inland. That has been deterred by the scheme and I have no hesitation whatsoever in forecasting that, in two or three years' time, the Labour party will have forgotten all about the scheme. The dockers concerned will be more confident, more highly paid and more optimistic about the future. The ending of the dock labour scheme is long overdue and its removal will add greatly to the prospect of extra industrial investment on the waterfront.
  The Labour party proclaims that it is fighting for 9,400 registered dock workers, although it is not fighting very strongly. It is trying to retain privileges that are not enjoyed by other people working in the docks. There must be about 100,000 people directly and indirectly empoloyed in the docks in this country. Why is the Labour party fighting for the privileges of the few and neglecting the injustices that are thereby done to the many?
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am not a natural friend of monopolies of any kind, but I believe that the Government are absolutely wrong to abolish in such a fashion a scheme that has served the industry well. First, it has allowed a managed rundown of the labour force in the docks and an essential transition to change in which the workers have co-operated because they have had confidence given by the scheme. Secondly, the scheme has provided good industrial relations in the docks. The days lost in strike per employee in the docks in 1987 were half the average for workers in transport generally. The third and most important effect of the scheme has been to put working people on a more equal basis with capital. That is why the Government do not like it. It has given the workers a say in their jobs and in the way in which the industry is run, and has placed emphasis on training, which is vital in the docks and which the management wish to cut back because they do not want to spend money. For all those reasons, it has been a good scheme and it is particularly wrong to abolish it in such a fashion, without consultation and at great speed.
  The arguments adduced against the scheme are largely irrelevant. The scheme is not the major problem in the docks. There are two major problems affecting docks in Britain. First, the Government do not have a policy for docks but have allowed and encouraged a proliferation of small cowboy ports around the country, many of them on the Humber. That is in total contrast to what has happened on the continent, where there has been a concentration on big, well-invested and highly capitalised ports, with a skilled and secure labour force often in shemes like this, which has led to a concentration of industry in ports such as Rotterdam, Le Havre, and
  88
  Hamburg. We cannot equal that because we are developing a small, cut-price, cowboy industry, scattered in smaller ports around the country.
  Secondly, the Government have not provided the support and backing to finance the ports and allow them to compete effectively. It is all very well to talk about abolishing the dock labour scheme and to make it the bogeyman, but the Government do not support the ports by financing the light dues, the pilotage, the Customs and the subsidies which are provided on the continent and which are particularly important to the fishing industry. I have visited continental ports and observed their fishing industry. Our fishing industry, particularly in Grimsby, has to pay quite heavy charges to ABP. On the continent, the ports are provided, almost in the way the roads are provided, as a form of municipal service or Government finance for the industry. Continental ports receive hidden financial support, so our fishing industry cannot compete with them, whatever the costs of landing the fish.
  The arguments for abolishing the scheme do not add up. They have been totally distorted to focus everything on one hate object—the dock labour scheme. That is sanctioning an entirely unacceptable approach. The arguments in the White Paper are intellectually shoddy. It is monstrous that the White Paper uses arguments from a piece of research financed by the employers in the docks, claiming that abolition would create 50,000 jobs. That paper was specifically prepared for the employers and suits their interests, but it was presented almost as scientific evidence in the White Paper. That is a measure of the intellectual shoddiness of the Government's argument.
  More important is the Government's total failure to consult. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to argue that the TGWU said that it would not consult on the abolition of the scheme, but in negotiations one cannot expect one side to give away its case before entering the negotiations. The union will negotiate only on the ports and docks in general, and the Government themselves have refused to have any consultation on the wider issues. It is ridiculous for the Government then to say that Parliament must take precedence over negotiations. The Government are using Parliament as a legislative rubber stamp and the baying Conservative Back Benchers will troop through the Lobby in favour of an argument that they do not understand and vote for the Bill and then claim that it is not a matter for consultation. That is elective dictatorship in action—an elective dictatorship based on 42 per cent. of the vote.
  There is a total contrast between the way, in which the Government are operating with regard to the dock labour scheme and what they are doing about the national barrister labour scheme, which will provide riches for life for a small bunch of financially motivated men and woman —5,000 all told. As soon as a posse of geriatric militants in a fit of senile dementia threaten to throw themselves under the wheels of the stagecoach as it drives to the jubilee next month, the Government immediately announce that they will extend the consultation period and trail the fact that there will be a softening of Government proposals.
  The only logical explanation for that contrast is that the Government want a dock strike to conceal the disastrous mess that has already been made in the trade figures and the further rise in interest rates that is yet to come. It is like a repeat of "Beyond the Fringe"—"At this stage in the

  89
  class war, we need a futile gesture—let us provoke a strike and make the dockers the bogeyman." The Government want a hate object.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, I shall not give way.
  The Government are in such a mess that they would like the trade figures obscured by a dock strike, but I hope that there will not be one. The dockers' leaders have acted very wisely in taking a proper legal approach on consultation and negotiation with the employers. I hope that the employers will negotiate seriously. They have a responsibility to negotiate on terms and conditions, the nature of the employment, the numbers and the manning levels when the scheme has ended. That is why the Government should delay the Bill until those consultations are concluded.
  Finally, I wish to deal briefly with fish landings. There has been a particular problem in Grimsby, where there has been a decline in the fishing industry, not due to the lumpers being obliged to be dock workers, but to the shift of the fishing industry to Scotland and the decline in catches. There are 44 Jumpers who are registered dock workers landing fish in Grimsby. There are not sufficient workers for the peaks of landings. There are too few for continuity and for the troughs of landings. That has been made worse by the Grimsby Fishing Vessel Owners, who have detoured landings elsewhere to other ports and taken legal action against the dock labour scheme to give themselves more latitude.
  Those factors are understandable in some respects, but they have hardened the resistance of the Jumpers in maintaining their conditions and not moving to productivity pay. They want a regular guaranteed income because the owners are detouring landings elsewhere and cutting the amount of fish that is handled by the lumpers. It is an inevitable human reaction. The Jumpers have now voted, as the Government have cited, to get out of the scheme because they want to earn more by being outside the scheme. What the Government do not tell us—this presupposes the bankruptcy of the landing company—is that they want severance pay. It is thus possible as a tactical manoeuvre for the landing company, which is trading at a loss, to go bankrupt after the scheme has been abolished and the lumpers will not be reallocated to the register but will qualify for redundancy pay under the legislation.
  That raises the question how they will be replaced. This is where the employers' argument that there will be no casual labour falls down. The Grimsby Fishing Vessel Owners have long wanted casual labour on a daily basis, and the dockers have allowed supplementary labour on a weekly basis. In Grimsby we really need a hard core of professional landers, who are highly paid and hard working, with some casual supplement. The owners seem to want an entirely casual landing force. I should like a guarantee that there will be no casual labour—the Government have echoed this today—to be extended to fish landing. Does it or does it not cover fish landing? That is what we want to know in Grimsby.
  This situation could arise only in a class-divided country such as this where each side sees the other as its main problem. The employers want to cut expenditure on training and wages and cut down the labour force in the
  90
  docks. That is no triumph for the industry—because the employers are seeking to triumph over their own workers. As a result—and the same will now happen in the docks —the 1980s have been the decade when management, employers and owners have triumphed over their own workers and lost out to the Germans and the Japanese.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spent much of his speech bemoaning the fact that goods are being taken to the south of England and shipped out to the continent through Felixstowe. I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite a bit about Felixstowe. It is a massive port just down the river from my constituency. Indeed a quarter of its work force lives in Ipswich. Its growth has been spectacular by any standards. A mere 30 years ago it was a totally insignificant port. By 1970, it was handling 2·25 million tonnes of cargo a year, by 1985 it was handling more than 10 million tonnes, and last year it handled 15,420,000 tonnes.
  Geography and its proximity to Europe has played a part in its success, but it is not just that. I should like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to consider why, when goods are taken south from Scotland, they go not to Tilbury, Southampton or other ports which have equal geographical advantages, but to Felixstowe. The key to the port's success has been that it has not been encumbered by the burden of restrictions, higher costs and poor industrial relations of the ports operating the national dock labour scheme.
  I have a particular constituency interest in the Bill because not merely does a quarter of the work force of Felixstowe—the major non-scheme port—live in my constituency, but at the heart of my constituency is the port of Ipswich, which is a major container port in its own right and a scheme port. Ipswich provides a very interesting comparison. It too has expanded and prospered, although not to the same extent as Felixstowe.
  It is not just geography that has helped Ipswich but the proximity of Felixstowe itself. The Ipswich dockers know that if the speed with which they turn round their ships compares too unfavourably with the dockers at Felixstowe, they will lose trade to Felixstowe. That has spurred Ipswich, under the able leadership of its chief executive John Evelyn, to become one of the most efficient and successful of the scheme ports.
  The point—it is similar to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)—is that, although Ipswich has been relatively successful, it has prospered despite the dock labour scheme. Absurdities such as ghosting and bobbing, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), have held it back and prevented it from being more successful still. Other scheme ports with less favourable geographical positions and industrial relations, and without the competitive stimulus of the proximity of a highly successful non-scheme port, have suffered disastrous declines.
  The damage done by the dock labour scheme has been not merely to the scheme ports and their work forces but to the areas around them. It has held back the growth of ancillary services and industries which would have been drawn to a successful and expanding port. All too often

  91
  the scheme has produced an industrial wasteland around ports and compounded the economic difficulties of the towns and cities in which scheme ports are situated.
  The damage goes deeper still because, through its inefficiencies and extra costs, the scheme imposes a levy on the consumer. It forces up the price of everything that comes through scheme ports, from food to cars.
  Perhaps still more important is the damaging effect the scheme has upon our export trade. British exporters are hit twice. When they import raw materials, components or other intermediate goods through the scheme ports, they have to pay extra. When they import capital equipment through the scheme ports to improve their productivity, that pushes up costs too. They are hit yet again when they export through scheme ports. The scheme acts as a levy upon our consumers and a double levy upon our exporting firms.
  The termination of the dock labour scheme will bring benefits all round. It will reduce costs, help our exporters and regenerate decayed and depressed areas around many of our scheme ports. Above all, it will enable managers to manage effectively.
  The non-scheme ports have, in many respects, the best record of security of employment for their employees. For example, I give the employment record of the port of Felixstowe. In 1959 it employed just over 200 workers; by 1970 it employed 686; by 1980 it employed 1,340 and this year it is employing 2,030. That does not take full account of the extra employment and prosperity which the success of that port has generated around it.
  The abolition of the dock labour scheme will bring benefits to consumers, exporters and the country as a whole and, in the long run, to the people who work in the ports.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars: I listened with fascination to the Secretary of State. He told us the scheme was an abominable practice and something that everyone concerned with efficiency and the good of the country abhorred. If that is what he thinks—it is not what I think—why have the Government waited 10 years to act and why are they acting now? Why are we getting precipitate action now?
  Two or three weeks ago, it was evident that, if the Government took precipitate action, there would be a fairly strong reaction from the dockers, given their history and their anxiety about casualisation. There was bound to be a risk of someone in the Transport and General Workers Union saying, "We shall have to strike against this measure." In those circumstances, it would have been sensible to include these propositions in a Green Paper to forewarn people of the Government's thinking and to engage in negotiations.
  The argument advanced by the Secretary of State that he cannot negotiate with the union because it has taken a hard line until now is nonsense. Anyone who has been a Minister in the Department of Employment, given its knowledge and history, knows that it is perfectly reasonable to take a hard line before negotiating. The Government could have said that they intended to abolish the scheme and then entered into negotiations.
  92
  Dock workers in my constituency are extremely bitter about what is happening to them and their colleagues throughout the United Kingdom. They feel that they are being set up by the Government. They are extremely bitter about the accusations of inefficiency and of being a Luddite group who must be removed to advance the greater good of the community. Ministers and Tory Back Benchers run around the country preaching the success of the British economy. According to the White Paper, 60 per cent. of national income is accounted for by trade and 40 of the 75 ports that deal with that trade are scheme ports. It does not appear that the scheme has been a major impediment to the Government's successful economic policy.
  Dockers in my constituency believe that the problem is that the flow of trade has been much too effficient. In their view, which I share, the true reason for precipitate action is that the Government are running into deep economic trouble. The fundamentals of the economy in 1989 are not terribly different from 1979. The inflation problem cannot be tackled adequately; the balance of payments deficit is running at historically high levels; the level of the pound and its management remain beyond the ability of the Chancellor and the Treasury; and unemployment remains a serious factor. Employers and economists from brokers in the City of London are saying that unemployment must rise to maintain balanced management of the economy.
  It was noticeable this afternoon, when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggested negotiations, that the Secretary of State took refuge in the fiction that the Bill is before Parliament. The hard fact of life is that the House is controlled by the Tory Government. There would be no problem if they wanted to withdraw or suspend the Bill and negotiate with the Transport and General Workers Union.
  Like other hon. Members, I believe that the reason for the precipitate action is that the Government want a strike. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) said that the Secretary of State does not want a strike. That may be true, but the lady in Downing street wants a strike. Last Tuesday, I listened carefully when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked her about negotiations. In a dull Question Time, that was the moment when she came to light and became agitated and excited. She made it plain that negotiations were not on. She was for abolition and provocative action. It was evident from her body language and vibes that she wants a strike.
  On 14 March 1989, the Government were saying, in a reply given by an Under-Secretary of State, that there was no intention of abolishing the scheme. On 20 March, a Green Paper was produced, "Removing barriers to Employment" concerned with "Barriers to Economic Efficiency", which dealt with 2·6 million people who are in the closed shop. If 2·6 million people in the closed shop are a substantial barrier to efficiency and industry, and the Government thought it sensible to act, but also to have a Green Paper and consultation, why are they jumping in with this Bill, which affects 9,000 dockers? There is no comparison between 9,000 and 2·6 million people, given that the Government argue that they are concerned mainly with economic efficiency. The Government are engineering what they hoped would be a strike and are playing political football with the lives of ordinary working men and their families for the sake of trying to wrong-foot the trade union movement and the Labour party.

  93
  The tragedy of the Government may seem manifest to many people today. There is substantial poverty and deprivation and a widening gap between rich and poor. Their final legacy will bring a much more sorrowful harvest, especially for business interests that have supported the Government in their advocacy and promotion of the ideology that market forces are all that matter. Currently, there is no doubt that casualisation is widespread. Part-time work is widespread, and scandalously low wages are being paid to young people, who are being abused. If there is a plentiful supply of labour and human beings are treated like any other commodity, under the market forces philosophy they can be exploited and abused.
  That is no way to approach the problems of the 21st century. Western Europe is moving away from the metal-bashing era and entering one in which we shall have to use our minds and intellects to produce the services and products that will earn our living in the world. How we treat human beings—as living flesh and blood with ideas and concepts of fairness and justice—and whether we are prepared to enter a period of co-operation between people who employ and those who work will be determining factors in whether any part of the United Kingdom succeeds in the 21st century.
  The Government are laying down the economic law of Milton Friedman and Professor Hayek; market forces alone matter. The Government must beware of the demographic factors of the next 20 or 30 years. If the Government's lesson to the working people is that they shall live by market forces, I am sorry, but so be it. As demographic factors change, the boot will move from the employers' foot to the workers' foot. There will be a shortage of young and skilled workers and the Government will beg middle-aged workers whom they have thrown on the scrap heap to return to work. If the Government treat us the way that they have for the past 10 years, and the way in which they want to for the next 10 years, and today they get their Bill, and they will insist on having their way in the market place at our expense. This is their day, but our day is coming.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: This is a sad occasion. Conservative Members have had to listen to much pious claptrap and humbug from Labour Members and "Socialist national" party Members.
  My constituency has the largest port in the United Kingdom—Tilbury—which has 1,054 registered dockers, probably the largest number of registered dockers in a single constituency. At the moment, those thousand men and their families are reflecting on the watershed which their industry is about to reach. They are reflecting on whether they may be asked to strike and, I hope, on whether they will take strike action which will undermine their long-term job security, or whether they will ignore the rantings of their Marxist shop stewards and the nonsensical advice given by Opposition Members, and go to work.
  Those men may be confused. Certainly those who vote to strike will he confused about whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his party will support them. If a substantial number of dockers in Tilbury vote against strike action, wish to carry on working, and come to me as their local Member of
  94
  Parliament, they will have my support. If need be, I shall lead them across the picket line at Tilbury to ensure their right to work and to protect their jobs and the viability of Tilbury in the long term.
  It has been mentioned in the debate that there has been investment in the docks, irrespective of the scheme. Yes, £8 million has been invested in the port of London but that is nowhere near enough and nowhere near as much as would have been invested if so much money had not been wasted on the overmanning in the ports, causing them to become uncompetitive. Tilbury suffers greatly from that—and it has totally undermined its position and its ability to compete against ports such as Rotterdam. That is why many customers have left and gone to Rotterdam.
  The dock labour scheme hangs like a black cloud over Tilbury, where unemployment is double that of the rest of my constituency. The scheme completely prevents the port from becoming a viable job creation area.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned earlier, process work has been driven away. Instead of timber, which comes through the port of Tilbury, being turned into window frames and chairs at the dock, it is transported across the country to be turned into those products elsewhere because manufacturers do not want registered dock workers doing the work.
  There was a recent specific example of a company that wished to locate a fresh fruit cold store at the port of Tilbury. The company wanted its own vessels to come in, the product to be unloaded and put in a cold store in Tilbury docks. However, the unions said there was no way that this would be allowed, unless the registered dock workers could then load the fresh fruit on to lorries to transport it to the company's customers in the United Kingdom. That job creation opportunity in Tilbury was lost and there are scores of other examples of that happening in the past.
  Tonight we have also heard about jobs being lost in locations adjacent to the port. That is happening in the development area of Thurrock park, immediately adjacent to the docks. In a letter to me of 16 February, Graham Hall, property director of Port of London Properties, said under a sub-heading "Industrial Development":
  "One of the major difficulties that we have encountered is a resistance from many industrialists due to the continued presecence of the Dock Labour Scheme. There is an undoubted reluctance to establish premises close to the Port of Tilbury due to fears that work might be claimed by `registered' dock workers. This factor can inhibit the range of uses that can be accommodated at Thurrock Park and also affect resale value of premises once built."
  At Tilbury, ghosting and bobbing has been formalised. The management have to send home as many as 100 men a day because there is no work for them in the port. It is absolutely ridiculous for Opposition Members to suppose that any business can function or be efficient and profitable in such an environment. Not only are as many as 100 men sent home every day by the management, but many others spend the day carrying out activities, merely because they are present at the premises. Instead of the many sheds in the traditional cargo areas being swept once a week, they are swept endlessly every day. One can imagine how debilitating and demoralising that must be for the workers in that port.
  Why do supporters of the trade union movement and the Socialist party, and members of the Socialist party support a mechanism and scheme which is completely elitist? No other working man or woman in the country

  95
  has a job for life. Nor would they want such a scheme if they understood the ramifications of it and the effect that it has had on employment levels in the dock industry.
  The Labour party will support strike action against the employers if there is a strike in the docks, but there is no professional party hack labour scheme being run at Labour party headquarters. Redundancy notices are not unknown at Walworth road. There are no jobs for life in the Labour party's headquarters, yet the party expects employers in the dock industry to run a jobs-for-life scheme. It is typical for the Labour party to be hypocritical and expect employers to employ under a scheme which they would never wish to prevail over themselves at Walworth road.
  Labour party Members are hypocritical in presenting one face to the general public—saying that they would not restore the scheme if they formed another Government —while, to their paymasters in the trade union movement, they say that they will support strike action to retain the very scheme that they will not restore. The Labour party wants strike action, and wants to undermine the competitiveness of British ports and, therefore, the performance of the British economy. If a strike becomes a likely possibility, the Labour party and not the Conservative party will have fuelled the dispute.
  The slogan of the new revisionist Labour party is "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". The challenge here is whether, after repeated attempts to negotiate it away, the Government should end this absurd, outdated scheme and create positive change in the ports. The obvious answer is yes. However, as ever, the Opposition, in their normal cretinous and spineless way, shy away from supporting what is right.
  The scheme is bad for Tilbury and, therefore, for Thurrock. It is bad for British ports and, therefore, for the British economy. It is bad for Great Britain and its abolition cannot come soon enough. Therefore, I shall vote with the Government tonight on behalf of my 1,000-plus registered dock workers.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I cannot think of a worse way to conduct industrial relations than this Bill, which is a textbook example of how not to act if the Government want harmony and industrial peace. However, do they? My only explanation for their action is that they are thirsting for, and intent on provoking, a strike, in order that the union's funds will be sequestrated by the courts.
  On any other matter there would have been extensive consultations and a Green Paper. However, we were faced with a brutal announcement and a simultaneous White Paper, with the First Reading of the Bill the next day and an immediate Second Reading. Why has there been such indecent haste and why such a stampede? What is the emergency? After all, we are dealing with men's livelihoods and a vital industry. The men are not enemy aliens but our own people, and citizens who have given a lifetime of service to their industry. What a difference between the way they have been treated and the way in which the lawyers and judges have been treated.
  Do the Government really want to celebrate the centenery of the great dock strike of 1889 by provoking
  96
  another? I should have thought that Conservatives would have a sense of history. In that year, the dockers, without a union, worked and lived in pitiable conditions which almost defy description. They struck for 6d an hour—what John Burns called the
  "full round orb of the docker's tanner"
  and for 8d an hour overtime, and for a minimum of four hours a call, to give them 2s with which to feed, clothe and house their families. The strike lasted from 14 August to 18 September, and, with great public support, the dockers won their demands and formed their union.
  This was four generations ago. Before Conservative Members snigger, they should remember that these memories remain strong in the docks communities. Until modern times, dock workers still had to endure and suffer the casual system under which men were hired and fired by the day by corrupt gangmasters who picked and chose the men. The men were treated without dignity in degrading circumstances, and fought each other like animals for work. All this is vividly remembered in the dock communities.
  With the second world war came some enlightenment. The men were needed and their leader was Ernest Bevin, then known as the dockers' KC. He was brought into the war Cabinet by Winston Churchill as Minister of Labour and National Service. After the war, in the new Britain that our people had fought for, things were to be different. In 1946 and 1966, by Acts of statesmanship, progress and civilisation, the dock labour scheme was brought in to deal with the evil of casualisation and to introduce basic human rights at work. Since then, it has served us well.
  Forty years after the introduction of the legislation, there is no reason why it should not be examined again, but it should be reviewed by negotiation, not diktat. Negotiations were offered tonight, but the offer was durned down.
  I want to discuss some of the myths and stories that are being put about—first, the story that the dock labour scheme is bringing the ports to their knees. The largest employer is Associated British Ports. It made profits of £38 million in 1987, an increase of 46 per cent. on the previous year. In the first half of 1988 its profits increased by a further 59 per cent. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's profits increased by 80 per cent. in 1987 over those of 1986. I see no great disaster there.
  We have already heard about the cost burdens borne by British, compared with continental, ports. Other European countries have similar schemes, not a free-for-all. They also have job security arrangements, so this cannot be the reason for the disparity. Continental ports enjoy advantages because they are directly linked to the continent's transport infrastructure and they receive large subsidies from national and regional Governments. As we have heard, British shippers have to pay for lighthouse dues, pilotage and customer services, which are all onerous burdens. On the continent, these services are entirely free. We also have to pay for the costs of dredging and so on, unlike on the continent.
  Another story put around is that there is a great surplus of labour. In 1987, of the 10,274 registered dock workers, an average of 8,717 were available for work on any day, and 8,009 were required on average. So the surplus runs in hundreds for the entire country, and the number has been reduced with every passing year.
  The facts show that this is a pretended problem. There is no such thing as lifetime employment—40,000 jobs have

  97
  been lost. When the Select Committee visited Japan, we wanted to discover why the workers there were so co-operative when the employers introduced new technology. I was told that the secret was that Japanese companies offered lifetime employment. I said that I did not think that that idea would go down very well in the United Kingdom, but the diplomat who was with me told me that many people at home had lifetime employment—he had it, the civil service had it, the military had it and the judges had it. But the dock labour scheme does not give lifetime employment.
  Industrial relations are important in this debate. In 1987, 0·64 days per person were lost through industrial disputes—just over half a day per person per year, which is better than many other industries. That means that the scheme has proved its worth; it is a price worth paying for good industrial relations.
  The scheme has also facilitated a huge increase in productivity. The tonnage handled per person trebled between 1973 and 1987, and increased by 50 per cent. between 1983 and 1987 alone. Job security enlists the co-operation of the work force and leads to a huge increase in productivity.
  We hear stories of excessive wages. In 1987, the average rate of pay for registered dock workers was £6·88 an hour, including overtime, bonuses and shift pay. The average hourly rate of pay for full-time males in Britain is £5·33, which is not an awful lot different. The scheme has brought job stability which, in turn, has brought industrial peace and huge increases in productivity. How much better all this is than what preceded it in the awful days when men were hired and fired by the day.
  The Government should take this squalid Bill away and end their paranoid hatred of the trade unions. It is distasteful to see the juvenile ideologues on the Conservative Benches with their hatred of British trade unions. Like every other western European country, we should work in partnership with the trade unions and stop provoking industrial strife and confrontation. We should sit down now and negotiate a review of the dock labour scheme. A strike would be a deliberately engineered self-inflicted wound. If it happens, the fault will lie entirely with the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Arnold.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: We very much support—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I call the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  9.8 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has done enough damage.
  This debate has reflected the serious division of opinion between the two sides of the House. I declare an interest as a seaman of 10 years experience—albeit serving gin and tonic as one or two hon. Members have pointed out. In the course of that experience, I visited almost all the major scheme and non-scheme ports, which gave me some understanding of the difficulties in the 1960s and 1970s and of the seeds of the problems in the industry, which go back a very long way. Suspicion lies at the heart of the difficulties—the problem of whether employers or the Government can be believed.
  98
  There are some areas of agreement. We agree that this is an important industry—the White Paper spells that out. Scheme and non-scheme ports make a major contribution to our balance of trade, balance of payments, exports and imports. All that is highlighted in the White Paper. It also highlights the trade switch that has taken place in the economy. Hon. Members who talked about Manchester and other ports did not take into account the major change away from the west coast in favour of the east coast. Technology has played its part and has contributed to the loss of trade in Manchester. The canal was not wide enough to take the new ships, and there was a move away from trade with Canada and America to trade with Europe.
  We also recognise that our private and public ports are major public utilities. One of the first debates that I heard in the House was in 1971 on the Mersey docks and harbour board about which some of my hon. Friends spoke today and which was allowed to go bankrupt. The Government reconsidered their position and realised that the country needs major ports, scheme and non-scheme. I will deal with the subject of the Mersey docks and harbour board later because it set the scene for the whole approach and shows the difference in attitudes.
  There has been a major problem in equating the capacity of our ports to the decline in trade. We have twice the capacity that is needed. How do we adjust the capacity to fit the trade? We all agree that it is out of balance and the argument is about cost differences. We have to go back some time to find the more contentious issues. It is said that everyone is against decasualisation, and that may be the case—if anything has died in the debate, it is the argument that somehow the scheme offered jobs for life. There have been many reductions in the labour force, which is now down to about 9,000.
  Decasualisation came about because of inquiries and regulations and a desire for more efficient utilisation of labour. The Secretary of State for Transport should look at all the inquiries. Dozens of them were set up by Tory Governments to look at the nature and operation of the port industry and of the scheme. There were six inquiries in the 1950s. There was the major Rochdale report and the Devlin report in the 1960s. There was the Jones-Aldington report and the report by the National Ports Council which reported in the 1970s. They all agreed that decasualisation should be ended within the maintenance of a national dock labour scheme. They said that everything should be within the framework of a ports strategy and that we should have a national ports authority.
  The analysis has been clear from the 1950s and it has been said that the scheme should be retained. There has been a great deal of criticism of the scheme in the House. I looked at the record of the Secretary of State because we joined in debate about earlier transport legislation. I looked at the pamphlet which gave him the job. It was called "The Right Track" and described as
  "A paper on Conservative Transport Policy by Norman Fowler."
  It is dated 1977, and in it he said:
  "We agree with those in the ports industry who say that the immediate priority is one of stability."
  That is correct. It goes on to say:
  "As Philip Chappell, the retiring Chairman of the National Ports Council, has said: 'The real problem for the United Kingdom ports today is not what more to build, but to get real value and throughput out of what we have'."

  99
  For a number of reasons, a later expansion took part in our ports. First, the Minister's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—did away with capital controls in the name of greater competition. That led to a massive expansion, but also to problems because we had excessive capacity in some of our major traditional ports. At the same time, it increased the problems in the scheme ports. There was also expansion in the non-scheme ports. I shall return to that as it is a major economic issue.
  When the Secretary of State first took office he wrote an article in The Port in which he said:
  "Fowler's message—Do it Yourself".
  At the annual luncheon of the National Association of Port Employers he is reported to have said:
  "What the Government does not want to do is interfere in the way you are running your businesses."
  The Bill certainly does not mean that the Government will stay out of the affairs of the industry. The Bill means active intervention.
  Shortly after that, the Minister said that there would be no assistance and that matters would be left to the market. He then brought in the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill about which he said:
  "Consequently, there has been a dramatic reduction in demand for labour in the ports. In London, for example, the number of registered dock workers has declined by over 70 per cent. since 1966—a fall from 25,000 to 6,500 in that period. I acknowledge the social and human impact that such a reduction involves, and I pay tribute to the co-operation that was necessary to secure it."—[Official Report, 16 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1305.]
  At that time the Secretary of State was spending a great deal of money to maintain the Port of London authority, which was on the verge of bankruptcy because it did not have enough resources. He wanted to assist the national dock labour scheme in the process of reducing labour and brought the Bill to the House. That was intervention. It may have been a financial port policy—it meant running around spending money.
  As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in that debate, the Government were simply throwing money at the problem. One of the consequences for our ports authorities is that they have had to secure major amounts of money by means of levies that have been a burden on the industry. We must bear that in mind when we take account of costs in the industry. Industry has its labour costs and the costs of capital.
  We told the Secretary of State when he presented the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill that he could not simply throw money at the problem. The Secretary of State said that it was a one-off job and would apply only to London. We said that soon enough it would have to apply to Merseyside, and within 12 months he was along with another bag of money to deal with the problems on Merseyside. We told him in the House and in Committee that he would have to give money to the other ports. What he was doing was bidding up the amounts of redundancy. That was his programme. The employers told him that if he continued his policy he would place on them a financial burden that would cause grave problems in future, and that is precisely what began to happen.
  The Secretary of State's successor, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, presented a Bill to cover every port. That Bill allowed for £450 million-plus
  100
  grants of £750 million. That burden was placed on the industry and the taxpayer because the Government had no ports policy and preferred to throw money at the problem —they did nothing to solve the problem, but they put people out of work. A ports policy could have been formulated for far less than the £750 million that the Government threw at the problem.
  There is a feeling that the Government do not have a policy for the ports and that there is some sort of conspiracy between the employers and Government. The Minister said that national shippers support the Government's policy. Like most hon. Members, I received a statement today from the British Shippers Council. The statement made it clear that the shippers were against the dock labour board because they felt that the scheme was costly. I telegraphed the shippers this afternoon and asked, "Are you not concerned about the conference system that fixes the price for ships going from British ports? You face a penalty if you do not observe the conference line system." The spokesman for the shippers said, "We are against that." I asked "Are the costs not even greater?" and I was told, "Yes, they are." I asked, "Why are you not telling the Government to do something about the monopoly business of the shipping conference line system? The Secretary of State could do something about that if he was really interested in costs in the ports industry." But there was not a word from the shippers on that question. That, again, shows the identity of the employers with the owners.
  The dockers do not believe the Government; they do not trust them. All sorts of inquiries have recommended the retention of the national dock labour scheme, but the Government are not even prepared to set up an inquiry or to enter any kind of discussion. They just want to exercise their own prejudice because they think that the scheme is wrong. As one of my hon. Friends said about the television technicians, the Government feel it must be wrong because we can all see it, but when there is an analysis of the matter by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Government find their views rejected. That is why they did not dare to go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as they did with the television technicians. If it was a good idea to have an investigation into the television technicians, why is it not a good idea to have one for the dockers?
  The evidence shows that the Secretary of State spends much time reading Lloyd's List. Perhaps it is his civil servants who do it and then give him quotes to read. The Morning Star also seems to be on his reading list. Why does he not pick up the telephone and talk to people, even if he does not like their views? He does not do that because the "Yes Ma'am" syndrome is at work. She told him to go out and do the job. She has told him that it does not matter what he said before. He should go out and do the job because she wants the dockers taken on because she is getting into an embarrassing economic situation. The economy is turning sour and the Prime Minister has said, "Is there a trade union body that we can begin to blame?" What other explanation can there be for the absence of discussions? The Government are taking away the rights of workers without any kind of discussion. They have never done that before—their intention has always either been placed in the manifesto or discussed with the workers concerned.
  Let the Minister give one other example of where this has occurred. He was asked earlier for one, but no other

  101
  example has been given. All Governments of all political persuasions—until the present one—intended to do something about discussion and consultation, but that never occurred to the present Government. When Conservative Members worry about this being a conspiracy, perhaps they remember reading the pamphlet by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury in 1978, when he said that what we have to do is use the power of the state to take on the miners, the dockers, and so on.
  That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman spelled out in 1978—the same Secretary of State who at a ports lunch in 1984 made it absolutely clear that he agreed with the employers' claim made at that lunch. Actually, I attended the lunch—free or not. The employers said then they wanted to get rid of the scheme, and subsequently he confirmed that view. That is what made the dockers extremely suspicious about what was going on. Shortly after that, the national dock strike took place. Why was that? In my area of Immingham there was a breach of the law—[Interruption.] I remember the hon. Member for Immingham when he was the Member for Scunthorpe—he ran away from the constituency to find safer ground rather than fight the election. [Interruption.] Let me deal with this point.
  I remember what the hon. Gentleman did when it was declared that there was to be a national strike because in Immingham there was a breach of the scheme—he said very clearly that there had been no breach of the scheme, and so did the Secretary of State, but the inquiry and the court found within a week that there had been a breach of the scheme. It was a deliberate breach, as we have seen around the country in this conspiracy.
  Mr. Michael Brown: As the hon. Member for Immingham, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a comment by Peter Broomhead, the union representative for Immingham:
  "Dockers will be unlikely to join a national strike to save the scheme and expect to find themselves on picket lines. We are union men, but I am sure that most men here will carry on working."
  Mr. Prescott: That gentleman was giving his views, and no doubt he believed what he was saying, but I am sure that he agrees that the agreement was discussed with the employers first. He will also see what the employers' promises that there will be no difference and no decasualisation actually mean. If they mean nothing and he is to he replaced by part-time labour, he may well change his view. Part-time labour is an issue even on Humberside. The Secretary of State talks about Hull and Grimsby, and says that in fishing Hull has been more efficient than in Grimsby—Hull being non-scheme for its bobbers—but the reason for its being less costly is that it has part-time, casual labour. That is the point that we are trying to make. Part-time workers have no employment rights and there are no national insurance or tax payments. That means that a system can be run more cheaply, but it is a casual labour system, putting people on and off the dole. There is no justification for that.
  What we have seen in this campaign is what I call the dirty dozen—the dozen or so Members on the Government side who have been running this campaign in parliamentary questions, debates, pamphlets and private Bills—all of them seeking to get the Government to bring in the very legislation that they have introduced today.
  102
  This is a Government who deny any kind of review and provide no consultation—unlike their attitude to the judges, as has been pointed out today—a Government who provide no inquiry to justify restrictive practices. Legislation is being rushed through as a matter of national urgency, and it affects 9,000 employees. This is a coincidence of mounting economic problems. It is the good old Thatcherite tactic—when in trouble pick a fight with a trade union. That is what we are beginning to see. The Government narrow the debate to expressions of extreme prejudice—"jobs for life", it is said, but the number has fallen from 80,000 to 9,000. Certainly no jobs are guaranteed for life. The facts show that that is not the case.
  It is argued that the dockers support the scheme because it guarantees jobs for their sons. I had a considerable disagreement with my dockers in Hull because I thought it quite wrong that jobs should be guaranteed to sons in those circumstances. I think that jobs should be open. [Interruption.] Well, we had a public debate, and I told people in my area that I thought that the principle was wrong. It is a privilege that we see all too often among Conservative Members, and I am against it in those circumstances, too. The Secretary of State for Transport, who is to wind up for the Government, has the "Guinness" seat—I do not know what the official title is—and actually left university halfway through to take over the seat from his father, so I will take no lectures from the Secretary of State for Transport about sons taking fathers' jobs.
  In this debate there has been a lot of talk about bobbing, welting and ghosting. In the House of Commons it is called "pairing". If hon Members look at the record, they will see that I do not pair with any Tory. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) has just come in. The Government have a common pool system. Members record their votes but when the Government do not need so many workers—in this case, Members of Parliament—they are given the day off. It is called a bisque here. On the docks they call it ghosting and there is very little of it. Here, Members get their full pay—they can even go out and earn money from a second job. A docker cannot do that. When people in this House talk about bobbing, welting and ghosting, dockers regard that as having double standards.
  It has been said in this debate that the system is an anachronism. Is it anachronistic to have a system which gives training far better than any other industry, welfare and an occupational medical health scheme far better than in any other industry, safety conditions and safety training far better than in any other industry, medical welfare, with doctors and nurses? Surely those and the conditions that we want all industries to have. Do not Conservative Members believe in levelling up rather than levelling down? I have heard those arguments from them for so many years, so why do we not level up to the safe standards, good medical provision and training that I have described? We cannot get that from the private sector, and one does not get it from the non-scheme sector either. Yet those are the conditions that the Government repaid as anachronistic.
  What is the real difficulty? What is the dispute between us? What hon. Members opposite do not like is having working people participate in decision-making about their jobs, about redundancies, about the future of the industry.

  103
  That is what sticks in the craw. These rights are embodied in law. That sticks in the throat, too. When an employer want to exercise his right to get rid of people, he can be accused of not obeying the law. The Government do not like that either, so, as in the case of trade union legislation, they change the law and get the judges to carry out their philosophy.
  Will dismissal be the same under the employment protection legislation that has been talked about? We know that of the many thousands of workers—the number is growing all the time—found to have been dismissed unfairly, only 4 per cent. are ever returned to their jobs. Will the right be the same in this case? In this case workers cannot be sacked easily. They cannot be dismissed without justification being given. Apparently, that is a point of complaint. There will be no rights under the unfair dismissal legislation.
  I wish to deal with another matter at the heart of this scheme. In the past few years many employers have been getting rid of trade union activists. They are quite prepared to be accused of unfair dismissal and to pay the pittance of compensation that is offered under the unfair dismissal legislation. That does not happen under the dock labour scheme. Is not the scheme about justice and the right to be treated fairly?
  The real issue is cost. The Government say that the scheme costs £770 million. Most of those costs resulted from the Government's policy. They lent the money to pay for the redundancies and the necessary loans. In 1971, the Government intervened in the policy of the bankrupt Mersey docks and harbour board. The Secretary of State at the time said that the inefficiencies of that board were a result of the fact that the ship owners and the users of the port dominated the board, with two thirds control, and refused to increase prices. That led to a major problem and the collapse of the board.
  A private Member's Bill was introduced to help to return the savings of widows who had invested in what they thought was a good bet on a trusted port, but two hon. Members intervened to prevent such help—those two are now Secretaries of State for Employment and for Transport. They intervened to help the shareholders, but they would not intervene to help the interests of the employees. That is a matter of record and contrast.
  The port of Hull has been mentioned today. I looked at the problems there in the 1970s when there were major strikes, and millions of tonnes of traffic were diverted from the Hull port down the river. That was because Hull used to deal with cargo from Rotterdam which was then transhipped in barges down the river. When the new container system came about, with major changes in technology and trade, the trade concentrated in Rotterdam and small ships picked up the cargo in Rotterdam and took it down the wharves. The Government now say that it is cheaper to go down the wharves. That is true, but the reasons should be examined. Hon. Members need not accept my word for it—they can look at the reports of the inquiry set up by the Government into the National Ports Council, which show that the capital costs of a major port having to provide for containerisation and major cargoes on big ships, and the whole range of facilities that are required in a modern port that a small wharf does not need, requires the big port to
  104
  spend three times as much capital as the small wharf against the earning assets. Therefore, they have a financial penalty and cannot charge the same prices.
  In Hull, the British Transport docks board at that time adopted inflation accounting, which meant that it charged extra in a way that no private sector or non-scheme port could. It then decided to cut down the size of some of the ports and close some of the wharves in Hull. That is the reason for the heavy financial burden. Those are the reasons. Anybody making a choice between a traditional port and a wharf faced such problems.
  The Touche Ross report looking into European ports, to which the Secretary of State referred, had an analysis showing that in European ports,. the police, the rates and the infrastructure are carried. A later study by the National Westminster bank showed exactly the same. If we had the same way of financing, our charges would be 40 to 50 per cent. lower. That makes the labour cost pale into insignificance. The levy imposed on the industry to pay for medical assistance, training and running the system is approximately £4 million or 2·5 per cent. of the wage bill. The charge for maintaining and servicing the redundancy and financial package that the Government forced on the industry was £12 million or 7 per cent. of the wage bill—a burden three times as heavy as that of the labour scheme and not imposed on non-scheme ports.
  Once again, in this Bill, the Government are to give more money—the same Government who constantly accuse us of wishing to throw money at problems. Here they are putting a financial straitjacket on the scheme ports and then asking us to compare their charges with those of the non-scheme ports and see how one is increasing at the expense of the other.
  All these problems show that the dock labour scheme cannot be dealt with unless we look at the ports policy. Throwing money at the problem, as the Government have done, is not the way to deal with it. They have done nobody any favours—dockers or taxpayers. The Government have not looked at the problems of the ports or understood the differentials between small and large ports, whether they be capital or labour costs. They have not looked at the problem of how much port capacity we need. Those matters were spelled out five, 10 or 20 years ago in various reports on the industry. That is why we believe that the labour scheme has to be seen within a ports policy. The Government have been creating major financial problems for the industry, and have rejected a national ports authority.
  When he came to his job, the Secretary of State proudly introduced a Bill to get rid of the National Ports Council, which had no teeth. He had already received a report from it saying that a national ports authority—one body to deal with capital development in the industry—was necessary, but he rejected that advice. That is why our election manifesto made it clear—it was spelt out further in the "Fresh Directions" written by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—that we believe that a port and labour policy should be developed in an overall strategy for our ports to deal with excess capacity, greater safety and the differential in cost between Europe and ourselves. We also promised to
  "review the operation of the Dock Labour Scheme."
  We fought the general election on that policy because we believe that it is right.
  The Government are using the power of the state to get rid of workers' rights. They are not just attacking the

  105
  dockers. They introduced a Bill to abolish the wages councils, which affected millions of people in low-paid work. They reduced, and then got rid of, trade union rights at GCHQ. They vetoed the participation in decision-making that every other European country has under the Vredeling proposal. They want no rights for workers, and they have embarked upon a programme to reduce and then to eliminate those rights. They are using trade union legislation to achieve that.
  The Bill has nothing to do with a ports policy or the national interest, and nothing to do with employment rights or justice for workers, but everything to do with the Government's economic record, which is not being exposed. It has everything to do with the political spite and prejudice of a Government determined to secure a strike. There has been no consultation. The Labour party will do all that it can to resist such an injustice. We believe that the Bill will be damaging to the ports industry and will bring a return to casual working. We shall resist the Bill, and we shall begin that resistance by voting against its Second Reading today.
  9.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) began his speech by outlining the areas of agreement that exist between us, few though they may have turned out to be. I shall do the same before turning to the areas of disagreement that lie between us. I wish to say at the beginning of my remarks, however, that it is a pity that more hon. Members have not been able to contribute to the debate. The Front Bench replies could have started a little later. I am sorry that my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) tried to participate in the debate and did not have the chance to do so.— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Keep them out." That is perfectly clear. That is what he said—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that you have just assumed the Chair and that you are rightly calling for order during the Secretary of State's speech. Those of us who entered the Chamber shortly after 9 o'clock heard the mass of interruptions that were created from a sedentary position by Conservative Members. We are waiting for fair play and nice manners.
  Mr. Speaker: Let us have order now.
  Mr. Channon: I shall turn to the areas of agreement in the futile attempt, perhaps, to try to lower the temperature in the House at least for a few moments.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the ports constitute a crucial and important industry. I welcome his support for the excellent pamphlet which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment produced in 1977, which was entitled, "The Right Track". I do not think that my right hon. Friend expected it to be commended so strongly by the hon. Gentleman. One of the most extraordinary assertions that I have heard from an Opposition spokesman for some time was when the hon. Gentleman accused my right hon.
  106
  Friend of committing the cardinal sin of throwing money at the ports industry. That is a curious charge for a Labour spokesman to make against one of my right hon. Friends.
  The other curious accusation to be made against the Government is that the Bill has been rushed through. It is said that it has been rushed through after 10 years of Conservative Government. Many of my hon. Friends wish that it had been introduced far sooner. To say, after 10 years of Conservative government, that the Bill has been rushed through is to indulge in fantasy.
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Channon: I shall press on for a while and then I shall give way. I have not reached any of the main issues yet. I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  We have had a lively debate and I suspect that it will continue being lively. It has brought out many of the misconceptions of Opposition Members about the future of the ports industry once the scheme has been abolished. If, as has been argued, the retention of the scheme is vital for the future of the scheme ports and the dockers working in them, why is it that the non-scheme ports have all been doing so well? Why is it that the non-scheme ports have all enjoyed a significant expansion of trade while the scheme ports have seen their share of United Kingdom trade steadily declining?
  If the scheme is so important to the employment conditions of dockers, why is it that non-scheme ports have had no difficulty in recruiting an increasing number of dock workers, while the number of dockers in scheme ports continues to fall? I hope that I can make it clear during my speech, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did in his speech, in company with many of my hon. Friends during the course of the debate, that if we are to consider seriously the future prosperity of our ports industry and of all the employees involved in it, it is essential that the scheme be abolished.
  We have heard repeated claims from Opposition Members that abolition of the scheme will lead to a return to casualism. No hon. Member want to see a return to the 1930s or to the early post-war years when dockers were treated in the way that has been described. No hon. Member has argued for that, either tonight or earlier. We understand what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and other hon. Members have said this evening, but they have failed to explain why the abolition of the scheme would mean a return to those days. The truth is that it will not. On 6 April Sir Keith Stuart, the chairman of Associated British Ports, said:
  "ABP does not intend to introduce a casual labour system".
  On 11 May Mr. Furlong, the managing director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company—another big employer of registered dock workers—stated:
  "Whatever challenges and tests may face the Port of Liverpool after abolition, there will be no return to the casual employment from which the scheme originally sprang".
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State please tell the House why, after 10 years, there is the present stampede? Why was there a ministerial statement and a White Paper on the same day, with the First Reading on the following day and this immediate Second Reading? Can the Secretary of State see a difference between the treatment of the dockers and that given to that other closed shop of lawyers, for the reform of which there was a Green Paper,

  107
  a long period of consultation in which they may take industrial action and another four months of consultation? Why has there been no consultation on this Bill?
  Mr. Channon: Now that the Government have come to this conclusion, which I hope will be supported by the House, it is in everybody's interests, whatever their job in the ports, be they registered dock workers or anything else, that the period of uncertainty should be ended as quickly as possible. It is only right that this Bill should have been brought forward and that it should proceed in the normal way following the appropriate interval and the announcement some time ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. It is only right that the Bill should proceed in an orderly way through the House. I am sure that that is in the interests of all concerned.
  To continue the point on casualism, on 13 April employers in ports representing over 90 per cent. of registered dock workers said that there would be no return to casual employment.
  Mr. Sillars rose—
  Mr. Channon: If I have time I shall give way a little later, but I have a lot to say.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) have shown how, over the past 20 years, scheme ports have seen a dramatic fall in their share of traffic. Non-oil traffic fell from 90 per cent. to 70 per cent. London used to handle 21 per cent. of non-oil traffic in 1970, but by 1987 that proportion had fallen to 13 per cent. Liverpool's share has been sliced from 11 per cent. to 3 per cent. whereas in contrast Felixstowe now handles seven times as much traffic as it did 20 years ago. It now handles—
  Mr. Loyden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Channon: I shall give way later on, but I must get on.
  Felixstowe now handles 6 per cent. of the United Kingdom's traffic, compared with 1 per cent. in 1970. Felixstowe is by no means the only success story among the non-scheme ports. The private wharves of the Hull, Humber, Trent and Ouse have doubled their traffic in the past 10 years, despite the close proximity of the better situated, deep-sea ports of Hull, Grimsby and Immingham.
  The small port of Neath which, unlike the rest of the ports in south Wales is outside the scheme, has seen a threefold increase in its non-oil traffic since 1975, whereas the other ports in the area, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Port Talbot all lost traffic in that period.
  The whole House knows about the dramatic changes that have taken place at Dover, our No. 1 ferry port and a non-scheme port. It now handles 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's non-oil traffic, by tonnage—a fivefold increase on 197–0. Of course, that is related to the success of the ro-ro ferries, but that level of growth in traffic would never have happened if Dover had been in the scheme.
  Further up the Kent coast, non-scheme Ramsgate has also benefited. It handled 1£6 million tonnes in 1987 whereas 20 years ago it handled only 50,000 tonnes. Again, that is evidence of the growth that can be achieved outside the dock labour scheme.
  Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State accept that the reason why non-scheme, deep-water ports are doing so well is that they are better located to serve the existing pattern of trade than are scheme ports? Does he not agree that ports such as Liverpool that were dependent on the American trade are now disadvantaged because of changing trade patterns that have nothing to do with scheme or non-scheme ports?
  Mr. Channon: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to draw attention to the shift of trade from the west coast to the east coast. However, there are non-scheme ports both on the west and the east coasts. If one takes them as a whole—and I cited a south Wales port a moment ago—the growth of trade at the non-scheme ports as against scheme ports can clearly be seen. That is not a coincidence. I am sure that the House and people outside recognise that the dock labour scheme has been a major force in holding back the development of the scheme ports.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's speech but I must ask him a simple question. Both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment placed great emphasis on the word of the port employers that they will not return to using casual labour. Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee at the Dispatch Box that, if their word is broken, the Government will introduce legislation to take care of the situation?
  Mr. Channon: I will not give that guarantee at the Dispatch Box, and nor would any right hon. or hon. Member expect me to do so. The House will have to form a judgment on the value of that particular assurance, which I personally believe to be extremely valid. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. After all, we can see how little casual work there is in the ports at present. The idea that this is some wicked plot to get rid of the dock labour scheme and to reintroduce casualisation by the back door is not borne out by the fact that there is so little casual work in dock labour scheme ports at present.
  Mr. Prescott: That is because the scheme stops it.
  Mr. Channon: I was describing what is happening in non-scheme ports, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he did me the courtesy of listening.
  Mr. Prescott: No, the right hon. Gentleman was talking about scheme ports.
  Mr. Channon: I want to address the crucial issue of what will happen to our ports—a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in his speech. It is essential to carry on the policy in the ports industry, as in other fields of transport, of deregulation and of liberalisation, so that the ports may be in a position to operate as fully commercial enterprises in a competitive world. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) spoke about marine pilotage and about light dues. We have undertaken a major reform of marine pilotage, sweeping away the old statutory regime and replacing it with a streamlined, cost-effective one. We pressed for greater cost-effectiveness in lights and navigational aids.
  This year, I announced the first major reform this century in the structure of light dues, including the ending of dues on deck cargoes and the reduction of light dues. They

  109
  were implemented from the beginning of this month as the latest step in a cumulative reduction in light dues over the past eight years amounting to over 40 per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: But now they have been imposed on fishing vessels.
  Mr. Prescott: A number of my hon. Friends made the point that those charges, together with many others such as those for rates, police and infrastructure, are not carried by European ports, and that makes a difference of 50 per cent. between the costs of United Kingdom ports and those of Europe. All the Secretary of State has done is to impose those costs instead on shipowners or on the ports themselves.
  Mr. Channon: If I have time, I shall deal with the whole question of costs.
  The Bill is in accord with our approach to transport in general.
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, it is a disaster.
  Mr. Channon: It is a vital piece of reform. The dock labour scheme has inhibited the release of the potential of far too many of our great ports. The scheme applies in the most part to the country's traditional main ports, many of which have a long history. It was no accident that they were sited where they are. They were built and developed to serve our main centres of industry and population, where the deepest or most sheltered waters were to be found, and major industries grew up alongside them. Many of them enjoy, through rail or road links, first-class communications with other parts of the country.
  Hull, Immingham, Liverpool, Bristol, Ipswich are among many scheme ports whose prospects have been enhanced by improvements to the road network. If we cannot release the energy of those scheme ports so that they can expand and develop their full potential we are misusing, indeed wasting, a great national resource. We must give our scheme ports the same unrestricted freedom to compete, develop and expand as is enjoyed by those outside the scheme.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) described the handicaps that existed in the past, and are still in existence in the scheme ports. Last week the Leader of the Opposition claimed that scheme ports had had exactly the same increase in traffic as non-scheme ports, and a faster rate of growth. If the position is viewed over a short time span that may be possible, but what matters is the pattern over a longish period.
  Since 1970 the tonnage of non-oil cargo handled in scheme ports has increased by 10 per cent., while the growth in non-scheme ports has been 334 per cent. Of course it is a much lower base line in non-scheme ports, but over the same period, if the actual rather than the percentage increase in tonnage handled is taken into consideration, scheme ports have increased their non-oil cargo by about 10 million tonnes, while in non-scheme ports the figure is no less than 40 million tonnes. However, we look at it, the plain fact is that for the past 20 years or more scheme ports have been losing market share—yet among them are some of the best-sited and best-linked ports in the country.
  It is not only the non-scheme ports with which our scheme ports must compete; we must look forwards as well as backwards. My hon. Friend the Member for
  110
  Boothferry (Mr. Davis) talked about the challenge of 1992. Key competition will come from two quarters. The creation of a single European market will stimulate trade between the Community and other countries as well as between countries within the Community, and we can expect trade with distant continents to be handled in big ships that call at one port, or at most two, in north-west Europe. Their cargoes will be brought to or taken from the port on feeder services, whether by ship, rail or road.
  If our ports are to compete for that deep-sea trade with Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and the other big continental ports, they must improve their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Felixstowe is already competing, but we must put Southampton, Tilbury, Hull and Liverpool into the market as well. They must be freed from the cost restrictions—and, indeed, the reputation—with which they have been burdened through being in the dock labour scheme.
  It is a sobering thought that 20 per cent. of our exports to, and imports from, continents other than Europe is shipped through Antwerp and Rotterdam, and we must try to change that. I want a large slice of that 9·5 million tonnes or so of cargo to come from British ports, but there will be no chance of it—indeed, I believe that matters will get worse—if the scheme stays in place. The big continental ports are among the most efficient in the world: they are doing well, and we must give our ports every chance to compete.
  I believe that the Channel tunnel, a completely novel kind of competitor, will generate more trade between Britain and continental Europe, but it will also compete for some of the traffic that at present goes by sea through our ports. It is crucial for the future prosperity of those ports that they do not have to compete with one hand chained behind their back to the dock labour scheme.
  What is crucial for the ports is also important for the country as a whole. The more efficient and cost-effective are our transport links with our continental partners—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to the Secretary of State and to stop these private conversations.
  Mr. Channon: It is clear from today's debate that the case for the removal of the dock labour scheme is unchallengeable. It has scarcely been challenged, either inside or outside the House. I note that neither the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East nor the hon. Member for Oldham, West said whether they would restore the scheme; it is very curious that we have not been told that.
  The Government believe that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is appropriate to provide fair and generous compensation arrangements for former registered dock workers. Without it, if made redundant, they would be entitled to no more than the normal statutory redundancy pay. Hitherto, dockers who volunteered for redundancy received much larger sums. Under the new compensation scheme, up to £35,000 will be available to any registered dock workers who are made redundant within the first 18 months after Royal Assent, subject to age and length of service, and up to £20,000 for the second 18 months. No hon. Member can fairly argue that those are not reasonable terms for us to offer to registered dock workers.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State able to say why it is necessary to introduce the Bill now with such speed? If he says that there is to be a tremendous expansion of jobs in the docks industry, why is he laying aside £13 million to pay for redundancies?
  Mr. Channon: I have already explained to the House, and I think that the majority of hon. Members agree with me, that, if anything, reform is long overdue rather than being too soon.
  The inefficiencies that have been so amply displayed and that are set out in the Government's White Paper show only too clearly the handicap that so many of our ports suffer because of the dock labour scheme. I ask the House again to note an extraordinary feature of the debate. Neither the hon. Member for Oldham, West nor the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has answered the simple question that has been put to them time and again: will the Labour party reintroduce the scheme, should it regain office? Will it, or will it not? I ask the House and the country to note that—
  Mr. Prescott: We have made it absolutely clear, as we did in our election manifesto, that we want the right to participate in action against unfair dismissal to be given to the workers. We believe in levelling up. Therefore, when we next come to power, the dock labour scheme will be considered within the context of a transport policy and a ports policy that gives employment rights to workers.
  Mr. Channon: The House will draw its own conclusions from that elaborate reply. I think that what the hon. Gentleman means is no, but I do not think he will say that. Why did the hon. Member for Oldham, West say on radio that Labour would support the dockers if they came out on strike? Is that still the Labour party's position? It is extremely unclear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now get up and say whether he intends to support the dockers if they come out on strike. I shall give way to him, too. Will he answer that question? No, he does not intend to answer it. The Opposition are frightened to tell the country the truth.
  Finally, do the Opposition still stand by their 1976 attempt not only to strengthen the dock labour scheme but to extend it still further? Some hon. Members would vote that down. They look very unhappy; they know that the Labour party supports an unacceptable scheme. The Opposition spokesman will not answer my questions.
  What does the Labour party have to hide? Why will it not tell the electorate? I thought that the Labour party was in favour of open opposition as well as open government. It is clear that we are not to be given an answer.
  At the time when the Labour party is telling the electorate that it has been born again, it is ironic that it should choose to back yet another loser. What we object to is when it tries to take the country with it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West condemned the abolition of the scheme because it could lead to industrial action that would damage the economy, yet he supports just such a strike. Nothing could show more clearly what the Labour leadership thinks about the economy of the country and its priorities.
  There has been a catalogue of disasters in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. A company proposed a new steel terminal in Hull. Thanks to the dock labour scheme, it pulled out and 250,000 tonnes of cargo a year disappeared from Hull. The
  112
  Hull container terminal was closed after Geest pulled out after eight years, because of continual industrial action. As the United Kingdom director of Geest said,
  "The people of Hull will have a right to ask, why are we again allowing stupidity to rule?"
  That is what the hon. Member for Oldham, West supports.
  The Labour party continues to support this ridiculous dock scheme. Everyone knows that it should be abolished and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 195.

  Division No. 158]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkins, Robert

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Atkinson, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Batiste, Spencer

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  Gardiner, George

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

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

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'tn)

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Howard, Michael

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

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

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  113

  Howells, Geraint

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Irving, Charles

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Price, Sir David

  Key, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lightbown, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lilley, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thorne, Neil

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Trippier, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mudd, David

  Walden, George

  Neale, Gerrard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Needham, Richard

  Wallace, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Watts, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wheeler, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  114

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Wood, Timothy

  and

  Woodcock, Mike

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Galloway, George

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Allen, Graham

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Barron, Kevin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Battle, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bell, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Haynes, Frank

  Blunkett, David

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boateng, Paul

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Boyes, Roland

  Henderson, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Holland, Stuart

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clay, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Clelland, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lamond, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leighton, Ron

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cox, Tom

  Litherland, Robert

  Crowther, Stan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cryer, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McAllion. John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Darling, Alistair

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  McWilliam, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marek, Dr John

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morley, Elliott

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Fyfe, Maria

  Murphy, Paul

  115

  Nellist, Dave

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Gavin

  Prescott, John

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis

  Randall, Stuart

  Vaz, Keith

  Redmond, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Sillars, Jim

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  DOCK WORK BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dock Work Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the extinguishment of liabilities of the National Dock Labour Board to the Secretary of State in respect of loans made under section 3(3) of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976 or section 4 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946;

  (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act.—[Mr. Lightbawn.]

Housing (Change of Landlord)
10.14 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing (Change of Landlord) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 367), dated 6th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be annulled.
This statutory instrument, which is unusually large, is the sort of legislation to which we are becoming accustomed under a Government who legislate by statutory instrument or order of the Secretary of State, as we pointed out to the Minister a number of times in Committee during consideration of the Housing Act 1988.
I concede that the regulations make one or two changes for the better. The Government have clearly responded to some of the requests that we made in the Committee that considered the Housing Act. I welcome those small improvements. We still have a system, which the Government introduced, of "pick a landlord", which should more appropriately be named "pick a tenant". The regulations refer to the way in which, having made a bid for a group of properties, the applicant—as the new landlord will be called—can begin to acquire those properties and the information that must be given by the local authority about the tenants who live in the area, voting and consultation periods.
It would be nice if I were able to say that this is a genuine "pick a landlord" scheme that would enable the tenant of a latter-day Mr. Rachman or Mr. Hoogstraten to go to his town hall, housing association or local housing co-operative and say, "I am fed up with being harrassed by this landlord and want to change to a better or different one." That will not occur. The regulations apply only to local authority tenants.
The Government allege that local authority housing is unpopular. That is a strange argument when one bears in mind the fact that local authority waiting lists of people desperate to obtain council houses have increased dramatically under the Government and currently stand at 1·25 million people. The Government's view was soundly put down by the Glasgow university study carried out at the request of the Department of the Environment. It showed that, by and large, councils are good landlords and compare favourably with housing associations.
The regulations are a one-way ticket because there is no possibility of changing one's mind if one gets a bad landlord. Again, it is not "pick a landlord" but "pick a tenant". An outside landlord makes a bid, and once it is accepted tenants are stuck with him until the landlord chooses to dispose of them. Tenants are unable to vote to change their landlord.
The object of the measure is to squeeze the public housing system further, to push people out of it and into the public sector. Perhaps predictably, that policy is not working as well as the Government would like. The harsh reality for the Government is that the majority of tenants who are voting under the rigged system, whereby abstentions are counted as yes votes—a system that would be satisfactory to a third-rate dictator—are voting it down and saying no. Some of the alternative landlords have been quite good housing associations with good reputations. Tenants are doing so because the Government have terrified many of them, especially older ones, with their drive to push them into the private sector.

117
Many tenants, especially older ones, remember that they tried to get out of the private sector. Government reports clearly show that private rented housing is the most unpopular form of rented housing. Some council landlords and some housing association landlords are bad, but the worst of them cannot compare with the worst private sector landlords, which include the Mr. Rachmans and Mr. Hoogstratens of this world. When the Government say that such things cannot happen and—as they tried to tell us during the passage of the Bill—that landlords will not exploit the new assured tenancy that makes it easier to evict, I demonstrated how wrong they are.
The new business expansion scheme pushes people who have never been landlords into providing accommodation. Brochures from companies—some quite respectable—are circulated which say that the companies will convert the properties into three and four-bedroom residential flats, let them on an assured tenancy, and shortly before the end of the business expansion scheme takes effect—the five-year period when tax is paid—they will convert them into one-bedroom flats, prior to selling them. The brochure continues:
"Carrying out major renovation work on such accommodation is grounds for compulsory repossession"—
the nasty word "eviction" is not used—
"under the 1988 Housing Act."
That was how I was able to predict—sadly, with accuracy—that such legislation and the assured tenancy would be abused. The evidence is there to see for all who have eyes.
Another reason why the Government's system is failing is that housing associations object to being used as the stalking horse for the Government. They do not like being pushed into taking over council properties because they are aware that, if they do so, they will take on large management problems which, in many cases, they are not equipped to meet. The Government, in their desperation to increase the supply of housing, are asking them to start building more of their own properties, and their management problems become even more complicated. The associations have to increase the supply of built properties and take on other existing properties from local authorities. The majority of housing associations do not want to get into that game. Only the bigger, richer and longer-established councils can do so, which is what is happening.
Part V of the regulations relates to section 101 of the Housing Act and prevents local authorities from making secure a tenancy on a property which becomes vacant during the application. From time to time the Government have accused councils of keeping properties empty unnecess-arily. I have pointed out time and again that local authorities have a better record in this matter than housing associations or the private sector, and an infinitely better record than the worst of all landlords, the Government, of whose properties almost 6 per cent. are empty.
Under the regulations, local authorities will have to keep additional numbers of houses and flats empty because they cannot let them during the period of the takeover—which can last for six months—unless they do so on a temporary basis. The properties cannot be let on a secure tenancy.
How can the Minister justify this in terms of good housing management? How can a local authority manage its stock well if, during the period of a takeover, it cannot
118
let properties which become vacant—even to people who are homeless? The local authority may still have to put such people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation even though empty property exists in the takeover area. I challenge the Government to say that they will allow local authorities to put people into vacant properties and give them a secure tenure and a vote.
Regulation 13 does not allow a tenancy to become secure automatically when section 101 of the 1988 Act ceases to apply. Will the Minister address this topic when he winds up? Why cannot the property automatically become a secure tenancy? The right and logical thing to do would be to allow it to revert to being a secured tenancy. Under section 13, that would not happen—but if I am wrong, I will be glad to be corrected.
Schedule 3 says that the information
"shall be written in clear and straightforward language".
I welcome that; it is a good change, but I hope that it will not be the so-called straight language of the Government's propaganda leaflets, such as the so-called "Tenants' Choice" leaflet put out by the Department of the Environment, which did not state in clear and unambiguous language that people who do not vote are counted as having voted in favour of a new landlord. That was rightly described as inertia selling by the National Consumers Council. The Minister continually ducked giving the council the leaflet so that it could give its informed view on the matter.
I welcome the fact that the new landlord will have to specify the difference between a new tenancy on offer and a secured tenancy. That is one of the most interesting and welcome moves in this otherwise squalid little regulation. For some time now, tenants have been offered a pig in a poke, often by organisations that have been well-intentioned. I have seen leaflets put out by people seeking to take over—I am thinking in one case of a management buy-out which implied that the tenancies that tenants would get if they voted for new landlords would be as good as secured tenancies. They might have been, but nobody knows, because no agreement of any sort was in existence when the propaganda was being put out. Tenants were being asked to make decisions without knowing the facts. So it is an important and welcome step forward that tenants should be told the specific difference between the new tenancy they are being offered and their present secured tenancy. If they are offered an assured tenancy, it will be much weaker than their present secured tenancy, because, as I have already said, people can be evicted on the grounds of the necessity for major repairs or of being more than three months in arrears with their rent.
I hope that the Government, who abuse the English language regularly, will tell tenants in straight language that they cannot change their minds. I hope they will tell them that, if they vote for a new landlord who turns out to be bad, all that the Government will do will be to tell the landlord that he cannot be an assured landlord any more—but his tenants will have to stay with him. They will not be able to vote on the matter—no "pick your landlord" this time. This is a one-way ticket, often into an unknown future. That is why so many elderly people are frightened about the change. The Government are bullying them into the private sector, and that is unacceptable and unnecessary.
Section 16(6) suggests that it is the tenants' duty to tell applicants that they may be absent from their address for some time—an interesting innovation. It means that, if a

119
tenant goes off to serve in the armed forces—perhaps to the Falklands—for a long time, unless he remembers to tell the applicant that he will be away for a long time, he will return to find that ownership of his home has been transferred over his head. People who go to prison or to hospital or who become seriously ill at home and who cannot care for their affairs in the usual way will also be vulnerable in this respect.
This is not a proper democratic system: it is a disgrace. I have yet to meet a Conservative Member of Parliament who has been able to justify this appalling system on a public platform. I have to hand it to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) who, speaking at a meeting with me, put the Government's case perfectly. He said that they choose the electoral system that suits the occasion, and by God he was right. He said, "As long as we can win it, we shall fix it in whatever way we can." What a definition of democracy. What a definition of what we think is necessary in a modern democratic society.
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman has taken totally out of context what I said at that meeting. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that they always take such remarks out of context when it suits the occasion. He may remember that the meetings that he and I addressed together were largely sympathetic to the general view that tenants should have some choice in the matter, however it is determined.
Mr. Soley: The Conservative councillors who were present were more in favour of what I said than what the hon. Gentleman said. That is why the Association of District Councils and the London Boroughs Association were so opposed to this rigged voting system. It would be hard to take what the hon. Gentleman said out of context, because he was asked a specific question. He may remember that the whole of the proceedings were tape-recorded, and the tapes are still in existence. If he wants to listen to the tapes and say how his remarks were taken out of context, I should be delighted to see his response in print.
The system is pretty grim. Part VII makes no mention of arrangements for outstanding loan debts. Perhaps the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech. That might well leave the local authority carrying debt for properties that have been transferred. When I hear the Government talking about how concerned they are about the ratepayer, I think of Thamesmead. I think of an estate valued at about £200 million that was knocked down for £25 million because the company taking it over said it could not afford it. That was £400 a house. What happened to the outstanding debt charges of £120 million? They were dumped on London ratepayers, who will go on paying them for many years.
Mr. Roger Gale: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to the rates in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham since his party took over?
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman would not ask that question if he knew the latest news. The rate increase of 3 per cent. in Hammersmith and Fulham is one of the lowest in the country. It is far lower than rate increases in Conservative areas and far lower than that in the area of
120
the Minister for Local Government. The rate increase in Suffolk, Coastal was one of the highest in the country. What a shambles. The Government try to fix local authorities so that rates have to go up, and they get it so wrong that Conservative councils have to put up the rates. Labour councils still manage to provide decent services while keeping rates within bounds, which is just about possible under this system.
I look forward to hearing interventions by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) when he complains on behalf of his constituents about the poll tax. He will say to the Minister, "I am worried about the poll tax. It is hitting families in my constituency very badly. Each child over the age of 18 in a family has to pay the poll tax." We shall see a different look on the hon. Gentleman's face when he talks about local government finance then.
As I have said, part VII does not mention what is to happen to debt. Can the Minister tell us whether outstanding debts will be dumped on the ratepayers? We want to know, and so do ratepayers. Under part VII, applicants can proceed even if initially they are unable to come up with the full price. I am deeply worried about that, because some housing associations and other associations, many of which had good intentions, are getting into difficulties after taking over properties because they have not assessed as they should have assessed the financial consequences. That is why we have seen rents going up so much in areas that have been transferred.
There may be debates about the causes of rent increases in ex-GLC seaside homes. When rents go up to 40 per cent. of the net income of two pensioners who are above housing benefit level because they have two occupational pensions, they will not survive for long without suffering acute economic hardship. It is unnecessary and cruel for the Government to put them in that position.
These regulations should not have been laid. They are based on a premise that makes them unnecessary. For some tenants this is a one-way ticket out of the public sector; it is not "pick a landlord" legislation. I should love it if tenants of a bad landlord could change their landlord, but they cannot. This is all about trying to get local authorities to give up their housing without providing anything in its place. That is why the housing crisis in this country is no longer just an inner-city crisis or a crisis in the rented sector, but one that goes to urban and rural areas and hits people who are buying as well as people who are renting. This Government's housing policy is a failed policy, and these regulations are a small part of that failure.
10.36 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I must say that it is a great shame that debates of this kind take place at this time of night. This is really just an extension of the drip of legislation by the back door—through statutory instruments provided for in the primary legislation, the detail of which Ministers were unable to fill in when the legislation was going through its various stages.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, these regulations contain some improvements. The changes that will ensure that tenants get better information are welcome. Nevertheless, there is still not enough information about the reality of the Act, about the effect that privatisation will have on tenants over the years. I am

121
thinking in particular—this has been mentioned already—of circumstances in which people find that they have been tricked, conned or bought into making a bad decision. The landlord—supposedly squeaky clean—is taken off the Government's list of acceptable landlords, but the tenants have to put up with him indefinitely.
Individual tenants can do nothing about the malpractices that they are suffering. Many of them will not have voted for the system, but the abstention vote will ensure that, so far as the Government are concerned, those people's hands were raised to show that they were in favour of the system. Thank goodness we do not, as yet, have voting by show of hands in this House.
Part IV provides that, if a tenant in a block votes against a new landlord, that tenant has the right to stay with the council. The landlord is enabled to let that particular flat back to the council, which can sublet it to the tenant. That is an improvement.
The thing that will lead me to vote against these regulations—I understand that there will be a vote—is the procedure under part V which prevents the council, during the bidding process, from letting a council property on the estate in question.
Almost every other provision in this instrument is concerned with detail. In most cases the detailed provisions are unlikely to affect what is happening, but this provision relates directly to people's ability to have their housing needs met—to be certain of a roof over their heads, to be certain of a home for their husbands, or wives, and children. It is about the most basic of things. In my view, this procedure will deprive people of the security of a roof over their heads, simply because of the bureaucracy of a voting system. It is a system which should not be taking place in any case, but which, in this case, will ensure that at least some individuals suffer.
As has already been said, the Government repeatedly criticise councils for not housing people when there are properties in which they can be housed. Without any question, some councils are better at it than any others. The Government are worst of all. These regulations put into the rules a system that ensures that the accommodation cannot be properly used. That is not only an error but fundamentally and morally wrong. They should be opposed tonight if for no other reason than that they will keep out on the streets yet more people without the permanent security of housing for them and their children.
10.40 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: Like many hon. Members, I have a surgery in my constituency, in my case every Friday. Every week, the greatest number of problems concern housing. People come to me asking me what can be done. Some live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Some are single-parent families. Some have lived in Newham for many years. Some are in unsuitable private rented accommodation, and others want transfers. Last Friday, about 70 per cent. of all the cases that I saw concerned housing. What can we offer such people? On many occasions, I have said that I only wish that Ministers, and in particular the Prime Minister, would come to my surgery to see how enormous is the housing problem in my area, and how that is mirrored throughout London and in no doubt in other cities.
122
If the Housing Act 1988 from which these regulations flow had done anything to address the housing crisis, I would have been most encouraged. I would also have been amazed, given the Government's record. The Act has nothing to do with building one single unit of the accommodation that is so desperately needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, it is all to do with ideology, and the drive to force local authorities out of providing housing. It is about petty, party political, ideological objectives rather than housing.
It does not take a great statistician to work out that there must be something wrong when homelessness in London has doubled since 1979 when the Government came to power. The number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has reached astronomic proportions. In 1983, Newham was spending £50,000 a year on bed and breakfast. This year, it will spend £5 million. That cannot be right.
While the queue of people wanting accommodation keeps growing, the Government cut the resources that local authorities need to build new houses. The Minister will correct me if I have got it wrong, but if I remember rightly, since the Government came into power, the housing investment programme has been cut by 80 per cent. in real terms. That is why homelessness has doubled. It is not because there are no good landlords waiting in the wings to come along and give people decent accommodation in which to live: it is all because the Government have cut, cut and cut again against the resources that local authorities need to spend on housing.
I hope that, if the Minister's bag carrier has just got the figure for the number of voids in Newham—I am sure that that is what I lipread—he will bear in mind the fact that we have about 1,100 voids because they are in unsafe tower blocks. They are those Taylor Woodrow Anglia tower blocks. No doubt the Minister remembers the name of Ronan Point. There are 110 of those unsuited tower blocks. In the drive to sell off units of accommodation, there are not many takers for tower blocks in Newham. Boroughs have been forced to sell off the best properties. Tenants have been left in the worst, and they have little chance now of ever moving out of them.
The problems of homelessness in London and elsewhere stem from the constant denial of resources to local authorities to build houses that people so desperately need. In the 1970s, we were building, about 25,000 units of accommodation a year in London. We are down now to fewer than 2,500. Building in the public sector is at a lower level now than it was in the 1920s. It is a scandal. The Minister and the Government generally are presiding over an obscene disgrace. In 1989, there are still tens of thousands living in conditions that no Member of this place would be prepared to tolerate for five minutes. At 10.45 pm we are discussing measures that have nothing to do with the problems of homelessness and nothing to do with building new homes. Instead, they are all about party political spite and ideology as the Government try to drive local authorities out of the provision of homes.
The regulations against which we are praying make t he already fundamentally flawed policy even more problematic. They display disregard for the interests of tenants. They work against genuine efforts to find satisfactory tenant-based solutions to housing problems. They introduce the imposition of intolerable administrative and financial burdens on councils. The time scale for consultation is woefully inadequate. If the objective is to

123
allow genuine discussion among tenants and their advisers to enable satisfactory solutions to housing problems, the time scale is nonsense.
I understand that 14 weeks is the maximum period for consultation, and it could be much less. The applicant landlord could effectively stifle debate by issuing the final offer only at the end of the first seven-week period. The belated concession of seven to 10 days for the council to respond is completely inadequate. There is then four weeks in which to vote, but that could be done on the first day, with only two weeks to follow up. Real debate could be restricted to only two weeks in the middle of the process. It is the opinion of the Association of London Authorities that 28 weeks is the minimum period for real debate and discussion.
Perhaps the Minister will argue that there will be debate during the preliminary phase, but few details are available about that. I hope that the Minister will tell us in greater detail what the consultation period will involve. As the procedure is non-statutory, an applicant landlord will not have to make a final offer. That means that details of rents, for example, will be missing. Genuine consideration of all the facts can take place only within the statutory consultation process, and under the regulations that could be limited to a mere couple of weeks.
Housing is far too important for these procedures to be acceptable even to the Minister. The provisions of only one vote for joint tenants will cause major problems. At the very least, we maintain that two signatures should be required to prove that the vote is acknowledged by both parties. The regulations are inadequate for meeting the needs of tenants whose first language is not English. That is a matter of major concern in a borough such as Newham. Regulation 16, schedule 3, states that,
"Where there is significant foreseeable demand"
material, should be translated. That provides too many loopholes for applicant landlords.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is all well and good for Ministers to sit and laugh and chatter through his excellent and carefully judged speech? If they had the week-in and week-out experience of London Members in dealing at their surgeries with people who have been in bed-and-breakfast hostels for years and who have had to bring up small children in that accommodation—in other words, if they had to deal with the victims of their housing policies—they would not be quite so glib and quite so happy. The regulations will do nothing to help the homeless and the poor and everything to aid and provide profits for property speculators.
Mr. Banks: There are times when I find it difficult to work out whether the Government are vicious or ignorant. I have come to the conclusion that they are both. There can be no doubt that they are certainly vicious, but I also
124
believe that many Conservative Members are also ignorant of the problems. Although some Conservative Members know what the problems are, because of the party whipping system they are prepared to turn their minds away from the realities. Many of those who know the realities absent themselves from these debates and come in only to vote, because if they have not heard the arguments their consciences will perhaps not trouble them in quite the way that they should and they can stagger home to bed, if not with easy consciences, at least with consciences that have not been troubled with having to confront the reality of life for so many of our citizens in London and elsewhere.
I return to the issue of translated material. As I have said, there are too many loopholes for the applicant landlord when dealing with tenants, many of whom do not have English as their first language. Surely, if tenants are to exercise choice, which is the Government's stated aim, those tenants must have understandable information before them. There is nothing in the regulations to say how demand is to be assessed or what constitutes "significant". We maintain that if a single tenant does not understand, it is significant to him or her. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about translated material.
It appears that spoilt ballot papers will count as abstentions. Under this voting system, that means they will be votes in favour of transfer. That is nonsense, but under this Government, we are getting used to nonsense in voting procedures in these regulations. There is no question of democracy. The Government do not worry about concepts such as democracy, because it means whatever they want it to mean—
Mr. John Battle: Or whatever they can get away with.
Mr. Banks: Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) says, democracy means whatever the Government can get away with. However, that may not work. The tenants may vote against those landlords because they are not coming in to do a good job: they are trying to strip out the assets. It is no good the Minister saying, "Oh well, only approved landlords will come from the Housing Corporation," because it will be quite possible to pull the wool over the eyes of the Housing Corporation. If the corporation gets it wrong, there is no question of it saying, "We'll take those properties away from that stinking lousy landlord"; all that it will say is, "Sorry, you can't have any more people to exploit, but you can carry on exploiting the ones you've got."
Let us face it—this is a developers' charter, an asset-strippers' charter. It has nothing to do with finding housing for the people who desperately need it. Until we get rid of this stinking, rotten Government who could not care a monkey's toss, the housing crisis will just get worse and worse. No doubt the only thing that we shall get from the Minister are his laughs and sneers. That is all that the homeless can expect from him.
10.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I assume that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was trying—as he so often does—to draw a laugh from Conservative Members. He is often genuinely funny. However, he was not all that funny today. Indeed, the comments made by Opposition Members generally did not show anything new or innovative over the arguments that they have tried to advance in the past on this part of the Housing Act 1988 which refers to tenants' choice. There were simply the regurgitated arguments that I have heard so many times because, for some reason or another, the Opposition seem to be worried about the legislation. I genuinely cannot guess why they are so worried, unless it is for purely party political purposes and they are concerned that we are moving into the heartland of the Labour party—
Mr. Battle: That is what this is all about—very interesting.
Mr. Trippier: We are not only offering, as we have done since 1979, an opportunity to tenants to exercise their right-to-buy; we are now offering them an extension to that—the opportunity to choose an alternative landlord—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Trippier: I shall gladly give way in a moment.
How on earth can the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggest to the House that instead of choosing a new landlord, the legislation means choosing a tenant or, to use his precise phrase, it means "pick a tenant"? The hon. Gentleman knows—although his right hon. and hon. Friends may not—that the council house tenant has the right to veto his council house being sold over his head. The council house tenant can, by registering that veto, remain with the registering landlord, which will be the local authority. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he probably suspects that the vast majority of his right hon. and hon. Friends—because they have not taken the time and trouble to read the regulations—do not. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were putting fear into the minds of tenants. If anyone is doing that, it is the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Winnick: It is not difficult to expose the Government's hypocrisy. Why is the right to decide that is given to council tenants not extended to private tenants? The Minister says that the regulations are all about giving choice. Does not the Minister know that many private tenants under pressure and suffering intimidation would gladly choose the local authority as their landlord?
Mr. Trippier: I have not heard such bunkum for a long time. As a result of the policies of previous Labour Governments, and of former Conservative Governments with which I personally would not have agreed, there has been such a substantial increase in the public sector housing stock that we have, I am ashamed to say, the highest percentage public housing stock in the whole of western Europe, and the lowest percentage—8 per cent. —of private rented accommodation in western Europe. The situation is so out of balance that there is no fair alternative.
126
The 1988 Act is designed to encourage the development and growth of the private rented sector—not by reincarnating Rachman, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggests, but by expanding the housing association movement. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, that a housing association is highly likely to be the alternative landlord putting forward proposals to the tenants, rather than the kind of private landlord that he suggests. The hon. Gentleman should make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) that housing associations are non-profit-making bodies.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister visited my constituency and knows that it has a very large private rented sector. What does he have to say to those of my constituents in the private rented sector who want the choice he intends giving public sector tenants?
Mr. Trippier: I have never been on an official visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency during my time as a Minister with responsibility for housing. However, I shall be only too pleased to visit it and to see whatever the hon. Gentleman wishes to show me.
The matter in question has arisen on several previous occasions. Our responsibility is clearly to give public sector tenants an alternative. The private rented sector is tiny. Tenants who are dissatisfied with their private sector landlords can go to law. The changes we introduced in the 1988 Act ensure that the kind of rent previously charged in the public sector—which had a considerable effect on rents generally—can move up to being more of a market rent. The alternative available to the tenant should be fairer than in the past.
Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and by me? It is a very simple question: if, as he claims, there is a choice for public sector tenants, why is there no choice for private tenants? However misguided they may be, why not allow them to choose whether to become local authority tenants?
Mr. Trippier: If they wish to become local authority tenants, they can exercise that right by applying to the local authority. [Interruption.] Of course they can. As a result of changes in the 1988 Act, however, a number of tenants will choose to move into the private sector. Rat her than choosing to exercise the right to buy—they may not be in a position, financially, to do that—they will move into accommodation owned by housing associations. There is clear evidence of that in recent surveys by the Department of the Environment. Some 40 per cent of tenants consulted during the Professor MacLennan study said that they were prepared to pay a higher rent for a better service from the landlord. If we are to debate these matters seriously, let us examine the facts.
Mrs. Llin Golding: May I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)? What about the former National Coal Board tenants in both our constituencies who have to put up with disgusting conditions now that their houses have been sold off to landlords whom they can never find, and who do not care about repairs? Can they go to the local authority and ask to be taken on?
Mr. Trippier: Earlier today, on a regional visit to the east midlands, I met representatives of the East Midlands housing association, which, I understand, has made bids for former Coal Board properties. [Interruption] I do not think that this is a new case, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) knows a great deal about the east midlands.
Mr. Battle: That is a slur.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman usually casts slurs from a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.
Mr. Battle: Would the Minister kindly answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) about the circumstances of people whose homes have already been sold over their heads, rather than talking about new circumstances in which negotiations are in progress with the housing association? Will he also not assume that Opposition Members know nothing about such matters?
Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman would open his ears instead of his mouth, a whole new world would be opened up to him. I was answering the question put to me by the hon. Lady. If housing associations are to bid for properties formerly owned by British Coal, it is up to them to produce an alternative better than what has been experienced by the tenants of those properties. That is what I learnt today.
Certainly tenancies that were the responsibility of British Coal may not have been handled properly; I have no way of knowing unless I am told. What concerns me is that such properties are improved by their alternative landlords. In this case and, I understand, in many other parts of the country, the landlord will be a housing association. But I do not want to be diverted on to a specific point about British Coal properties, or the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will be the first to accuse me of ducking the pertinent questions that he asked.
Mr. Soley: The reason the Minister is falling into a trap is that he is trying to answer a separate question. The question was: what will happen to the Coal Board tenants whose houses have already been sold to bad landlords? Does he not realise that many of those landlords cannot even be traced? Does he not know that the tenants drove down in a coach, only to find that the "registered office" was an empty house? Following the "World in Action" programme about a lady who was driven out of her home by Mr. Hoogstraten, I have written to the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Housing, Environment and the Countryside. That lady is still out of her home, and all those Ministers say that nothing can be done. Where is the law to protect such people? Where is the choice of a different landlord?
Mr. Trippier: Even if what the hon. Gentleman says were true, it has absolutely nothing to do with tenants' choice, for which provision is made in section 4 of the 1988 Act. He knows that perfectly well. I am prepared to discuss that or any other matter with him or any other hon. Member, but it has nothing to do with the regulations. It is vital that I should respond to some of the questions that have been asked.
Mr. Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: I shall give way on one more occasion. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has already intervened, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
Mr. McKay: The Minister is not putting his mind to the question. By one means or another, the Government intend to do away with local authority housing. We have known that for a considerable period. Should not the tenants of British Coal have, as of right, the choice to become local authority tenants because local authorities are the best landlords?
Mr Trippier: I am talking about the new regulations. We have taken as many steps as we think are necessary to provide for tenants a better alternative than the one that they have now. I maintained that the right of tenants to exercise a veto over their homes being sold to other landlords is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that our proposals are fair. In the vast majority of cases where there is a choice for tenants, I believe that they will choose a housing association rather than a private landlord. Opposition Members have been scaremongering. The Opposition are frightened of the proposals, so they have chosen to attack the publicity that the Government—more particularly, the Department of the Environment—have provided on the proposals.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) concentrated on a leaflet that we have debated at great length. We tried to debate the matter in the media, but it was overtaken by events and it was never broadcast. As a result, however, of the publication of this—a copy of which he has had because I sent it to him, although he did not mention that fact—we have made the position clear. It is more suitable for him; it contains more pictures so he will probably be able to understand it a little better. We have coloured the pictures so that no mistake can possibly be made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about what we are saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister ought to identify, for the benefit of Hansard, what it is that he referred to as "this."
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for the chance of a commercial, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is entitled "Tenants' Choice." It is a recent Department of the Environment and Welsh Office publication. We have gone to extreme lengths to make the alternatives abundantly clear. The hon. Member for Hammersmith claimed that the effect of not voting is not made clear in our leaflet. We say:
"If the transfer happens … Special arrangements apply to commercial tenants and flat-owners … but otherwise if you voted yes—or did not vote at all—you will transfer to become a tenant of the alternative landlord; if you voted no, you will stay"
a tenant of the council.
I have no doubt that from time to time the hon. Member for Hammersmith will raise this matter in future debates on housing and that he will attack the leaflet line by line and word by word and say that it is not abundantly clear. This evening he asked, "Will the Government be honest about the one-way ticket?" We have been very honest about that, too. Page 17 of the booklet deals with the question

129
"Can I change my mind after the vote?"
The answer is:
"No. If the transfer goes ahead and you have either voted `yes' or not cast your vote, you will not be able … to stay with the existing landlord or opt to go back to it later."
I fail to see how we could make that any clearer.
Mr. Soley rose—
Mr. Trippier: Is the hon. Gentleman going to change his tack? He either wants the position made clear or he does not, surely.
Mr. Soley: If the Minister listened to what I said about the previous leaflet and put it right in the present leaflet, I am pleased. Does the present leaflet make it clear that people who chose to stay with the council will, in certain circumstances, have to pay rents set by the new landlord, or that they will have to pay all the service charges and so on? Does it make that clear?
Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Member reads his intervention in Hansard, he will realise that he has made an absolute "Horlicks" of it. He asked whether I would make it clear what would happen to tenants who stayed with the local authority—that there might be substantial increases in rents and service charges. I think that he was referring to the fact that the alternative landlord—the private sector or housing association landlord—would then be in a position to increase rents and service charges. It would be the responsibility of the housing association, before the vote was taken, to make it clear to the tenants what the alternative actually meant to them. The alternative landlord would have to spell that out and make it abundantly clear—as anyone would have to—that it was prepared to offer a better service than the service being provided by the local authority. If the housing association could not persuade tenants that it could offer a better alternative, tenants plainly would not vote for it as an alternative landlord, so the situation simply does not arise.
Mr. Tony Banks: Suppose that a potential new landlord says, "We can offer you a better service," but does not mention rents, then gets hold of the properties and sticks the rents up 12 months later. Is the Minister saying that the new landlord will not be able to do that? Does he really believe that that situation will not arise, and will he assure us that, if it does, he will do something about it?
Mr. Trippier: On the latter point, of course we will, but the situation would not arise. Having suggested, rather stupidly, that the purpose of the legislation was to "strip out" local authorities' assets, which is palpable nonsense, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West went on to dismiss what he thought would be the Government's response to his speech, which is pretty clear: we have to approve the landlords through the Housing Corporation. [Interruption.] To be fair, the hon. Gentleman touched on that.
I would not in any way undermine the power that the Housing Corporation has in that regard and its responsibility for policing the 1988 Act. The landlords have to be approved and the housing associations will certainly be regularly monitored; they are at the moment, and that will continue. It is rather silly to suggest that tenants would vote for an alternative landlord if they did not know what the alternative rent regime would be. That would be stupid, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion stretches credulity to breaking point.
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr. Trippier: I want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues by trying to answer their questions.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) suggested that there was not sufficient information about the Government's proposals. I have dealt to some degree with the recent publication that we have made available. I accept entirely that much more needs to be done to increase tenants' awareness of precisely what the 1988 legislation means for them. We have made it clear time and again that we are not attacking local government in the round. But in many cases the housing stock that local authorities have to manage is so enormous that they could not possibly manage it effectively or efficiently. We believe that their tenants should have the opportunity to exercise the right to choose an alternative landlord.
As a result of the legislation, there has been a considerable degree of deathbed repentance on the part of a number of local authorities that I would consider inefficient. If I were to select examples, I might be able to carry the hon. Member for Truro with me and we would agree that a particular local authority was inefficient. Many local authorities are trying to win back the favours and affections of their tenants. As I have suggested, it is a little late. If they improve their service as a result of our introducing the legislation, it should be welcomed on all sides of the House.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister explain why so many local authorities in rural areas have rather little housing stock and are probably not on the Minister's list of local authorities that cannot run their affairs properly? Torbay is such an example where the Minister has turned down a request for transfer. By deathbed repentances, is he referring to the fact that in Torbay dead people were counted as having voted in favour of a transfer?
Mr. Trippier: I have yet to see any evidence that such people were counted. Although I have heard it from the hon. Member for Truro and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I have seen absolutely no evidence that that ever occurred. In regard to the legislation, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those who have the opportunity to vote will be not only very much alive, but even if they are at sea, or even under the sea in submarines, to quote the hon. Gentleman's favourite example, it will be the responsibility of the electoral officer to ensure that they are reached. It is perfectly possible for someone serving with Her Majesty's forces abroad to be contacted in the preliminary period, through the normal British forces post office system, and that will be the responsibility of the electoral officer.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about homelessness, there is an unmistakeable connection between the number of empty properties under local authority management in London and the number of homeless families. It shows the degree of inefficiency of housing management in local authorities such as his own, and particularly in Brent, that they have not turned round those empty properties and brought them back on to the market.
Mr. Banks: This one always comes up. I received an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the

131
Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who is not altogether dead; indeed, I understand that he is still alive. I asked him:
"what average percentage of the total housing stock of (a) councils, (b) housing associations and (c) private landlords was vacant at the last recorded date."—[Official Report, 13 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 664.]
The Minister's reply was that the average vacant dwellings as a percentage of stock of local authorities was 2·4 per cent., the figure for housing associations was 2·5 per cent., and the figure for private rented dwellings was 4·1 per cent. The fact is that in the local authority areas the percentage of vacancies is lower than in any other housing sector and considerably lower than in the Government's own housing sector.
Mr. Trippier: What else does the hon. Gentleman expect? There are literally thousands of private sector landlords who have varying sizes of stock. How would the hon. Gentleman, as a constituency Member of Parliament—forgetting his party affiliation—expect to chase within his constituency individual private landlords to ensure that the private rented sector is turned round and brought on to the market? I am sure that he and I agree that it would be pretty difficult. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fair in this respect.
The further difficulty the hon. Gentleman would have is persuading Newham—this is a darn sight easier problem—to improve the efficiency of the local authority and ensure that the empties are brought back on to the market and used to provide accommodation for those who are genuinely homeless.
Conservative Members are sick to death of the Opposition trying to claim that they have a monopoly of concern for the homeless—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."].They do not. It is clear that bringing the empty properties back on to the market would relieve the pressure that the homeless are putting on the local authorities. If only one Opposition Member would admit that it is a sign of inefficiency that local authorities are not bringing those empty properties back on to the market, their claim would at least be credible. They do not turn round to their local authorities and say that they are inefficient.
There is one exception. He is a well-known Socialist but he is not a Member of the House. The leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor Keva Coombes, has been extremely fair recently in admitting publicly and with me in a debate on a radio programme, that Liverpool city council is inefficient in two regards. The first is in bringing empty properties back into use and the other is in not chasing effectively its rent arrears. Because someone such as that is prepared to admit that improvements can and should be made, it is beholden on Opposition Members also to admit that the performance of many Socialist-controlled local authorities is not up to scratch. Professor Maclennan did not do what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. He confirmed that the efficiency within housing associations was eminently superior to local authorities.
Tenants' choice is a new opportunity for tenants of which the Government are proud. The Opposition did not like the Government giving tenants the right to choose to buy their own homes. They do not like us giving them the right to choose an alternative landlord. We have also built in the provision enabling tenants to stay with the local
132
authority. Therefore, the Opposition find it extremely difficult to attack our proposals. I urge the House to support our measures and I commend them to the House.
11.23 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The Minister said that he was ashamed of the total number of local authority dwellings in Britain and that he considered that there were too many. The Minister should instead be concerned about and ashamed of the acute housing crisis in Britain, about the number of families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and about the fact that only five minutes away from here many poeople, not all of whom are beggars—many are young people who have come from the north—will have to sleep in the open air by the embankment tonight. The Minister has expressed no shame or concern about that, so what kind of Housing Minister do we have?
My hon. Friends have, in the main, referred to the housing crisis in London—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have taken a relaxed view of the scope of the debate, but it is now turning into a general debate on homelessness, which cannot be permitted.
Mr. Winnick: I was referring to the Minister's replies to questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If local authority tenants are to be given a choice of landlord, it is only proper that private tenants should be given the same choice. My hon. Friends referred to former tenants of British Coal, who are unaware who their present landlord is—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will try to control herself—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish that Labour-controlled authorities would fill the empty dwellings under their control.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Lady should perhaps have asked my permission before intervening.
My hon. Friend referred to tenants being unaware who their landlords are. Why should they not be able to choose to remain with private landlords or become tenants of a local authority or housing association? The regulations will certainly give no rights to those tenants.
We are discussing only the public sector, and the Minister gave the game away when he described it as the Labour heartland. He is concerned not with housing or tenants but with party politics. He wants to undermine the public rented sector because of the long Tory vendetta against council housing.
The voting system is crooked. Anyone who abstains is regarded as voting in favour. The Minister proved tonight what we have said all along—that he is concerned not about housing, or the acute distress being caused to so many families, or the fact that people who cannot afford a mortgage and cannot obtain local authority dwellings are living in abysmal conditions, but about undermining councils and harming and penalising public sector tenants.
Mr. Soley: Given the way in which the Minister dealt with the subject, he ought to be known as the hon. Member for used car sales. He refused to answer the question about the regulations keeping properties empty during the takeover because councils will not be able to let

133
them. He keeps answering questions that were not asked because he cannot answer the difficult questions. That is why he should be selling cars.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Minister constantly tells local authorities that they are in the wrong, and he constantly informs the House of the number of local authority dwellings that are vacant. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, there are twice as many empty private dwellings. If the regulations make it more difficult for local authorities to let dwellings, how can he criticise them when he is the Minister responsible for making the position worse?
Everything that the Minister said showed that he should not be in charge of housing. Far from looking on him as a Minister responsible for housing, I see him as the anti-housing Minister. He is the worst junior Minister—[Interruption.] I know that there is a great deal of competition for that title, but the Minister has shown that he is the worst junior Minister in this present wretched Administration. Far from being concerned about housing, the Government want to cause the maximum damage to the public rented sector. When we vote against the regulations tonight, we shall do so with every possible justification.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 206.

Division NO. 159]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Anderson, Donald

Fatchett, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fearn, Ronald

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

Barron, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Battle, John

Foster, Derek.

Beckett, Margaret

Fraser, John

Bell, Stuart

George, Bruce

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

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bermingham, Gerald

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Blunkett, David

Gordon, Mildred

Boyes, Roland

Graham, Thomas

Bradley, Keith

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hardy, Peter

Buckley, George J.

Henderson, Doug

Caborn, Richard

Holland, Stuart

Callaghan, Jim

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Geraint

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clay, Bob

Illsley, Eric

Clelland, David

Ingram, Adam

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cohen, Harry

Lamond, James

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbyn, Jeremy

Leighton, Ron

Cousins, Jim

Lewis, Terry

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

Loyden, Eddie

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAllion, John

Cunningham, Dr John

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

McFall, John

Darling, Alistair

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McKelvey, William

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

McLeish, Henry

Dixon, Don

McWilliam, John

Doran, Frank

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mahon, Mrs Alice

134

Marek, Dr John

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

Martlew, Eric

Soley, Clive

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spearing, Nigel

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morgan, Rhodri

Steinberg, Gerry

Morley, Elliott

Stott, Roger

Mullin, Chris

Straw, Jack

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Nellist, Dave

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Turner, Dennis

O'Brien, William

Vaz, Keith

O'Neill, Martin

Wall, Pat

Patchett, Terry

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter L.

Walley, Joan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Prescott, John

Wareing, Robert N.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Redmond, Martin

Winnick, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rogers, Allan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ruddock, Joan

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Salmond, Alex

Mrs. Llin Golding.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Allason, Rupert

Fishburn, John Dudley

Amess, David

Forman, Nigel

Amos, Alan

Forth, Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Franks, Cecil

Ashby, David

Freeman, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkins, Robert

Gale, Roger

Atkinson, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gill, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Baldry, Tony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Batiste, Spencer

Gow, Ian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gregory, Conal

Benyon, W.

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bevan, David Gilroy

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Grist, Ian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hague, William

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Boswell, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bottomley, Peter

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

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Harris, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hayward, Robert

Bowis, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Brazier, Julian

Heddle, John

Bright, Graham

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Burns, Simon

Hind, Kenneth

Burt, Alistair

Howard, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

Cash, William

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunter, Andrew

Churchill, Mr

Irvine, Michael

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

Jack, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Janman, Tim

Couchman, James

Jessel, Toby

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

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Tony

Key, Robert

Eggar, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Emery, Sir Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knapman, Roger

Evennett, David

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Favell, Tony

Knowles, Michael

135

Knox, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Latham, Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lawrence, Ivan

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rowe, Andrew

Lightbown, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lilley, Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lord, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maclean, David

Speller, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stern, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Stevens, Lewis

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maples, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Marland, Paul

Summerson, Hugo

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thorne, Neil

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thornton, Malcolm

Miller, Sir Hal

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, Iain

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Roger

Tredinnick, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Trippier, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Needham, Richard

Waldegrave, Hon William

Neubert, Michael

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Warren, Kenneth

Paice, James

Watts, John

Patnick, Irvine

Whitney, Ray

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Wilkinson, John

Pawsey, James

Wilshire, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas

Portillo, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Powell, William (Corby)

Woodcock, Mike

Raff an, Keith

Yeo, Tim

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Redwood, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

National Curriculum
11.42 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 309), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be annulled.
It may also be convenient for the House to consider the following prayer,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Mathematics) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 308), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be annulled.
Understandably and rightly, the House has today been preoccupied with the appalling events at the weekend at Hillsborough. The debate on these motions is something of a landmark in post-war education history. As far as I am aware, it is the first occasion on which the curriculum for science and mathematics has been debated in detail in the House since the Education Act 1944. I am glad that the Opposition have helped to secure the debate.
In its manifesto for the last general election, the Labour party called for a clear but flexible core curriculum agreed at national level. If we had won the election, the implementation of that pledge would have involved a process not dissimilar to that of which the orders are a part. There will always be much room for debate over the content and flexibility of any national curriculum, the means of assessment and the resources needed to deliver it. I think that there is now a common appreciation that, through the method of a national curriculum the final broad decisions on the core of what should be taught in schools should be the subject of the political process and the deliberations of the House. I do not resile from that conclusion.
But with the power over the curriculum that has been taken by this House go very important responsibilities—to ensure that we do not act in a destructive or partisan way; to ensure that we do not treat the curriculum as some party political football; to ensure that we allow the professionals whose advice is sought a climate of freedom in which to come to their own recommendations; and to ensure that any differences between that advice and the final decisions by Ministers and this House should be transparent and clear. It is crucial that we do that, for the success of any national curriculum depends upon the confidence of teachers.
Thanks not least to the painstaking work of members of the subject working parties of the National Curriculum Council and of inspectors and trainers, I have been struck, in the very many visits that I have made to schools, by the good will that exists among teachers towards the national curriculum—much the same as the great good will there was, and remains, for GCSE. I visited five schools in the past week and spoke in detail to the teachers. They all said that they were willing to make a go of the national curriculum, whatever their doubts. There are considerable doubts, some of which I shall raise. There are doubts about the timetable, about the resources, about the methods of assessment and, in the case of the order concerning science, about part of the order itself.

137
This debate takes place on two orders—the one relating to maths, and the one relating to science. To secure debates on both, we had to pray against both, but it is our intention to vote only against the one dealing with science —for specific reasons that I will spell out. There have been no substantial representations against the mathematics order in its final form. There was, of course, a vigorous debate from the time of the first working party report in December 1987.
The popular press has alighted on this interesting issue of whether long division and long multiplication without the use of calculators should be taught in schools. In my view—I think that, on this issue, I speak for my colleagues —it is a good idea that children should be able to divide three-digit numbers by two-digit numbers without the use of a calculator, and that they should be able to carry out similar multiplication operations.
Mr. James Pawsey: Give us an example.
Mr. Straw: As the hon. Member will know from his own study of the attainment levels under the mathematics national curriculum, that operation does not have to be done in the head. Mentally, one has to be able only to divide two-digit numbers by single digits, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
The reason I think that this is a good idea is that long division and long multiplication do give an instinctive idea of mathematical relationships and orders of magnitude. It is important that children should have that facility. But we should not be Luddites about the use of calculators and computers. I have observed the way in which calculators help mathematics and mathematical relationships to come alive for children. They certainly ensure that children can make faster, better and more interesting progress than I observed 30 years or more ago when I was a child.
In mathematics there are considerable challenges ahead. I was struck by the remarks of Professor Howson, reported in The Times Educational Supplement recently:
"no other major developed country appeared to have so few of its 17-year-olds studying mathematics".
The challenge to raise interest and attainment in mathematics is very substantial. When visiting a school last week, in two adjoining classrooms I found that, among children of the same age level—these were 15 and 16—there was a difference of probably 10 years in the level of attainment.
Let me turn now to the proposals for the science national curriculum, which, appropriately, are in the red document, rather than the blue one. We propose to vote against this order, for two reasons: first, because we believe that it places too little emphasis on curiosity and inquiry; secondly—and more important—because it proposes that there should be established for 14 to 16-year-olds a two-tier science curriculum in which some children will devote between 16·6 per cent. and 20 per cent. of their time to a dual subject in science, whilst others will devote only 12·5 per cent. of their time to a single subject. In making this case, we are seeking not to substitute our views for those of the National Curriculum Council, but to substitute the original views of the science working party for those of the National Curriculum Council and the Secretary of State.
The science working party proposed that there should be four profile components—knowledge and understanding, exploration and investigation, communication, and
138
science in action. It was concerned to ensure that the science curriculum should develop not only a knowledge of scientific processes and an understanding of those—as it must—but the context in which they have been developed and take place, the historic and social position of science, and of the need properly to communicate the scientific results. Communication in science is not incidental to the process but lies at the very heart of the scientific method.
I am sorry to say that that recommendation was rejected by the Secretary of State, in the advice that he gave to the National Curriculum Council in August, and the four profile components were compressed into two. With that compression, much greater weight was given to the acquisition of knowledge, and correspondingly much less weight was given to these other important components. I can give an illustration of that. When knowledge and understanding was part of four-part components, at key stage 4, it would receive 40 per cent. of the weighting, but it is now to receive 70 per cent.
That criticism would not have been enough by itself —although we regret the change—to have caused our opposition to this order. The establishment of a two-tier science curriculum is serious and is the principal reason why we intend to vote against the order. The science working party said that there should be a one-tier, two-subject, dual award at GCSE level for all pupils. It said that for secondary school children, these subjects should receive not less than 16·6 per cent. of curriculum time, and in the fourth and fifth years, the time should not exceed 20 per cent. The National Curriculum Council proposed what is described in the document as model A to implement that.
At the behest of the Secretary of State, the National Curriculum Council proposed a model B for some pupils, which is one subject involving just 12·5 per cent. of the time, and some key attainment targets are omitted from that. They include attainment target No. 2 on the variety of life, attainment target No. 5 on human influences on the earth, attainment target No. 7 on making new materials, and attainment target No. 12—this gave me considerable surprise, given the Secretary of State's interest—on the scientific aspect of information technology, including microelectronics.
The decision to establish this two-tier science was taken against the wishes of the science working party, and those of the overwhelming number of respondents to the National Curriculum Council consulted. This decision led to suspicions that the problem of resources, of shortages of cash and of teachers, may have motivated the Department of Education and Science to go down this road.
In December, I wrote to the Secretary of State arguing against the NCC and in favour of the science working party. I conceded:
"It may be that there are some children for whom a double science at GCSE would not he appropriate".
The Secretary of State picked that up in his reply. The whole of my letter was devoted to establishing the case for a single-tier, dual-subject science, and I meant only that there may be a tiny handful of children—for example, children who had been statemented, or who were near-statemented, and for whom such a science course was not appropriate. I do not accept that it is appropriate for schools that the House should establish this two-tier

139
system of science teaching at secondary level, which can become an escape route out of the difficulties of teacher shortages that many schools now face.
It is either a way round teacher shortages, to which we object, or we object to it for the reasons which the Secretary of State outlined in his reply to me on 6 December 1988. In justifying the two tiers, he said that the provision was there to allow some flexibility for a minority of pupils whose time would be better spent in developing a special talent in, say, modern languages or music. It may be appropriate to provide time for modern languages and music for some pupils, but the way to do that is by introducing far greater flexibility into the foundation subjects rather than in diluting the core.
If we opt for two-tier science, there will be two serious effects. Opportunity and achievement will be restricted beyond 16 years for many pupils, and there will be pressure, especially on girls, not to follow two science subjects at GCSE level, with all the implications for reducing their opportunities later. That is an issue that is developed by Lynda Carr, the principal education officer of the Equal Opportunities Commission, who said:
"We shall find the kind of sex differentiation which the EOC has encountered in complaints from parents: environment studies courses where boys do science and girls do nature or craft courses."
All of us know only too well the pressures within schools that act against girls following science courses, especially those which are based on mathematics and physics. Given the propensity of schools and our culture to downgrade science for girls, we should be extremely careful in providing an escape route by which schools can allow that to happen.
I find the view of the Secretary of State and of the Department odd, given that both the predecessor of the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who is now the Minister for Overseas Development, and the Secretary of State have separately in the past week said that there should be two-subject science for 14 to 16-year-olds and that it should be available to all pupils. The Royal Society of Chemistry recommended 20 per cent. of curriculum time for science. It
"supported the Engineering Council on Double Award Balanced Science, which contained the following: 'Balanced science courses … occupy about 20 per cent. of curriculum time … and are appropriate for all students'".
The Secretary of State, in the Department of Education and Science document 174/87, welcomed the report and the proposition of 20 per cent. of curriculum time for science for all students. In that circumstance, I find it odd that the Secretary of State should have changed his view.
The way in which two-tier science may block opportunities beyond 16 years is spelt out by the NCC. It has said that it is unlikely that the breadth of concepts covered in a single-award science would ever include the foundation knowledge and understanding that is required for all three science disciplines at 0-level. In other words, if children are permitted to follow the single subject at 16 years, they will not have an opportunity later to go on to do A-levels. That is because the sort of course that they will have followed up to 16 will not have been of sufficient breadth or depth to enable them to do that.
I have referred to a helpful brief from the Royal Society of Chemistry, which has raised two other issues on which
140
I should be grateful for a response from the Secretary of State. One is that the orders do not of themselves ensure balance within the science curriculum. It observes that no guidance is given on the relative weightings to be applied to the 16 attainment targets that contribute to the knowledge and understanding of a profile component. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that. It recommended—I should be glad of an observation on this—that the three main sciences of biology, chemistry and physics should be given weightings of at least 30 per cent. each.
This is not the occasion for a major debate on teacher shortages in general, but it must be well known to the House that there are serious shortages that are affecting schools in science and mathematics. Figures published last week by the Clearing House and Graduate Teacher Training Registry show that applications for physics and maths are down by 25 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively this year, and that last year applications were down 14 per cent. in maths and 17 per cent. in physics. As the appendix to the report of the interim advisory committee makes clear, there has been a massive drop in the number of students taking chemistry courses, when compared with the target set by the Department.
Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson of Manchester university have suggested that on an optimistic forecast we could be 4,141 mathematics teachers short by 1995 and on a pessimistic forecast about 12,000 teachers short. The situation is therefore serious, but I have yet to hear any serious strategy for dealing with these shortages from the Secretary of State. If they continue, it will not be possible properly to deliver the national curriculum, as spelt out in the regulations, in any of our schools. It is as serious as that.
I turn now to assessment. Going round schools and talking to teachers, I have found that their greatest anxiety relates to the methods and the scope of the assessment systems that will be put in place to assess and test aspects of the national curriculum. One headmaster told me last week that there is anxiety about the level of bureaucracy that will be required. How much paperwork will be imposed on teachers? There is also anxiety about the technical problems of making assessments that are in any sense meaningful, especially in primary schools, and there is anxiety about the publication of results. I am aware that the contracts for tests have been let and that they are now being validated, but I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could provide us with as much information as he has available about the nature and forms of assessment, especially at seven and 11, and about its relationship with GCSE testing at 16
It is also important that the Secretary of State spells out a little more clearly his view about the publication of test results, especially at seven. The Education Reform Act 1988 laid down that schools should not be forced to publish test results at seven. Our view was that they would provide such a distorted view of schools and individual pupils that they should not be published at all. Opposition Members have never said that crude data on test results at 11, 14 and 16 should not be published. Since we believe in openness in government, both locally and nationally, it follows that we believe that crude data should be available.
However, by itself, the publication of such crude data could lead to false impressions about the progress that schools are making with individual children. While all of us are concerned for our own children—every parent is

141
concerned about the absolute level of attainment of the individual child—one does not judge the effectiveness of schools on the aggregate absolute level of attainment reached by those schools, but on the degree of progress that the school is able to make with individual pupils, taking into account the level of attainment of the intake of the school and comparing it with the level of attainment when the children leave the school.
To use a piece of market jargon, we should judge schools by their creation of education value added. A school in a less prosperous area, dealing with children whose absolute attainment may be far less than that of children in a more prosperous area, may be doing far better than the school in a prosperous area, which, even if the teachers were not very competent, could still turn out well.
There is also the problem that has been brought to my attention today, whereby, because of changes in the population, perhaps due to an increase in the birth rate, the intake of a school may change over the years. If all that one is considering is crude test results, the judgment will be that the school has gone down, whereas, because the children have a lower level of attainment at entry, the crude results suggest lower levels of attainment, although the teachers may be working harder.
These are critical issues if the test results are to be used fairly to help schools to raise their attainment, rather than to damn schools in areas of less prosperity and to act as an alibi and a mask for the performance of schools in more prosperous areas.
My final point concerns a suggestion in the Financial Times for 13 April that primary school streaming may be reintroduced as a consequence of the national curriculum. The provenance of that report is fairly obscure, and I shall be grateful if the Secretary of State will say whether that report was fairly based on a reading of the circular. My concern about streaming and mixed ability classes is only that we should go for the system that offers the best teaching, and that we should not hold hard and fast opinions on the matter. The evidence I have received from primary school teachers is that children of all abilities learn best in mixed ability classes. Also, because most primary schools have one or two-form entry, the problems of organising streaming are virtually impossible for them to overcome—unless they are to be provided with many more staff than they currently have.
Even in the days of the 11-plus, there was remarkably little streaming in many primary schools, simply because of the physical problems of organising streaming, let alone the educational disadvantages.
When the Education Reform Bill 1988 passed through this House, the Opposition argued strongly that the national curriculum should apply to all schools, whether private or state, and that it should be a framework and not a straitjacket. We argued that it should be flexible, and that its tests should aim at diagnosing children's strengths and weaknesses and at informing parents of their children's progress. We emphasised that sufficient resources should be available to make all that a reality. We said that, above all, the national curriculum should be a means of providing a better education for all children. It is on that basis that we must judge the two orders. In those terms, one of the orders passes that test and the other fails it.
12.6 am
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I thank the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for the tone of his speech. As he said, the debate is something of a landmark, in that the House has not debated the curriculum in our schools—other than in last year's Education Reform Bill—since 1945. Tonight, the House is asked to approve the mathematics and science curriculum for all state-maintained schools with children aged between five and 15.
It is very important that the national curriculum— I did everything that I could in arranging it to ensure this—does not become a party political matter. That is why I welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The two strands of the Government's education reform programme are to improve standards and to increase choice. Tonight we are dealing with the main thrust of the policy to improve standards. I am glad that it is widely welcomed throughout the education system. The keystone of our programme is improved standards for all children in all our schools. That keystone has been widely debated. I announced a commitment to introduce the national curriculum about two and a half years ago, and before the last general election I established the two working groups to which the hon. Gentleman referred—one on maths and one on science. We are debating the result of their work tonight.
I thank all those people who served on the working groups. I shall reflect for a moment on the time that it takes to produce such documents. Some people thought it an easy matter to write the national curriculum. It has taken much longer than people imagine—two years in respect of two subjects that were thought to be easier to deal with. Difficult matters lie ahead of us in respect of English—even more difficult in respect of the content of the history curriculum. We thought that we were on secure, firm ground in defining maths and science, but it has still taken all that time.
I shall spell out the process. The working groups published interim reports after six months' work as a guide for general discussion. They were used as the basis on which to consult a large number of organisations and individuals. The working groups produced final reports on 30 June last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I then commented on the reports and sent them, with our proposals, to the National Curriculum Council. The NCC sent out those proposals for even wider consultation, and after due consideration submitted its proposals to me. That was in November last year. I then published draft orders, which were also sent out for consultation. These are the final orders.
Let me briefly spell out what the documents involve. What we are seeing tonight is the result of a long consultative process. If they flick through the documents, hon. Members will note their precision in setting out 10 levels of attainment for children from the age of five to the age of 16. For the first time, the blueprint contains considerable detail about the attainments that should be expected of children at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16.
The documents come to life in the examples that they give. Rather than merely saying that children should be able to read, write, count and order numbers, the blueprint says, for example, that they should know that if a set of eight pencils is counted the answer is always the same, regardless of how they are arranged. That may seem a

143
simple example, but children have to start at that level. Other examples, relating to ages up to 16, deal with very complicated matters. The same applies to science. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us some examples."] I am tempted to: there are plenty. I am suitably modest when it comes to maths and science.
The specifications for what a child should be able to do at those different ages is revolutionary, and I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Blackburn had no real quarrel with the maths proposals. However, he made a series of important points about the science proposals, and I should like to deal with those.
The important thing about the national curriculum is that children will not be able to drop subjects at the age of 14, as they can now. The three core subjects are English, maths and science; the seven foundation subjects are history, geography, technology and foreign languages—the four "academic" subjects—and music, art and physical education. I am not saying that music and art are not academic: they are all equally good and equally demanding, as they should be.
The general pattern today is that at 14 boys tend to drop foreign languages and girls tend to drop science and technology. All children will now be expected to take science up to the age of 16. That, too, constitutes a revolution in our education system. The latest figures suggest that in year five in a secondary school only about 40 per cent. of pupils are studying biology, fewer than 35 per cent. studying physics, fewer than 30 per cent. studying chemistry and about 30 per cent. studying general science, while 5 per cent. do not take science at all. The national curriculum will not only ensure that those figures rise, but will ensure the study of a balanced science curriculum for all pupils. That is important, because a good many children take biology at 14, 15 and 16 as their one science. Important though that study is, it does not cover the full range of science, taking in chemistry and physics.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State accept the criticism voiced by the Royal Society of Chemistry that offering model B encourages premature specialisation?
Mr. Baker: That point was raised in some detail by the hon. Member for Blackburn. It concerns what is known as the 12·5 per cent. option. Schools can now decide whether children should study science for a double award—that is, model A—or for a single award. Model A involves roughly 20 per cent. of curriculum time; taking one science involves roughly 12·5 per cent., or one period a day.
The hon. Members for Blackburn and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) argue that all children should take a double science to GCSE level at 16. The argument, and that of the Royal Society of Chemistry, is that that would still allow a range of options. That would take up 20 per cent. of school time for all pupils and would cover 17 attainment targets. I acknowledge that that is also proposed by the science working group. However, I took further advice on it, as did the National Curriculum Council. After considering the matter, the NCC recommended that there should be an option at the age of 14 to take a single GCSE in science. That covers 10 attainment targets—more than half the 17 attainment targets for the double option. I
144
emphasise that the NCC's decision to make that recommendation was its own independent decision. I agreed with its recommendation.
It would be difficult to identify any school in the country where all the pupils study science for 20 per cent. of their time. That is not surprising. Even those head teachers who are most enthusiastic about the 20 per cent. option—the double science—want some flexibility. There is no question of the 12·5 per cent. option being related to problems of teacher supply, which are being effectively tackled. It is a response to the widespread and genuine concern for some flexibility. The 12·5 per cent. option is a balanced course, including the physical sciences. It will involve teaching physics, biology and chemistry.
I should make it clear that I expect that most pupils will study science for 20 per cent. of their time. There will be a strong recommendation to all schools that they should offer a double science to all pupils. I want to make it clear, however, that the 12·5 per cent. single science option is a tremendous improvement on what is available at the moment. It is a massive step forward. A very large number of our children do not study a balanced science curriculum at the ages of 15 and 16. They will now have to take balanced science studies for at least 12·5 per cent. of their time—for a period a day. It is not just one of the sciences, such as biology or chemistry. It is rounded science. It is not a soft option. We must remember also that all pupils will also be dealing with science-related topics in maths and technology.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Many people would agree with the Secretary of State if his proposals were really directed towards pupils' needs. In timetabling, there are the needs of the pupils and school resources. It would be nice if the timetable reflected pupils' needs, but the danger is that it reflects what is available in schools. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the resources, particularly teachers, will be provided to ensure that the timetable meets the needs of pupils?
Mr. Baker: I shall come to resources and teachers in a moment. Could I complete my remarks on the 12·5 per cent. option?
I emphasise that this is not an option that I have thought up and tried to push through. Her Majesty's inspectorate gives strong support to the view that the 12·5 per cent. option represents a worthwhile study of science. The hon. Member for Blackburn often quotes the words of the senior chief inspector, but on this matter the senior chief inspector was quite clearly of the view that the 12·5 per cent. option should be available. The option allows for an average pupil to be able to explain changes of state and the energy changes associated with them; to be able to explain evaporation, diffusion and dissolving, in terms of simple kinetic theory and to be able to understand the magnetic effect of an electric current and electromagnetic induction. I do not believe that that is a soft option.
As for teacher resources, recruitment to initial teacher training in 1988 was a record 20,180—up by 5 per cent. over 1987. Primary recruitment, at 11,370, was up by 12·5 per cent. Applications for primary training for students who will start their training in September of this year is even better. It is up by 14 per cent. It was because of the

145
worrying position on applications for training in the secondary shortage subjects in 1984 and 1985 that I launched my programme.
I recognise that there is a problem with the supply of teachers in the shortage subjects. I identified that when I launched my action programme three years ago and set out six main points of attack. The House will know that there are tax-free, non-means-tested bursaries of £1,300 a year for teacher trainees in maths, physics and CDT. This year I have extended the scheme to chemistry trainees and there has been a most welcome increase in the number of applications. The scheme has helped to reverse the decline in the number of applications for those subjects and there is now about 2,400 bursaries.
In-service training is another important element. Part of the problem is the mismatch of skills in the profession itself. It is very important to have an extensive in-service training programme to retrain teachers in other skills. I have devoted £35·5 million over two years to support in-service training in shortage subjects by schools and LEAs. The aim is to tackle the hidden shortage, as it is sometimes called, and to provide support to upgrade the skills of teachers who were inadequately qualified in the shortage subjects.
My third point of attack was advertising and publicity. The hon. Member for Blackburn chided me from time to time, and says that my advertising and publicity budget has increased by a modest factor of several hundred per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "3,000."] That shows the importance of the maths curriculum; hon. Members can distinguish between hundreds and thousands.
I launched the teaching as a career unit in April 1987 and, for the first time, teaching has a voice in the career market place, aimed at promoting the profession. In the past three years we have had a series of positive and imaginative advertising and publicity campaigns, backed by new booklets—also part of my publicity budget—aimed at the intending teacher. The campaign has been a success. Our recent advertising campaign, which ended just a few weeks ago, has attracted 10,000 responses so far. Responses continue to be received every day and are being processed.
The fourth item of the programme to encourage more people to enter the teaching programme is support for local initiatives. For example, we are helping to fund a course aimed at recruiting people from the ethnic minorities into primary teaching in Newham. By recruiting people who live locally—many of whom will have had teaching experience overseas—we can make a solid contribution to solving the problem of primary teacher supply in that authority.
Mature entrants are another important element. About 4,000 mature entrants a year enter the teaching profession. They are people in their late 20s, 30s and 40s. The fact that many of them have had experience in other walks of life or in bringing up families means that they can greatly enrich the teaching profession. I have supported the development of new courses in the shortage subjects to help attract mature entrants. We have shortened the two-year BEd and part-time PGCE courses. I have also funded a pilot programme of 11 short courses, aimed at mature entrants and with the object of giving them an opportunity to find out in the classroom what teaching is like.
I now come to my proposal for licensed teachers—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Bearing in mind the emergency scheme at the end of the last war and what the Secretary of State has just said about mature entrants, will he now explain why he did not extend and intensify that, rather than proposing that there should be so-called licensed teachers?
Mr. Baker: I have only a small memory of the scheme during the war.
Mr. Spearing: After the war.
Mr. Baker: After the war. I believe that there was a scheme rather similar to the Bevin boys in the war— [Interruption.] Several of my predecessors have taken initiatives to encourage people to enter teaching. I am not talking just about the proposals under the Attlee Government of the 1940s but about initiatives under successive Conservative and Labour Governments. We are continuing a series of initiatives, all of which must be taken in hand and tried.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. This is a short debate and others will wish to speak.
I shall be publishing the details shortly. Some of the criticisms made of the proposals, particularly at the teacher union conferences, were off beam. It is not a way of getting teachers into the classroom on the cheap. It is a way of encouraging people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who have had other careers in electronics or other sectors of the business world or the public sector, who want a career change. They will be qualified people who have spent at least two years in higher education. Many such people already enter the teaching profession, but they have to end their professional work and do a year's study in a college. The licensed teacher scheme will mean that, instead of doing a year's study in a college, on a grant, those people will be taken on by an LEA as a salaried teacher and trained on the job. It is important that there should be agreed training programmes extending over two years and then the LEA will decide whether they reach qualified teacher status.
I am surprised that there has been some opposition to that idea, as I have been pressed by many local education authorities, including Labour-controlled authorities, to bring forward the proposal as quickly as possible. Those Labour-controlled authorities planning to take over responsibility for education in London specifically stressed at a collective meeting with me, that they would like the scheme to be introduced as quickly as possible.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, as I know that he will be speaking in a few moments.
I have also proposed another flexible route leading to qualified teacher status—the proposal for articled teachers. Starting in September 1990, that route into teaching will be open to young graduates and to mature entrants. Those are people who have taken a degree at a university or a polytechnic. At the moment they have to take a PGCE at a college. The proposal is that they will be taken on by a local education authority, paid as a teacher and trained for two years to qualify for a PGCE. I am

147
inviting LEAs and higher education institutions to work up schemes to meet conditions that I shall lay down to ensure that trainees receive adequate support and an appropriate lighter teaching load during the period of training.
In the next week or so the inspectors will be publishing a report about teacher training in France. The House will find it interesting, because a great deal of teacher training in France takes place on the job. There is no watering down, as the proposals apply to people with qualifications.
Mr. Straw: The debate is specifically about science and maths and I shall try to stick to that topic and not extend it into a general debate about teacher shortages. Despite what the Secretary of State spelt out, applications for physics and maths fell this year and last year. When does he expect that the shortages in those key subjects will be over?
Mr. Baker: I hope and believe that the combined effects of all the proposals will lead to an adequate staffing in those subjects in the 1990s. A great deal of the problem arises from a mismatch.
The proposals for licensed teachers apply to people who could have qualifications and degrees in science subjects, physics, chemistry, technology and computer sciences, and who want to enter the teaching profession. We should welcome those people, as they have a great deal to offer.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asks, "How many?", but one of the chief unions, which I hope the Opposition Front Bench will not support, did not want anyone at all from those sources. That is reactionary and wrong.
I rebut the charge that the Government are being complacent about teacher shortages, as that is simply not the case.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State mentioned the Opposition Front Bench. Our criticism of the two proposals is not that they provide different entry points into teacher training. We have said publicly that we want different entry points into teacher training. We are concerned about the standard of qualification of those teachers at the end of training. We have spent 30 years getting teaching in Britain up to a graduate level of qualification and in our view that is of great importance to the quality of education that is delivered. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the end result of the two alternative routes will be a graduate qualification?
Mr. Baker: Absolutely, there is no doubt about that. There is no question of watering down. I found it a little strange that at one of the large conferences, at which most of the representatives could not have been graduates because they came into the profession some time ago, it was said that this was not the right way to enter the profession. They know the problems, and we are addressing the solutions.
As I said at the outset, I am glad to say that this is not a matter of party political controversy. This is an important day for education because we will be implementing the beginning of the national curriculum. I am glad that an issue which underwent a great deal of controversial debate because it extended over a general
148
election has now reached a great measure of consensus and I know that there are other more controversial issues in our education reforms. I commend the orders to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Both Front Bench spokesmen broadened the debate and I understand the reasons for that. However, I remind the House that we should be debating mathematics and science in the national curriculum.
12.31 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate is significant, for the reasons given by the Secretary of State. No doubt in due course we shall discuss English and other subjects. Therefore, it is appropriate to reflect on the two subjects before us and on some of the general difficulties that have occurred in reaching this stage in the replanning of the education syllabus.
As the Secretary of State will be aware, one of the concerns passed on to us by those in the teaching profession is that they are in the middle of substantial changes. They have just adapted, usually successfully, to the GCSE and they are now concerned that, to make a good showing in introducing the national curriculum in the autumn they should have the necessary resources. Therefore, it is appropriate that the debate is as much about resources as about content. Without the resources, the ability to deliver the new curriculum will not be achieved.
One of the immediate problems faced by teachers is the difficulty of finding time to prepare for September. From all the evidence and publicity, it seems that the problem of finding free time to prepare for the national curriculum is not insubstantial. Teachers need to allocate some of their non-contact time to prepare for the substantial differences to be introduced into their working lives in the autumn. They are still waiting—the Secretary of State did not mention this, but I hope that the Minister will—for the advice promised to them on 3 March by the National Curriculum Council in relation to the implementation of the national curriculum. That is especially important in primary schools. As I understand it, that advice has not yet been forthcoming. Although they have the curriculum—the hard core material—they do not yet have advice about its implementation. That is the second important component. If teachers are to prepare their work schedules for September, they need to be given advice fairly early, as many pressures are imposed on them by examinations, and so on.
As the Secretary of State and the Minister are aware, the resource problems in the subjects that we are discussing today are among the most acute in our school system. It would be inappropriate to deal at length with the general problem of teacher shortages. The constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science is, like my own, in the London region, and she will be aware that the shortage of maths and science teachers is two and a half times worse in London than in the rest of the country. A quarter of shortages in secondary school teachers are in maths and science. That is scarcely a persuasive backdrop to a system that will come into force in less than six months.

149
The problem is made worse by a shortage of trainee teachers to fill the gaps. It is no good the Government pretending that there is no problem, because there is, and it will affect a substantial number of schools throughout the land. What will be the effect of such shortages on the curriculum? How will it be possible for the curriculum to be properly taught? The answer is that it will not, and the problem is made worse by the dichotomy in the science curriculum.
A further problem, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is the lack of Government commitment to do what they said they wanted to do. The Government began by saying that 20 per cent. of the curriculum must be devoted to science, but realised that they could not deliver and resiled from that and considered the model B option of 12·5 per cent. because of a shortage not only of people but of equipment, and a lack of finance.
I have asked one or two questions, which revealed that there is a shortage not only of staff but of laboratories and equipment too. On average, there are six laboratories for a school of 1,000 pupils. If the reality is that between 10 and 20 per cent. of secondary school children do more than one science subject for GCSE, if the average in the fourth and fifth year is that each pupil studies just over one science subject, and if we were to obtain the objective of 20 per cent. of the curriculum being science—that is, two subjects per pupil—an increase in resources of 80 per cent. will immediately be needed to teach it. That would involve not only extra laboratories but extra equipment for them, which works out at about £50,000 per school.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, but I did not hear one word of encouragement to the effect that there will be substantial investment in laboratories, equipment or building for our secondary schools this autumn. A teacher recently suggested to me that it was hypocritical for the Government to introduce the national curriculum and to say that schools had to comply with its requirements without giving them the tools to get on with the job.
In addition, many primary school teachers are insufficiently qualified to teach maths and science. Figures reveal that only 4 per cent. of primary school teachers have a post-A-level qualification in maths, and only 7 per cent. have a post-A-level qualification in science, compared with 16 per cent. for English, so we do not have the personnel with the specific qualities that are needed to make the new curriculum work effectively.
The Secretary of State's examples of the new schemes with which to bring in new teachers, although good in theory, do not seem to be working in practice. Opposition Members have criticised the bursary scheme and the Minister has admitted—albeit only in the last week or two —that the bursary scheme in sciences and maths was not succeeding.
I am surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that representatives from London boroughs have pleaded with him for the licensed teachers scheme to come into operation. I cannot believe that anybody thinks that people will leave highly paid City jobs to teach permanently in schools. I could understand a scheme of secondment, as practised in other areas, but to imagine that people will change careers for a lower salary seems substantially self-deluding.
There are specific reasons for believing that, although it is not inappropriate to move towards the national
150
curriculum, this autumn we shall be unable to do so effectively or with confidence. We do not have the resources to do so, because the Government have failed to supply them. I shall therefore advise my colleagues to vote against the orders.
12.41 am
Mr. Timothy Raison: This is a welcome debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on having made so much progress in bringing forward the national curriculum. That is a major achievement.
I shall first raise the baffling issue of why the Labour party has decided to vote against the Government. At the end of the debate we may see a change of heart on its part because the grounds for a vote are remarkably insubstantial. As I understand it, the Labour party intends to vote against the orders because the Government propose a two-tier system to cover science. Underlying that motive I suspect that there is an ideological hang-up—an objection to two tiers in anything—rather than a careful and precise analysis of the matter.
It certainly seems reasonable that, in the early stages of bringing forward the national curriculum, we should be prepared to have some flexibility. It does not worry me that some children will spend 20 per cent. of their time on science, and others only 12·5 per cent. I accept that there may be a problem of teacher shortages. As the House knows, the Select Committee on Education is considering the supply of teachers for the 1990s. As Chairman of that Committee, I do not intend to try to anticipate our findings at this stage. We must pay some regard to the realities of the resources. However, I have no profound objection to the basic principle of some children doing more science than others.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the extent to which teachers have been involved in the preparation and implementation of the national curriculum? One complaint about educational policy over the past few years has been that teachers have not been sufficiently involved. Whatever the merits of that argument, it is of great importance and interest to the House to know whether teachers have been involved in working parties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can guide the House on that.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), said—I sympathise with this—that the crucial aspect in testing in education is not so much absolute attainment as the value added. That remark has much to be said for it. Anybody who is interested in education will share that view. However, one of the merits of the introduction of a system of testing attainment over the years is that it gives us a chance to measure the value added as education takes place. The people who are concerned that testing will merely be some kind of crude rat race should ponder the fact that we now have a mechanism to determine not only what is achieved but the way in which achievement relates to those who may have started from a low level or from a background of difficult social circumstances but who, because they attend good schools, can gain something positive. Testing will give us a clearer idea of when that occurs.
To some extent, the primary education side of all this has been rather underrated. As I have thought about the problems of possible shortages of teachers, it has seemed

151
to me that, particularly at the upper end of the primary scale, there may be more serious problems than have been recognised.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the possibility of streaming in primary schools. That does not especially concern me; it is something that the schools must work out for themselves. If they have only one entry form, they are unlikely to go in for much streaming. But if they have two, and feel that the best way of using their teaching staff is the introduction of some sort of streaming, we should not get involved in laying down the law on what they should be doing. We should rely on the heads of these schools to work out what is best in the circumstances.
Another point about primary education that has been borne in on me only comparatively recently is that these new stages of education may make life rather difficult for authorities in whose schools the ages of transfer are different from the ages at which the testing will take place. In the county of Buckinghamshire, which I represent, it so happens that the ages of transfer are eight and then 12. The county is having to think rather hard about whether, in order to fit in naturally with the national curriculum, it will have to switch the ages of transfer from eight to seven and from 12 to 11. Apart from anything else, that raises considerable issues of resources. The objective is right, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on how she sees the problem developing. Will education authorities in many parts of the country have to rethink their ages of transfer, and if so, what are the resource implications?
I repeat that I believe that we are now witnessing a real step forward, and it would be churlish and foolish to vote against what the Government are doing.
12.47 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Royal Society of Chemistry has given considerable thought to the orders, about which I want to ask three questions.
First, the Royal Society says that the orders do not, of themselves, ensure balance within the science curriculum, as no guidance is given on the relative weightings to be applied to the 16 attainment targets that contribute to the knowledge and understanding profile component. The science working group suggested weightings, and the society recommends that these weightings become part of the orders. It says that failure to make them so opens up the possibility of imbalance between the major scientific disciplines. For example, in model A, the programmes of study leading to the statements of attainment in AT8 should be much more extensive than those in AT16, yet the draft orders give no guidance to teachers and examining authorities in this matter. Do the Government accept what the society says about this?
Secondly, the society rejects model B at key stage 4. The course a pupil follows would be neither broad nor balanced. Do the Government agree with that?
Finally, the society has serious reservations about the intention to implement key stage 1 of the national curriculum in September 1989. These three issues are important, and I would welcome the Government's comments on them.
12.49 am
Mr. James Pawsey: I welcome the two statutory instruments setting out the place of mathematics and science in the national curriculum. I recall that, during the many meetings of the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill, we discussed the national curriculum at some length. In fairness to Opposition Members, they did not vote against it in principle, although they had some reservations about its detail. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition now propose to vote against it. I welcome the Education Reform Act 1988 because it proves that there is life and imagination after Butler.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is reading from a script. Who wrote it?
Mr. Pawsey: I can assure Opposition Members that we prepare our own scripts. We do not employ the army of researchers that the Opposition have.
It is unfortunate that, while some Opposition Members can see some benefit in the national curriculum and in the mathematics and science reports, they cannot see some of the other benefits that will spring from the Education Reform Act. Mathematics and science are important subjects. It is right that they should play an important part in school life and that ample time should be provided for their teaching and development. Increasingly, mathematics and science will play a larger part in the life of an individual when he or she leaves school and starts to earn a living.
I do not share the concern of Opposition Members who spoke about option B in the report of the National Curriculum Council. That option gives more flexibility to the school curriculum. It allows more time for other subjects, reduces specialisation at too early an age, and reduces the risk of forcing children into some form of science straitjacket that may permanently alienate them and push them from science for ever. Option B gives a balanced programme, with physics, chemistry and biology. It recognises that attainment targets as a whole represent a link, a balance, between practical work and knowledge.
The national curriculum operates only on children from the age of 16 so that young people can then start to specialise with A levels. Option B keeps doors open and education best takes place in a disciplined environment and in some schools that discipline is lacking for the teaching of the national curriculum. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the subject of teaching itself is taught in some of our colleges. I hope that he will persuade those who produce the syllabus in those colleges to build in more classroom practice.
The national curriculum and science and mathematics need teachers. Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), have said that there is a shortage of teachers. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, overall there are sufficient teachers. I acknowledge that in some areas and in some subjects there may be difficulties. However, they should not be overstated because the number of vacancies fell by about 20 per cent. between 1987 and 1988.
The Secretary of State spoke about recruitment for initial teacher training, which in 1988 was a record. That underlines an earlier point that training must be right.

153
Social theory is okay, but it is a poor substitute for classroom practice. I welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend on combating the perceived teacher shortage. I welcome the more flexible use of starting salaries and incentive allowances, the more active recruitment, more part-time working and, above all, the encouragement of former teachers to return to the profession. My right hon. Friend's policies are indeed proving successful. The success of the national curriculum will hinge on an adequate supply of well motivated teachers who are able to teach maths and science and other subjects. My right hon. Friend is ensuring that the existing difficulties are resolved —and in good time.
12.55 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: I appreciate that this debate has to be brief. It is about national curriculum attainment targets, with specific reference to maths and science. The national curriculum will be plagued by teacher shortages. Indeed, the education inspectors themselves have warned, in written evidence to the Education and Science Select Committee, that unless the country gets the supply of teachers right, delivery of the Government's reforms will be jeopardised. The inspectors said that, without that, the rest would fail.
Both maths and science have been shown to be areas in which there are particular problems of teacher shortages. Research at Manchester university produced an optimistic forecast—that by 1995 the shortage of maths teachers would be 4,141. The Times Educational Supplement of 31 March, on the other hand, in a pessimistic forecast, said that the shortfall would be 12,232—55·7 per cent.
In Waltham Forest, which is in my area, people are already suffering those teacher shortages. I have received many letters. Because of the need for brevity, I cannot quote all of them, but I shall refer to one or two. Mr. Loseby, of Scotts road, Leyton, said:
"Children are being denied the right to a basic education. Young lives and futures are at risk through no fault of their own."
He said that children were being denied access to learning. A Mrs. Turner, whose child attends Beaumont primary school, said of her child:
"Since Christmas she has had only four days' tuition a week, and last week was refused admittance to the school on three separate days."
I have received many letters like that.
In February the chief education officer wrote to me saying that there were approximately 90 full-time vacancies, that 12 teachers were on maternity leave, and that three were on long-term sickness leave. Only 40 of those could be covered by patchwork methods of employing casual supply teachers, who do not really want to be employed on that basis. The borough's response—it gives a long list, which again I cannot read out tonight —has been acknowledged and welcomed by Ken Young of the teacher supply division of the Department of Education and Science itself.
What is needed, as the borough has made clear to the Government, is a five-point action plan; a national recruitment drive for primary teachers; an increase in the number of college training places; an increase in the number of college training places; an increase in the London weighting; a redrawing of the boundaries to include outer boroughs like mine, with inner-London problems, so that they can pay the higher allowance; an increase in the number of incentive allowances; and
154
positive action to train nore black and ethnic minority teachers. But something must be done about pay. In particular, there must be higher pay for those teaching in areas where there is high-cost housing.
As early-day motion 548 says, the Government need to face up to their responsibility by providing substantial extra funds for teachers' salaries and for the provision of creche and nursery places so that teachers may be enabled to return to the profession. These and all other finances must be provided so that our education system may enjoy provision similar to that which is enjoyed by the systems of our major industrial competitors. If the Government do not put up the cash, these serious teacher shortages will really take hold, and the national curriculum will be sabotaged.
12.58 am
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I shall concentrate on the order relating to science. I should like to make four points and to put four suggestions to the Minister.
First, there has been comment from both sides of the House about the need to develop a national curriculum that achieves the widest possible consensus. The divisions that have been demonstrated in this debate are important, but they are not the real meat of party political politics. It seems to me that we are likely to run into deeper divisions when we turn to some of the other subjects in relation to the national curriculum. I think of English and history, and one or two other subjects may fall into the same category.
I want to offer the Minister a constructive suggestion, which may enable us to move forward with consensus. Would it not be sensible to have a debate in this House when draft orders are published? A debate without a vote would enable the views of the House of Commons to be heard before publication of the final order. We all know what the outcome of tonight's vote will be, and we all realise that that restricts debate. If we could have had this debate at an earlier stage, perhaps Members of Parliament could have helped to shape the order, and could have influenced the development of consensus in relation to the national curriculum. I offer that to the Minister as a constructive suggestion.
I have three other points to raise. First, there has been widespread concern on this side of the House about resources for delivering science and the national curriculum. Those resources questions come in two forms. The first is about teachers, and whether there will be enough, and of the right quality. We need to ensure that we have sufficient teachers into the 1990s, and that those teachers are properly qualified, and teach in the subjects for which they are qualified.
The second aspect of resources was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It is that, if we extend the scientific provision within the curriculum, there will be implications for resources in terms of books, laboratories, and scientific equipment. Is the Minister satisfied that we shall have the teachers to deliver science in the curriculum? What provision will the Minister make for resources so that youngsters will have real opportunities in scientific experience and learning?
The next question is one on which we should have spent more time in the Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill. That is the process of delivering not only

155
science teaching but other subjects. Hon. Members often comment on the fact that youngsters drop out of certain subjects at a certain age. I still do not think that we have paid sufficient attention to the reasons why that happens, or to what steps will be taken to make sure that interest is maintained among those youngsters until the age of 16. It is not just automatic, and we must consider those processes.
At the heart of the debate is two-tier science. I always listen with interest when the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) speaks on education. However, I think that he got it wrong tonight, for two reasons. First, he let the cat slightly out of the bag when he said that the development of two-tier science must take place with some regard to the reality of resources. The fear in our schools is that two-tier science will enable the Government to conceal the inadequacy of the resources that they will make available.
Secondly, what the right hon. Gentleman called a bit of flexibility may turn out to be an agenda of low ambition on science. Too many of our youngsters will take second-tier, and what may be deemed second-rate, science. As has been said, too many of the girls will do that. If the agenda is set too low, instead of the scientific revolution in our schools to which the Secretary of State referred, there will be an agenda of low ambition, and an impoverishment of the teaching and learning of science.
I hope that the Minister will answer my questions about resourcing, about the process and, above all else, about the fear that there will be two-tier science, two-tier teaching of science, and two-tier youngsters as a result. That is why we shall be voting against the science order.
1.3 am
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am glad to be able to take part in tonight's debate. It has been serious, and hon. Members have made some important points. As we know, it is the first of many debates in which we shall discuss the national curriculum and what happens in schools. As the daughter of a scientist, I shall be addressing some of the questions that have been raised about science, and also some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), both about the level of resources and about having the right number of teachers.
I shall start by answering various important questions taking up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He claimed that model B, the 12·5 per cent. provision, would not provide a sufficient basis for future study up to A-level for some pupils. He told us that the NCC said that the 12·5 per cent. course would provide quite a good basis for further study. It added, however, that there may need to be a short bridging course if a student wished to go beyond the model and study for A-level. The hon. Gentleman's argument was not quite so devastating as he suggested.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), along with the hon. Member for Blackburn, wanted to know what would not be covered in model B. They referred to attainment target 2, which deals with the variety of life, target 5, the human influences on earth, target 7, the making of new materials, target 12, information technology, target 15, light and electromagnetic radiation,
156
target 16, earth and space, and target 17, the nature of science. Targets 5 and 16 will in part be covered by geography. We must remember that the science curriculum is set out substantially to cover the whole of science, but there are other subjects that will be studied. I refer to the core subjects and the foundation subjects, such as geography, history and, most importantly, design technology.
I remind hon. Members that targets 5 and 16 will in part be covered by the geography curriculum. Targets 12 and 7 will certainly be covered in part by the design technology curriculum. Target 2 will in part be covered by target 3 and target 17 will in part be covered by history. Contrary to what has been alleged, nothing will be left out in model B, which is the shorter course. It is essential to reiterate the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that model B does not represent a soft alternative. It does not represent anything remotely like the sort of science that many girls now study, which means simply taking biology. If girls take model B in the belief that it will prove to be a soft alternative, they will find themselves in for quite a surprise. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we want the majority of students to study the 20 per cent. model, and we want schools to allow that to happen.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: There is much talk about the 12·5 per cent. and 20 per cent. models, but will my hon. Friend confirm that the Education Reform Act 1988 makes no specific mention of percentages? Therefore, there is an inbuilt flexibility for headmasters and schools to teach as much or as little science as they wish, given the guidelines.
Mrs. Rumbold: To a certain extent, my hon. Friend is correct. It is essential that all children should study the core and foundation subjects. As the NCC has made recommendations, and as the House will make recommendations, it is to be hoped that we shall see the majority of children, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, studying the 20 per cent. model. For some children, however, there will be the opportunity, for particular reasons, to take the 12·5 per cent. model if that is what they wish.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow told us that the Royal Society of Chemistry is in a tizz about weightings. The amount of time that is spent on each attainment target is a matter for a teacher's judgment. Weightings of science attainment subjects are not appropriate to be considered along with the terms of the order because they relate very much to assessment. The views of the working group have been put to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is responsible for developing assessment arrangements. I advise the hon. Member for Blackburn that saying 30:30:30 for physics, chemistry and biology does not show a recognition of how the three subjects are blended into the attainment targets for science.
I turn now to primary school streaming which has also been referred to. The circular states that it is possible for some very bright children to study with older pupils, but there is no reason why they should be moved up or down because nothing is said in the circular about streaming. The NCC bulletin states that grouping by ages is primarily for the schools to undertake. In primary schools that may not be the most effective way to proceed but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)

157
sensibly said, it is a matter for the heads to consider. I agree with him in that I am not absolutely convinced that it is reasonable or sensible for us to vote on the matter of the two-tier system. I thank him for his sensible words and agree with his proposition that it seems nonsense to say that it would be unreasonable to have some form of flexibility.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the age of transfer and said that it is for the local education authority and the school governors to decide whether to make statutory proposals to change the age range of their schools. The national curriculum key stages take account of the common ages of transfer between infant, junior and secondary schools but they do not necessarily require areas with a middle school system with transfer ages of, say, 12 or 13, to change to a transfer age of 11. The reporting of the assessment of pupils' achievements at the key ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 can take place, regardless of the age of transfer between the schools. The programmes of study are designed to underpin the work that pupils do as they progress from one level of attainment to the next, regardless of the age group and range of the school that they attend.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the allocation of resources. He asked about teachers and about general resources in buildings. The capital allocations have been increased to £352 million, with substantial education support grant funds now being made available to back up the introduction of our national curriculum. In the current year—1989–90—£130 million is available and can be used on laboratories and on books, just as the local education authority thinks fit.
It is also important to note that the National Curriculum Council has given preliminary advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which was published in its recent circular No. 3. More work is now being done and there has been substantial training—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [14th April].
The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 142.

Division No. 160]

[1.12 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Armstrong, Hilary

Dixon, Don

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Eastham, Ken

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Battle, John

Fatchett, Derek

Beckett, Margaret

Fearn, Ronald

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

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foster, Derek

Buckley, George J.

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Callaghan, Jim

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Henderson, Doug

Clay, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clelland, David

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Illsley, Eric

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cousins, Jim

Lamond, James

Cryer, Bob

Leadbitter, Ted

Cummings, John

Lewis, Terry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dalyell, Tam

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

McAllion, John

158

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

McWilliam, John

Soley, Clive

Madden, Max

Spearing, Nigel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Straw, Jack

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Meale, Alan

Turner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wall, Pat

Morgan, Rhodri

Wallace, James

Morley, Elliott

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Mullin, Chris

Wareing, Robert N.

Nellist, Dave

Winnick, David

O'Brien, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Patchett, Terry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Redmond, Martin

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Skinner, Dennis

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Allason, Rupert

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Amess, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Amos, Alan

Hunter, Andrew

Arbuthnot, James

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Janman, Tim

Ashby, David

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Aspinwall, Jack

Key, Robert

Atkinson, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knapman, Roger

Baldry, Tony

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Batiste, Spencer

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knowles, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Knox, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Latham, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lawrence, Ivan

Boswell, Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Bottomley, Peter

Lightbown, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Lilley, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bowis, John

Lord, Michael

Bright, Graham

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Burns, Simon

Maclean, David

Burt, Alistair

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Cash, William

Mans, Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Maples, John

Chapman, Sydney

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Couchman, James

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

Miller, Sir Hal

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mills, Iain

Dorrell, Stephen

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Durant, Tony

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Evennett, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Favell, Tony

Moss, Malcolm

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholls, Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forman, Nigel

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Forth, Eric

Norris, Steve

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

French, Douglas

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Gale, Roger

Pawsey, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gill, Christopher

Portillo, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Powell, William (Corby)

Gow, Ian

Raffan, Keith

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Gregory, Conal

Redwood, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Rowe, Andrew

Hague, William

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Harris, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hayward, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Heddle, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

159

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Speller, Tony

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Stern, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stevens, Lewis

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Ward, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Watts, John

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wood, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Thornton, Malcolm

Tellers for the Noes:

Thurnham, Peter

Mr. Michael Fallon and

Trippier, David

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wallace, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Mersey Tunnels (Finances)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
1.23 am
Mr. George Howarth: The financial position of the Mersey tunnels is not merely a Wirral or Liverpool issue. It affects the ratepayers of Merseyside and, indeed, will affect poll tax payers from next year. It is, in basic terms, a desperate position. The estimated income from the tolls for the two tunnels amounts to £12·1 million for 1989–90, and the estimated expenditure for the same period—taking into account operating costs of £6·5 million, asset financing of £4·8 million and debt charges on capitalised deficits of £9·6 million—amount to £20·9 million. That leaves a deficit of £8·8 million to be picked up by Merseyside ratepayers.
The problem has implications for future years as well. In Knowsley, the estimated total cost to ratepayers from 1988 to 2002, if no action is taken to resolve the problems, is £7·7 million.
Mr. Terry Fields: The Euro-MP for Humberside is seeking, through the Commission, to introduce legislation that would ensure that the tolls on all roads, bridges and tunnels are removed by 1991. The figure for Liverpool as a whole is £23·8 million for the same four-year period. Liverpool ratepayers will have to shoulder that burden. In addition, the tolls amount to £35 million. Liverpool ratepayers, and those in Knowsley and other boroughs in the area, will have to shoulder a total burden of £58·8 million. Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's argument that tolls should be scrapped and that the Government ought to pay the debts that have been incurred?
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Urgent action needs to be taken. The Humber bridge is an example to which we ought to return. The Liverpool problem is mirrored by that in Knowsley. Only 1 per cent. of Knowsley residents regularly use the tunnel.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sefton ratepayers will have to foot a £14 million bill between 1988 and 2002, as well as a bill of £11·25 million for tolls? Does he think that now is the time to get rid of tolls altogether? The Mersey tunnel has become part of the national road network. That would relieve ratepayers of the debt that has been incurred and of the tolls that they have to pay when they use the tunnel. Ratepayers would then get a square deal. At the moment a precept is being levied that ought not to be forced on them.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a point on behalf of all the borough of Sefton that applies with equal force to all Merseyside districts.
The origin of the problem goes back to the 1960s when the volume of cross-river traffic in 1982 was estimated to be 130,000 vehicles a day. In reality, however, the actual flow in 1982 turned out to be only 60,000 vehicles. The implications in terms of tolls are clear. No doubt some people will advance the superficial argument that those who use the tunnels should bear the cost. That is very much the argument that the Prime Minister seems to be advancing for the Channel tunnel. However, Merseytravel, which is responsible for the operation of the

161
tunnels, was waiting until today for permission from the Secretary of State for its current proposals, which would increase tolls from 50p to 60p for cars, from 50p to £1·20 for medium-sized goods vehicles and from £1·20 to £1·80 for heavy goods vehicles. Those tolls would be indexed to meet future rises in inflation.
Merseytravel has received a letter today that gives permission for the toll increases. Paragraph 7 of the letter, however, seems to argue against the permission granted by the Secretary of State. It suggests that the toll increases are insufficient and that there has been no substantial settlement of the problem.
Free toll crossings are not just a political issue. The Merseyside chamber of commerce argues that
"Tolls inflate the overheads of road transport operators in areas where there is a toll crossing and constitutes an expenditure which similar companies in other parts of the country do not have to bear."
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is inequitable that Humberside ratepayers are not required to pay the full cost of the Humber crossing, despite the fact that, unlike the Mersey tunnel crossings, two inner-city areas are not linked? The Mersey tunnels are vital because they form part of the national network. They are also part of the regeneration of Merseyside. That can be achieved only if the Government provide for the cost of the tunnels. If they mean what they say about aid for the inner cities, they should be helping with the tunnels.
Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which supports my argument.
The chamber of commerce said:
"The money spent by citizens on this part of their rate bills, coupled with toll expenditure itself, effectively removes some funds from the local economy to the disbenefit of all".
There is also the argument about fairness as between major conurbations to which my hon. Friends have referred. The comparison can be made between Merseyside and Glasgow, another conurbation divided by a river. In Glasgow all the crossings are free with the exception of the Erskine bridge, which is operated by the Scottish Office, and the Scottish Office is currently seeking to effect a reduction in tolls for the purpose of economic regeneration. Similarly, Greater London—also divided by a river—has many free crossings and only one toll crossing, the Dartford tunnel.
There has been a great deal of talk about this problem for many years but to date the Government have shown little or no interest in any action. The Government are currently urging Merseytravel to provide a reasoned case for a solution, yet all the evidence necessary already exists. As recently as October 1987 the then Mersey passenger transport authority published the document "Merseyside Tunnels—the case for Government assistance", which sets out the situation clearly and comprehensively. In December 1988, in evidence provided to a public local inquiry, William Austin Varney presented a very detailed account of the situation. It is disingenuous of the Government to pretend that they need more information.
I understand that the Department of Transport recently suggested five options. First, it suggested that tolls could be increased. That suggestion has been agreed today. Merseytravel has made the application and the decision has been made, but it smacks of evasion. There was a long delay in reaching the decision, and many of us do not agree that it was the right solution.
162
The Department then suggested that the deficit could be capitalised, but the Government know full well that there is no legislative framework which would enable Merseytravel to do that without specific Government permission.
The Department's third suggestion was an interest holiday, but as all the debt on the Mersey tunnels is outstanding—to the Department of Transport or the public works loan board—that, too, would require specific Government decisions.
Fourthly, the Department suggested writing off some or all of the debt. That avenue should be pursued. There is a precedent in the form of the Humber bridge which has had two thirds of its debt written off.
Finally, the Department has suggested precepting which would take us no further, as the Merseyside ratepayers would be picking up the tab again.
There is no doubt in my mind that Merseysiders are being unfairly treated on this issue. The current state of affairs puts Merseyside at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with Humberside, Glasgow and Greater London. It is high time that the Government stopped evading the issue and agreed a solution that would not place an unfair disadvantage on the ratepayers of Merseyside or on the local economy. Sadly, the latest decision, received today, does not achieve that. The time for talk, reports, studies and inquiries is over and the Government should act to solve the problem now.
1.33 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I note that a number of hon. Members have participated in the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). The House will wish to acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) who has been assiduous in putting the case to me. It was not my hon. Friend, however, who was asking for a contribution of £4,000 a year from the disabled people who, I note, Merseytravel will now require to pay. We are talking about debts of £114 million, and it does not seem obvious that suddenly to require the 200 disabled people who use the tunnels regularly to contribute is the way forward. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that in his remarks, and I refer him to the press notice from Merseytravel of 7 April this month.
Saturday's edition of the Liverpool Echo, the last piece of journalism before the ghastly tragedy at Hillsborough —I extend my personal sympathy to people in Liverpool and Merseyside as, having been present at the Heysel stadium in 1985, I am aware of the effects that the disaster will have on local people—contains an article entitled, "Tunnel Vision" which describes something
"despicable, deplorable—and downright shameful".
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North has talked about the size of the overall debt. It might be useful to the House if I go through some of the history in the hope that it will be possible to find a way forward which depends on proper discussion.
The Mersey tunnels have been built and operated as tolled crossings under legislation promoted by the local authorities that dates back to 1925. In this respect they are not unique: other major tolled crossings such as the Tyne tunnels, the Dartford tunnels and the Humber bridge were promoted in the same way.

163
In the Government's response in July 1986 to the report of the transport committee on tolled crossings, we emphasised that tolled crossings should be the responsibility of the local authorities which promoted them. Those local authorities accepted tolls as the best means of getting the required crossings without placing an intolerable burden on ratepayers. They financed construction by borrowing, with the intention of servicing, and ultimately repaying, those loans from toll revenue. We pointed out that these obligations were freely incurred by those local authorities.
Mr. Terry Fields: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bottomley: Briefly, but I hope that it will not be catching.
Mr. Fields: Does the Minister accept that at least part of the responsibility for the Mersey tunnels lies with the Department of Transport? The decision to build a second toll tunnel was based on projections of traffic volume which proved to be highly inaccurate. Therefore, the Department is responsible for encouraging the building of the second tunnel and backing it at the time.
Mr. Bottomley: If we were to debate responsibilities for everything that has happened in and around Merseyside and in Liverpool itself, we should be having a debate which lasted rather longer than the allocated time for an Adjournment debate.
We do not accept that local authorities should now be relieved of those obligations because toll revenue has not been as high as expected, or because they may be reluctant to increase charges, except for the 200 disabled people.
Mr. Howarth: That is a cheap point.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman says, "That is a cheap point," but £4,000 a year compared with £114 millions a year seems to justify some of the comments in the Liverpool Echo.
Mr. Terry Fields: Do not believe the Liverpool Echo.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman, from the back row says, "Do not believe the Liverpool Echo." Perhaps I should believe the press notice from Merseytravel on 7 April, but perhaps that was not in the hon. Gentleman's briefing.
We went on to make it clear that the Government could not accept that they should simply write off the debts of tolled crossings. We have said that we accept that there may need to be exceptions to that policy and we are willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases. The Humber bridge is one. We are even now considering the report by the inspector who held a public inquiry into proposals by the Humber bridge board for a toll increase. When that has been decided by the Secretary of State, we shall consider the carefully reasoned case by the Humber bridge board for writing off a proportion of that bridge's debts which cannot be met from tolls, or from other sources available to them under the Humber Bridge Act.
We stand by our statement in the response to the Transport Committee, that if other crossing authorities consider they face similar problems to Humber, albeit on a lesser scale, we would be willing to consider with them
164
their financial projections and proposals for alleviating their problems. We would expect those authorities to have exhausted the possibilities of their enabling legislation.
Those statements of Government policy set the background against which the financial position of the Mersey tunnels has to be judged. What has the Mersey tunnels authority done since the summer of 1986—nearly three years ago—in response to that statement?
There have been a series of meetings between officials of my Department and the Merseyside passenger transport authority about the tunnels' finances. Early in 1987 the authority appeared to accept that, with the approaching end of the power to capitalise deficits, there was a need for urgent action to deal with the tunnels' debts and that a substantial toll increase was likely to be required, as well as some measure of precepting of local ratepayers. It was explained to the PTA that any further use by the Secretary of State of his power to approve capitalisation before the power ends in December 1989 would depend on it preparing a package of measures which would place the tunnel on a sound financial footing.
At a further meeting in June 1987, it was agreed that the PTA would produce a range of options for improving the finances of the tunnels comprising tolls increases and some precepting. At another meeting, in July 1987, the Department's officials stressed the need for detailed proposals so that the need for assistance to meet any residual problem could be assessed. Later that month, officials wrote to the PTA asking for a package of options for the long-term financing of the tunnels, including financial projections to, say, the year 2000. They also asked the authority to make it clear whether it would propose any extension of capitalisation powers, or any other special treatment of the debt. They stressed that the measures should be realistic.
The next we heard from the PTA was in September 1987. It planned to canvass various options of toll increases for various amounts, including toll increases to 60p, 70p, 80p or £1 for cars and equivalent amounts for other vehicles. It envisaged a consultation period up to the end of that year. The PTA said it intended to prepare a case for Government assistance. To assess the effects of higher tolls and higher precepting on the transport system of Merseyside, a cross-river survey would be set in hand.
In October 1987 we received a copy of the PTA's consultation paper and a request for Government assistance. That request did not contain a package of options or long-term financial projections. In December 1987, officials of the Department had another meeting with the PTA, and offered assistance in constructing long-term financial projections.
At the same time, the PTA was informed by letter of the decision of the Secretary of State that the power to capitalise interest charges should be extended for only six months until 30 September 1988. This was intended to give a breathing space for the PTA to come forward with suitable solutions. It was also felt that capitalisation, which is akin to paying a mortgage with a credit card, would not help in providing an answer to the mounting debts.
From early 1988 onwards, the Department was closely involved with the PTA in producing long-term toll projections to help it prepare a case for Government assistance. In February 1988, we learned that the PTA proposed to increase tolls only to the extent that the car

165
toll would be raised from 50p to 60p, with increases also for other classes of traffic. That was hardly a major step towards resolving the debt problem.
The order was published in April 1988 and on 15 June the Department was told that objections had been received. Arrangements were made in early August for a public inquiry, which took place in December. The inspector's report was received on 30 March this year. On 14 April the Department issued the letter setting out the Secretary of State's decision approving the toll increases proposed. I would add that a year is not an exceptional time for processing a toll increase. A decision on the 7 December 1984 tolls order could not be reached until 25 July 1986.
The PTA was meanwhile making little progress in preparing a package of options, although the Department continued to help in the production of long-term projections. We were surprised when the PTA presented its 1989–92 expenditure plan to the Secretary of State in July 1988 to find that it contained a proposal that we should write off £80 million of the tunnels' debts. There was no indication as to how that amount had been derived. It did not arise out of any assessment of the sort of tolls tunnel users could he asked to bear or the charges that local taxpayers could be expected to meet for the sake of the benefit the tunnels provide. It did not arise out of any of the projections which the Department had spent time helping to produce. We found in fact that it was no more than the PTA's pro-rata calculation of the amount it thought the Government would write off on the Humber bridge. The fact that the Government had not, and still have not, reached a decision on the amount of the Humber bridge debts to be written off was deliberately overlooked. That is not what anyone can regard as responsible financial management.
The Department nevertheless persisted in its attempts to find the basis for some agreed options. A further meeting on 23 August 1988 considered the projections that had jointly been produced. The PTA was again asked to consider a range of options for putting the tunnels on to a sound financial footing. It was suggested that these could comprise various elements. The first was further tolls increases, by, say, 1 October 1990, at about the present real value of the 1971 Kingsway first bore operating toll. The second alternative was the financing of deficiencies through the PTA's precept on its constituent authorities. A third option was the extension of powers to capitalise interest not serviced by the operating account as a short-term measure up to December 1989, or in the longer-term, which would require fresh legislation. A fourth option was a possible debt charge holiday on the Department's loan, thus reducing the demands on the tunnels' finances by up to £2·662 million per annum for a specified period, or, fifthly, the write-off of debt, which would be the last resort.
The Department asked to have the PTA's proposals by the end of September 1988, but nothing arrived. We are still waiting. On 26 October, we received a letter from the clerk to the authority reiterating that the authority's package of proposals was the tolls increase that had been proposed, the writing-off of £80 million of debt—which, as I have said, had no reasonable basis and was quite
166
unacceptable—and future tolls increases, perhaps every third year, to keep the proposed 60p toll in line with inflation. The clerk said:
"any other option does not constitute Authority policy."
So that was that, with no suggestion of willingness to proffer other options, and there the matter has had to rest. Because of the Secretary of State's role in determining the recent tolls increase application, we were unable to hold further discussions with the PTA between the closing of the public inquiry in December and the Secretry of State's decision.
The Secretary of State has now reached his decision on the tolls increase, which can be implemented. As the authority well knows, this increase will not put it on the road to reasonably early financial recovery. We have seen the projections put to the inquiry. They include calculations based on options other than the toll increase to 60p, which was put to the inquiry. They are of little use if the authority is unwilling to offer to implement them.
This is a sorry story. A cynical man might divine some procrastination on the authority's part. Why is it that fruitful discussions were possible with the Humber bridge board, which produced a range of options which it was willing to discuss, but not with Mersey authority? Why have nearly three years of talks produced no long-term solution? A parody of the song comes to mind
"several years older, and deeper in debt".
This is no laughing matter. The policies of those responsible for the tunnels over the years have been found wanting. If, since the opening of the first of the new Mersey tunnels in 1971, tolls had kept pace with inflation, the car toll would now be 80p, not 60p; the tunnels' debts would now be £80 million not almost £120 million, and the local ratepayer would not be facing the risk of larger precepts to cover the Mersey tunnels' debts. I suspect that we would not have received a press notice from Merseytravel saying that the £4,000 saving is a necessary response to Government inflexibility and comparing it with the £40 million forgone by not keeping tolls in line with inflation since 1971.
There is common agreement among hon. Members for a speedy resolution of this matter. Officials have again arranged to meet the PTA on 28 April to discuss possible financial packages. If it is prepared to put forward a reasoned case based on a sensible assessment of the various options and is prepared to give an undertaking to do so in advance of that meeting, it can proceed. If all that it is prepared to do is to hark back to empty and unsubstantiated claims for the United Kingdom taxpayer to meet debts which it has failed to meet out of tolls or local taxation, there is little point in further discussion.
The distinction between the Humber bridge board and the Mersey authority is that the Humber bridge board has been willing to hold serious and detailed discussions. The Government are willing to assist the PTA with its problems if the need is proven, and if it can show that it has done all that could be reasonably expected to help itself. That condition has not been met so far. It must now be for the PTA to decide whether it wants to put forward proposals and enter serious discussions or to continue to wish upon the people of Merseyside continuing self-imposed financial burdens.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will use the powers available to him under the Regulation of Railways Act to require British Rail to supply him with regular returns of working hourse of(a) drivers, (b) signalmen and (c) other staff.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no requirement in legislation for the British Railways Board to provide the Secretary of State with regular returns of working hours. The Transport Act 1962 places upon the board a duty to provide railway services having due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. The question of working hours is therefore a matter of management for the board.

  BR Services (Manchester-Stockport)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any approach from British Railways to withdraw its passenger service from Manchester Victoria to Stockport via Miles Platting, Denton and Reddish, south; and whether such a service will be maintained after 15 May.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received no such proposal. The timetabling and routing of services are entirely a matter for the board.

  Road Traffic Growth
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was his Department's forecast rate of road traffic growth and the actual rate for each of the last five years;

  (2) what is the Department's current forecast rate of road traffic growth for each of the next three years;

  (3) what percentage increase in road traffic is anticipated by the year 1999.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's estimates of traffic growth compared with actual growth are as follows for the years requested:

  Growth (per cent.)

  Year

  Low

  High

  Actual

  1984

  1·9

  3·3

  4·5

  1985

  1·7

  3·2

  3·1

  1986

  1·6

  3·1

  6·1

  1987

  1·5

  3·0

  5·6

  1988

  1·6

  2·9

  5·2

  The forecasts for annual traffic growth for the next three years are as follows:
  2

  Annual growth (per cent.)

  Year

  Low

  High

  1989

  1·16

  2·49

  1990

  1·15

  2·50

  1991

  1·07

  2·18

  The increase in road traffic from 1988 to 1999 is forecast to be between 10 and 22·5 per cent.

  The Department's forecasts are for long-term traffic growth. They are not intended to provide accurate forecasts for individual years or short periods.

  The forecasts of growth are presented as a range to reflect uncertainty about growth in factors underlying traffic growth, such as GDP and fuel prices. They are based on the forecasts given in "National Road Traffic Forecasts 1984" issued by the Department in March 1985. The forecasts are for all motor traffic excluding motor cycles.

  Road Building (White Paper)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future road building programme for Britain.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the late spring or summer.

  Motorways (Speed Limit)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is taken to record systematically vehicle speeds on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Automatic traffic counters, which also measure vehicle speeds, are being installed at 25 motorway sites. At present, speed data are being obtained from two of these sites; another eight should be supplying data by the end of the year, with the remaining 15 becoming operational in 1990.

  These data will enable vehicle speeds, and trends in vehicle speeds, to be analysed by type of vehicle and time of day. It is unlikely that it will be possible to do such analyses until mid-1990 because of the need to have a sufficient number of sites supplying reliable, consistent, data.

  Road Building
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of the national road building programme in East Sussex for 1988–89 and for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Expenditure on national trunk road programme schemes in East Sussex is as follows:

  1988–89

  4·2

  1989–90

  121·0

  1 (estimated).

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the current road building programme in the north west.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Five major motorway and trunk road construction contracts are currently under way. The total works value is around £80 million. Work continues on other improvements and maintenance of the network.
  3
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce early conditional acceptance in the Cleveland TPP bid of the Stockton south spine road; and when commencement of the project will occur.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All local highway authorities have been invited to submit bids by 31 July for transport supplementary grant for 1990–91. Decisions on the allocation of resources will be announced later in the year. The programme for construction of this scheme is a matter for Cleveland county council.

  Railways
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the options being considered for the future operation and management of British Rail; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to set up a national track authority to lease track time to competing companies on a national or regional basis; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has any plans to re-introduce regional railway companies to operate a full range of services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am considering the long-term options for British Rail including privatisation. The possibilities for privatisation include: a single privatised company to run the entire network; a division into several independent companies based on British Rail's business sectors; a division into a number of independent regional companies; a vertically separated railway industry with track owned by a track authority on which independent companies would run services; or a combination of these. We are not yet in a position to take decisions.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the building of the second Severn crossing is dependent upon assessment of future traffic flows.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The decision to build the second Severn crossing has already been taken.

  A50
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions he has reached about the proposed changes in the A50 road through Stoke-on-Trent; and if a date has been arranged for the consequent inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Final design is being undertaken to enable publication of the complete package of draft statutory orders in November this year. Arrangements for an inquiry cannot be made until objections are known. If one is necessary for this scheme we would expect it to take place in the spring of 1990.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there have been any recent developments in regard to new routes from the United States to Manchester airport; if he expects any further developments in the near future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government have continued to press the United States authorities to agree a reasonable 4
  exchange of rights to enable new routes to be established between the United States and Manchester airport. The United States has been considering an offer we made earlier in the year and has recently promised revised and comprehensive counter-proposals.

  King's Cross Fire (Inquiry)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of the King's Cross public inquiry; and which parties appearing before the inquiry received reimbursement of legal costs.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost to the Department of the King's Cross investigation, excluding staff costs, was about £1·2 million. The Department does not have information on the costs incurred by others. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the House on 10 November that he had accepted in full Mr. Fennell's recommendations about the award of costs to represented parties as set out in paragraphs 4–8 of chapter 21 of his report; claims are being settled on that basis.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 and 7 respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers and proportion of women at 1 September 1988 were:

  Percentage

  Grades 1 to 5

  22

  15

  Grade 6

  104

  25

  Grade 7

  36

  26

  Overall

  162

  23

  We do not hold information on the ethnic origin of all our staff but of those who have responded to the ethnic monitoring survey, those from ethnic minorities were:

  Number

  Grades 1 to 7

  110

  1 1·7 per cent. of respondents in those grades.

  The survey was conducted on the undertaking that anonymity would be preserved. Any further breakdown of the figures could identify individuals and cannot therefore be provided.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A survey of all the Department's employees was carried out in 1986 since when all new recruits have been asked to complete an ethnic monitoring questionnaire on a voluntary basis. We are proposing to conduct another survey later in the year.
  5
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Recruitment of grades above administrative officer is carried out by the Civil Service Commission.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) universities and (c) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department of Education and Science purchased nine vehicles in 1988 at a total cost of £48,041·45. I am unable to confirm that these vehicles were United Kingdom-produced, on the definition employed by the DTI for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value, but they are all of EC origin. The information sought regarding the universities and other public sector agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible is not held centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated number of settlers from Turkey, who are now living in the occupied area of northern Cyprus.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I told the House on 10 June 1988, at column 696, in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), that we estimated that there were then about 35,000 non-Cypriot settlers in northern Cyprus. We have no evidence to suggest there has been any change in the meantime.

  British Citizens (Thailand)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, 28 November,Official Report, columns 107–8, what representations he has made to the Thai authorities regarding British citizens imprisoned there, in particular in respect of those held in chains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  When British prisoners have been shackled in circumstances not covered by normal Thai practice, Her Majesty's embassy at Bangkok have made effective representations and the chains have been removed.

  Her Majesty's embassy continue closely to monitor conditions under which British prisoners are held, to ensure that these are no worse than those applied to Thai or other prisoners.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 6
  he has made about the treatment of Edward Heaton-Smith, presently held in Phitsanalok prison, Thailand; what information he has about the conditions in which he is held, particularly with regard to his continuing isolation from other foreign nationals, the duration of his being shackled in leg-irons and his ill-treatment at the hands of the prison authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations made to the Thai authorities by Her Majesty's Embassy at Bangkok have met with the following responses:

  (a) Leg-irons are worn by all new arrivals at a prison. Their release is conditional on the prisoner satisfying the prison authorities as to his conduct. Mr. Heaton-Smith has not met the latter criterion;

  (b) a report on the alleged ill-treatment is awaited from the prison governor;

  (c) Mr. Heaton-Smith will be transferred to Klong Prem prison, where there are British prisoners; but he first has a charge to face in Phitsanulock.

  The British Consul visited Mr. Heaton-Smith on 16 March 1989, when he showed no signs of malnutrition or abuse.

  Soviet Trade Inspectors
  Mr. D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Soviet trade inspectors there are in the United Kingdom monitoring the manufacture by British companies of goods and equipment to be delivered to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under export contracts; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures for the number of Soviet trade inspectors resident in the United Kingdom over the last four years are as follows:

  Number

  1986

  20

  1987

  17

  1988

  21

  1989

  27

  Records of previous years were not kept in the same way, and comparable figures prior to 1986 are therefore not available.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in(a) Bhutan, (b) Brunei, (c) Burma, (d) China, (e) Taiwan, (f) Hong Kong, (g) India, (h) Indonesia, (i) Iran, (j) Iraq, (k) Israel, (1) Japan, (m) Jordan, (n) Kampuchea, (o) North Korea, (p) South Korea, (q) Kuwait, (r) Laos, (s) Lebanon, (t) Macao, (u) Mongolia, (v) Maldives and (w) Malaysia; and which organisations made these representations;

  (2) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Nicaragua (b) the Netherlands Antilles, (c) St. Vincent and the Grenadines, (d) E1 Salvador, (e) Trinidad and Tobago, (f) Turks and Caicos Islands, (g) the British Virgin Islands, (h) the United States Virgin Islands, (i) Argentina, (j) Bolivia, (k) Brazil, (l) Chile, (m) Colombia, (n) Ecudaor, (o) French Guiana, (p) Guyana,

  7
  (q) Paraguay, (r) Peru, (s) Surinam, (t) Uruguay, (u) Venezuela, (v) South Georgia, (w) Falklands Islands, (x) Afghanistan, (y) Bahrain and (z) Bangladesh; and which organisations made these representations;

  (3) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) France, (b) East Germany, (c) West Germany, (d) Gibraltar, (e) Antigua and Barbuda, (f) Bahamas, (g) Barbados, (h) Belize, (i) Bermuda, (j) Cayman Islands, (k) Costa Rica, (l) Cuba, (m) Dominica, (n) the Dominican Republic, (o) Grenada, (p) Guadeloupe, (q) Guatemala, (r) Haiti, (s) Honduras, (t) Jamacia, (u) Martinique, (v) Montserrat, (w) St. Lucia, (x) St. Christopher and Nevis, (y) Puerto Rico and (z) Panama; and which organisations made these representations;

  (4) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Nepal, (b) Oman, (c) Pakistan, (d) Philippines, (e) Qatar, (f) Saudi Arabia, (g) Singapore, (h) Sri Lanka, (i) Syria, (j) Thailand, (k) Turkey, (l) the Asian Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (m) United Arab Emirates, (n) Vietnam, (o) North Yemen, (p) South Yemen, (q) Albania, (r) Andorra, (s) Austria, (t) Belgium, (u) Bulgaria, (v) Cyprus, (w) Czechoslovakia, (x) Denmark, (y) Faroe Islands and (z) Finland; and which organisations made those representations;

  (5) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Yugoslavia, (b) Australia, (c) Norfolk Islands, (d) Fiji, (e) French Polynesia, (f) Guam, (g) Kiribati, (h) Marshall Islands, (i) Micronesia, (j) Nauru, (k) New Caledonia, (l) New Zealand, (m) Cook Islands, (n) Nive, (o) Ross Dependency, (p) Northern Mariana Islands, (q) Palau, (r) Papua New Guinea, (s) Pitcairn Islands, (t) Eastern Samoa, (u) Western Samoa, (v) Soloman Islands, (w) Tonga, (x) Tuvalu, (y) Vanuatu and (z) Wallis and Fortuna Islands; and which organisations made those representations;

  (6) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Senegal, (b) Seychelles, (c) Sierra Leone, (d) Somalia, (e) South Africa, (f) the Republic of Ireland, (g) Iceland, (h) Hungary, (i) Greece, (j) Italy, (k) Liechtenstein, (l) Luxembourg, (m) Malta and Gozo, (n) Monaco, (o) the Netherlands, (p) Norway, (q) Poland, (r) Portugal, (s) Romania, (t) San Marino, (u) Spain, (v) Sweden, (w) Switzerland, (x) Turkey, (y) European Russia and (z) the Vatican City State; and which organisations made those representations;

  (7) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Cote d'Ivoire, (b) Djibouti, (c) Egypt, (d) Guinea, (e) Ethiopia, (f) Gabon, (g) Gambia, (h) Ghana, (i) Guinea-Bissau, (j) Kenya, (k) Lesotho, (l) Liberia, (m) Libya, (n) Madagascar, (o) Malawi, (p) Mali, (q) Mauritania, (q) Mauritius, (s) Mayotte, (t) Morocco, (u) Mozambique, (v) Namibia, (w) Niger, (x) Nigeria, (y) Rwanda and (z) St. Helena; and which organisations made those representations;

  (8) how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in (a) Sudan, (b) Swaziland, (c) Tanzania, (d) Togo, (e) Tunisia, (f) Uganda, (g) Zaire, (h) Zambia, (i) Zimbabwe, (j) Canada, (k) Greenland, (l) Mexico, (m) United States, (n) Anguilla, (o) Algeria, (p) Angola, (q) Benin, (r)
  8
  Botswana, (s) Burkina Faso, (t) Burundi, (u) Cameroon, (v) Cape Verde Islands, (w) the Central African Republic, (x) Chad, (y) Comoros and (z) Congo; and which organisations made those representations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We receive representations on a wide range of countries from many organisations and individuals. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights or the use of torture in Aruba; and which organisations made those representations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have checked our records for the last three years. In that time we have received no representations about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in Aruba.

  Laos
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the President of the Soviet Union and other Soviet authorities regarding the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Laos and the present whereabouts of the former Laotian King Savang Vatthana and Crown Prince Vong Savang; what information he has of the whereabouts of the former Laotian Chief of Staff, General Phasouk S. Ratsphak; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not discussed the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Laos or the whereabouts of the former King and Crown Prince of Laos with the Soviet authorities, at least in recent years. We have no knowledge of General Phasoul S. Ratsphak.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch,Official Report, 29 November 1988, column 185, what response he has had from the Gibraltar authorities in respect of amending their law on consensual homosexual acts between males.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Gibraltar Attorney General has prepared a Bill amending the law on consensual homosexual acts between males to conform with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We understand that the Bill will shortly be submitted to the Council of Ministers for introduction in the Gibraltar House of Assembly.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many vehicles, and of what value, were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agenices for which he is responsible in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office bought 240 vehicles at a cost of £3,089,600 in 1988. Other
  9
  public sector agencies for which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has responsibility, purchased 32 vehicles at a cost of £275,000.

  Most popular models of vehicle produced by the multinational manufacturers are built in the United Kingdom and other European countries. Using the definition employed by the DTI for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-work value, it is not possible to determine how many were United Kingdom-produced without individual inspection of each vehicle. Vehicles purchased by the FCO are considered British if they have been bought in the United Kingdom from a British manufacturer. On this basis, 176 vehicles were British.

  In the same period, the Overseas Development Administration purchased 371 vehicles costing £3,785,000 and their public sector agencies nine vehicles costing £98,500. Of these, 372 were British.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to obtain for his departmental library a video copy of the "Horizon" programme on BBC2 on 10 April on the consequences to the Panama Canal of destruction of the central American forest.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office library does not normally stock audiovisual material or transcripts of television programmes. We are, however, fully aware of the contents of the programme concerned.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received the affadavit sworn by Ms. Jennie Street in Khartoum dated 12 February concering the use of napalm by the Ethiopian armed forces in Eritrea; and whether he will condemn its use against the civilian population of both Eritrea and Tigré.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have a copy of this affidavit. While we have no means of verifying the allegations it contains, the frequency, and gravity, of such reports is cause for concern. We have made this known to Ethiopian authorities and raised the matter at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

  ICAO Meetings
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of a report together with the findings of the meeting held under ICAO auspices from 6 to 10 March of international experts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The ICAO report of this meeting has not been published. For reasons that the House will appreciate, it is preferable that details of this work should not become publicly known.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will(a) place in the Library or (b) circulate in the Official Report, the names of those attending on behalf of the United Kingdom, the meetings from 6 to 10 March, held under ICAO auspices.
  10
  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not the custom to name officials engaged in Government business. It would be particularly inappropriate to name those who are involved with this important and often sensitive work.

  Semtex
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where he expects the international convention on the subject of Semtex envisaged in his answer of 10 April,Official Report, column 360, will take place; and whether British attendance will be at ministerial level.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are discussing with European Community partners and others the most appropriate forum in which to negotiate a convention. Further technical study of the feasibility of marking explosives must precede any such negotiation. The United Kingdom will continue to take a leading role.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to which countries apart from Czechoslovakia have the ability to manufacture and export Semtex and as to which of these countries takes either of these courses of action.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As far as I am aware, Semtex is riot produced in any country other than Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak authorities have stated publicly that they no longer export Semtex.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Net Overseas Assets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the value of the United Kingdom's stock of net overseas assets at the end of 1988, based on the same method of assessment as that used in the calculation for 1987 in paragraph 3·29 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1988–89", and what are the reasons for the exclusion of any such figure from the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1989–90."

  Mr. Lilley
  Preliminary estimates of identified United Kingdom net overseas assets at the end of 1988 are made available by the CSO on request. The latest estimate is of the order of £115 billion to £120 billion. (The estimated level of identified net overseas assets at the end of 1987 has been revised up to just over £100 billion).

  However, the method of assessment which is used by the CSO assumes that the balancing item does not reflect errors in the capital account. In practice, it is likely that a substantial part of the balancing item, which has totalled over £40 billion in the last three years taken together, reflects unidentified capital inflows, some of which will lead to an underrecording of United Kingdom external liabilities. The standard methodology is being reconsidered by the CSO. In view of this, an estimate of overseas assets was not included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. An estimate of the value of the United Kingdom stock of net overseas assets will, however, be included as usual in the Pink Book in August.

  Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt there is to be repaid after the Budget repayment is concluded.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total of net public sector debt outstanding is forecast to be £157 billion (32 per cent. of GDP) at the end of 1988–89, a fall from £171 billion (38 per cent. of GDP) at the end of 1987–88.

  On the assumption that the stock of debt falls by the £14 billion net debt repayment forecast for 1989–90, the outstanding stock of debt at the end of the year would be £143 billion.

  Cheque Guarantee Cards
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations concerning current expenditure limits on cheque guarantee cards; if he has any plans to ask the Office of Fair Trading to examine the operation by the banks of such limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received no representations on the limits applicable to cheque guarantee cards. I am, however, advised that the Association for Payment Clearing Services, which is the responsible body, has yet to take a final position on the expenditure limit for cheque cards issued under the cheque guarantee card scheme, but that it is likely to do so in the near future. The current agreements between the banks and building societies concerning the standard cheque card scheme have, I understand, been furnished to the Director General of Fair Trading for examination in accordance with the requirements of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. Individual banks are free to issue their own cheque guarantee cards providing for higher limits outside the scheme.

  Privatisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the industries remaining in the state sector by the end of 1989 for which no firm plans have yet been announced to put in the private sector.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No privatisation proposals have yet been announced for the following nationalised industries:

  British Railways Board

  British Waterways Board

  Civil Aviation Authority

  London Regional Transport

  Post Office

  The Government have announced the intention to privatise British Coal in the next Parliament. The Government have also announced that work has been set in hand to study the possible options, including privatisation, for the future of British Rail.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.
  12
  Mr. Brooke
  (a) None; (b) None.

  Inflation and Consumer Credit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to tackle(a) inflation and (b) the expansion of consumer credit.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Interest rates will continue to be set to bear down on inflation. Interest rates are also the only effective means in an open economy of curbing consumer credit growth, if excessive.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Statistics
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the security statistics for 1988 are now available, together with details of persons charged with terrorist-type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Yes, the statistics for 1988 are as follows (statistics for earlier years are contained in Official Report 7 March 1988, columns 67–74 inclusive):

  Statistics on security (January-December 1988)

  Number

  Part I—Statistics of terrorist activity

  Shooting incidents1

  (179) 358

  Explosions

  253

  Bombs neutralised

  205

  Weight of explosives in lbs2

  8,717

  Explosions neutralised

  10,434

  Armed robberies

  653

  Amount stolen (£)

  1,388,600

  Malicious fires

  518

  Deaths:

  Civilian

  54

  Army/UDR

  33

  RUC/RUC'R'

  6

  Injuries:

  Civilian

  600

  Army/UDR

  229

  RUC/RUC'R'

  218

  Part II-Statistics of security forces' activity

  Houses searched

  3,442

  Finds:

  Firearms

  552

  Ammunitions (rounds)

  105,052

  Explosives (1bs)

  10,425

  Persons charged with terrorist-type offences

  Murder

  23

  Attempted murder

  46

  Firearms offences

  121

  Explosives offences

  29

  Theft Act

  42

  Other

  178

  439

  Notes:

  1 Figures in ( ) refer to shots heard only and are not included in the total.

  2 Estimated weight only.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official

  13
  Report to show how many (a) shotguns, (b) hand-guns and (c) air- and gas-powered weapons legally held in Northern Ireland are held for (i) sporting purposes, (ii) possession only and (iii) personal protection, or as much of such information as is available to him for each year since 1976 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The approval for the holding of firearms for particular purposes is a matter for the chief constable, and it is not the practice to disclose details.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chief Press Secretary
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current grade of the chief press secretary and the salary attached to that grade.

  The Prime Minister
  The current grade of the chief press secretary is grade 3, which has a salary range, inclusive of discretionary points and London allowance, of £39,600—£49,600.

  10 Downing Street and Chequers (Works of Art)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will publish a table showing(a) the works of art, objects or artefacts currently on loan from national museums and galleries at (i) 10 Downing street and (ii) Chequers, (b) the museum or gallery from whose collections they are loaned and (c) the term of each loan.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the paintings, reproductions and photographs at 10 Downing street were given in the Official Report, 29 October 1987 at columns 359–63. The further information requested is only available at disproportionate cost.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, and overall in his Office are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Luce
  The number of women and ethnic minorities in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 serving in the Cabinet Office is:

  Grade

  Women

  Percentage

  Members of ethnic minorities

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  6

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  8

  15

  1

  2

  6

  8

  29

  0

  0

  7

  41

  22

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  58

  20

  2

  1

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when his Office last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.
  14
  Mr. Luce
  The last survey was conducted in 1986. There are no plans to repeat it, but the ethnic origins of all new entrants to the department are monitored on a continuous basis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep and Lambs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations he is making as to the causes of death of numbers of sheep and lambs in west Somerset and elsewhere; whether the injections of sheep by the vaccines Heptavac P and Ryvac 7P and the simultaneous use of an organo-phosphrous compound in sheep dips are safe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials are assessing all relevant information, including so far as is possible the husbandry, nutritional and medical history of the flocks where suspected adverse reactions have occurred, and results of post mortem examinations.

  Vaccines such as Heptavac P and Ryvac 7P and organo-phosphrous sheep dips have both been very widely used in the national flock for many years without giving rise to any evidence that their use together is unsafe. Nevertheless, it is a point I have asked my officials to examine in the context of their investigations.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  During the financial year 1988–89, my Department purchased 43 vehicles, at a total cost of £336,800. All vehicles were EC-made, but the number that were specifically British-made is not readily available, since many models are produced in more than one EC country.

  Information about non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible is not readily available.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to make a statement regarding the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 10 April at column 362.

  Receiverships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have gone into receivership during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maude
  Statistics of receiverships are not analysed by trade. Figures are, however, available for bankruptcies
  15
  and company liquidations in England and Wales for agriculture and horticulture. The latest figures are for 1987, when there were 172 bankruptcies and 126 company insolvencies. These and related figures were published in an article on insolvencies on pages 32 and 33 of the British business dated 28 October 1988, which is available in the Library.

WALES

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue guidelines to local education authorities in Wales for the training of school governors in special educational needs, in order to help them fulfil their duties under the Education Act 1981; whether this is part of the programme he is promoting to encourage community care; if he will provide financial resourses to facilitate such training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  All local education authorities in Wales will receive education support grant for governor training in 1989–90. In submitting applications for grant LFAs were invited to detail their proposals for training courses. Some mentioned special educational needs specifically and my officials intend to monitor the position.

  The Department's publication "School Governors: A Guide to the law" contains a chapter on governors' responsibility for pupils with special educational needs. Copies have been distributed to all school governors of county and controlled schools. A similar publication for special schools will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to issue a circular to local education authorities in Wales on the implications of the Education Reform Act 1988 on the needs of children with special educational requirements under the Education Act 1981; what consultation he is having with local education authorities, voluntary organisations dealing with special education needs including Mencap in Wales and with education specialists in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office has issued a draft circular for consultation on assessment and statementing procedures under the Education Act 1981. It includes guidance on the implications of the Education Reform Act for pupils with special educational needs. A Welsh Office circular on the national curriculum and assessment will be issued shortly and will be followed by a guide for teachers. These will also contain references to special educational needs, as do the notes accompanying the Statutory Orders prescribing the attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics and science in the curriculum. Welsh Office circular 36/88 contains guidance on provision for children with special educational needs in the arrangements for local management of schools. The Curriculum Council for Wales has decided to set up a committee to consider special educational needs in the curriculum. Mencap, as well as other bodies interested in special educational needs have been included in the consultations to date.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish procedures for monitoring the situation in 16
  mainstream schools to ensure that at least one, and preferably two, governors have a specific interest in, and knowledge of, special educational needs, in line with the proposals of the Warnock report.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Under the 1981 Education Act, every school must have a "responsible person" who ensures that all who are likely to teach a pupil are told that he has a statement of special educational needs. This person may be the head, the chairman of governors or another governor. We have no plans to change these requirements.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list all water supplies in Wales that are in breach of the European Economic Community directive on water quality in respect of safety limits on lead in drinking water; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list all water supplies in Wales in breach of the European Economic Community directive on water quality in respect of safety limits in lead in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The most recent information relates to February 1989 when the following supplies failed to comply with the requirements of the EC drinking water directive in respect of lead:

  Eithin Fynydd

  Taicynhaeaf

  Talybont

  Abertrinant

  Dyffryn

  Glascoed/Trecastle

  Cilfor

  Cilcain/Alwen

  Rhyd-Ddu

  St. David's (Brecon)

  Penystryd

  Llanfrynach

  Dinas Mawddwy

  Lampeter Olwen

  Abergynolwen

  Capel Dewi

  Rhyd

  Bontgoch

  Penmaenmawr

  Garw

  Aber

  Parc Gwyn

  Capel Curig

  Abermagwr

  Rhydymaen

  Preseli

  Brithdir

  Pwllfa/Craig

  Braich y Rhiw

  Bryngwyn

  Croesor

  Bychau

  Glanllwyd

  Nantymoel

  Cwmpedol

  The Welsh water authority has confirmed that all necessary remedial action will be completed by December 1989.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds there were by specialty in 1979 and in 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the numbers of hospital beds is published annually in "Bed Use Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House. The latest edition is for the year ending March 1988.

  Health Service (Waiting Lists)
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of people on waiting lists for each type of operation in each health district in Wales and the number who have been waiting for over six months, one year, two years, three years or more for each type of operation in each health district in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, hospital waiting list bulletins,
  17
  published bi-annually, provide waiting list statistics for individual specialties and for individual hospitals. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received on the effect of the uncertainty over the present and second Severn crossing on decisions on the possible location of new heavy industry in Wales;

  (2) if he will publish an assessment of the effects of the uncertainty over the present Severn road crossing and future crossings on decisions on the locations of new heavy industry in south Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There is no uncertainty over the present and second Severn road crossings.

  Water
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of the amount spent by Welsh Water on advertising and publicity since 1 January.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh Water Authority. I suggest that the hon. Lady writes to the chairman of the authority direct.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve any of the trunk roads leading into Aberystwyth, Cardiganshire during the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Improvement of the A44 between Capel Bangor and Penllwyn is planned within the next five years.

  Investment
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 11 April,Official Report, column 480, he will give details of what records are kept relating to inquiries of WINvest; and what indicators he considers useful in assessing the level of interest in Wales as a location for investment.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Inquiries to WINvest are recorded at the time of receipt but comprehensive records are not maintained for the reason I gave the hon. Gentleman on 11 April at column 480.

  A more useful indicator of the levels of interest being shown in Wales as a location for investment is the number of companies actually visiting Wales for the first time. There were 246 such visits in 1987, 241 in 1988 and 76 in the first quarter of 1989.

  M4
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now, in view of the worsening of congestion along Baglan road, Port Talbot, accelerate the start of the work on the Baglan-Lonlas part of the M4.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Earlswood-Lonlas section of the motorway is planned to start in January 1990. Advancing the Baglan-Earlswood contracts would he at the expense 18
  of other schemes, including those on the A55. The Baglan-Lonlas scheme is expected to be completed by mid 1994.

  Work will start shortly on a scheme to relieve delays at the M4 Baglan junction. This will give greater priority to M4 westbound traffic.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work commenced on the last part of the M4 to be completed; and why there has been a delay in the start of the Baglan-Lonlas road.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Work on the Bridgend northern by-pass started in 1978. Given that the A48 already provides Baglan-Lonlas with a dual carriageway link to the M4 the decision was taken to give priority to the A55. Baglan-Lonlas will have higher priority as expenditure on the A55 starts to fall.

  Health Service
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those occasions on which his Department has made direct contributions to voluntary appeals for financial assistance towards expenditure on items for use in the National Health Service in Wales since 1979; and what sums were involved in each case.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 11 April 19891: There have been no such contributions as far as I am aware.

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

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Alyn and Deeside district council have referred the planning applications for this scheme to me. I have decided that the practical implications of this scheme, which is clearly of major significance to north-east Wales, should be thoroughly assessed at a public local inquiry and I have today called-in the applications for determination. In these circumstances a meeting with the council would be inappropriate.

ENERGY

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the regional distribution of the final destination of coal imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the type of Government subsidy and the approximate subsidy per tonne of the coals imported into Britain from(a) Australia, (b) Poland, (c) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (d) South Africa and (e) Latin American countries; if he will list comparable information on subsidies to British coal exports; and if he will make a statement.
  19
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government give no specific subsidies to support exports of British coal. We have no evidence of such subsidies in the countries listed.

  Director General of Electricity Supply (Staff)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the present position in regard to the staffing of the offices of the proposed Director General of Electricity Supply; and by what date he anticipates that provisional appointments will be made.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Planning for the establishment of the Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER) is under way. It is hoped that a suitable candidate for the post of Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES) will be identified in time for him or her to participate in the process of setting up OFFER. To this end, a firm of selection consultants has been appointed to assist my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in finding a suitable candidate. Formal appointments to OFFER will take place after enactment of the Electricity Bill currently before Parliament.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) British Coal, (c) the electricity industry and (d) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The answers are:

  (a) None.

  (b) and (c) Purchases by British Coal, the electricity industry and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority are matters for the industries themselves. I have asked the respective chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  (d) The Oil and Pipelines Agency, for which I was then responsible, bought one vehicle; it was non-British and cost £13,277.

  North Sea Oil Spills (Equipment)
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what type of oil spill containment and treatment equipment is available, and within what time span, for any spills or seepages that may occur near the North Sea oil platforms and depots.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Stocks of oil spill containment and treatment equipment are held by the oil industry, in accordance with their contingency plans, and Government. All standby vessels around offshore oil installations carry spraying equipment and dispersants. These vessels are required to be within five nautical miles of the installation. Dispersants and spraying equipment, for use in aircraft and larger vessels, are based at strategic locations around the coast. Inflatable booms and skimmer systems for containment and recovery of oil from the sea surface are also available.

  The response strategy employed largely depends on the size and nature of the spill and its location, but it is expected that, where necessary, oil companies will respond
  20
  quickly enough to prevent damage to the environment. Specifically, for spills of oil from platforms in near shore areas, operators are required to be able to mount an initial response within 30 minutes using treatment equipment held on the standby vessel. Back-up resources must then be made available within half the minimum time predicted for oil to reach the beach.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Vietnamese boat people have been permitted to become residents in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many of these came via refugee camps in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Renton
  The total number of south-east Asian refugees accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1988 is published in table 3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin 10/89 "Control of Immigration Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. Of these, 205 came from Hong Kong. No further breakdown by nationality is available.

  Hong Kong Citizens
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Hong Kong were permitted to become resident in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what were the categories of reasons for these permissions.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Acceptances for settlement in 1988 of British Dependent Territory Citizens from Hong Kong by category of acceptance

  Acceptances

  Number

  Completed four years in approved employment

  160

  Completed four years in permit-free employment

  20

  Husbands

  160

  Wives

  320

  Children

  170

  Other

  320

  Total acceptances

  1,150

  Attempted Murder Statistics
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons convicted of attempted murder left prison in each of the last five years; and what was the average length of detention in each year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost because of the large number of cases that would require checking. The readily available information relates to the length of sentence imposed and is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", supplementary tables vol. 2 (tables S2.3 and S2.4 of the issue for 1987, Cm. 498). Copies are held in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals are
  21
  currently serving sentences for attempted murder in United Kingdom prisons; and what is their average length of sentence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is estimated that on 31 December 1988 about 13 non-British citizens were serving sentences in prison service establishments in England and Wales for attempted murder. About half of them were serving life sentences. The lengths of sentence of those serving determinate sentences varied from under one year up to 30 years; their average sentence was about 14 years.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any facility on the police national computer to distinguish between spent and unspent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is at present no facility available on the police national computer to distinguish between convictions which are spent or unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This is, however, one of the facilities being considered for implementation on the police national computer in due course.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to consult the Firearms Consultative Committee before publishing security arrangements under the firearms legislation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Advice on safe-keeping arrangements for firearms and shot guns will be contained in new guidance to the police on the administration of the firearms legislation. This will be issued, and made publicly available, at the end of May, in readiness for the introduction of the remaining provisions of the Act, and new rules, in the summer. There has been extensive consultation on the guidance with shooting and other interests. I regard it as important to have the Firearms Consultative Committee in place as soon as possible but the implementation of the new provisions cannot await consultation with the committee. It will, however, be open to the committee to keep under review and make recommendations on the administration and enforcement of the safe-keeping requirements.

  Police Cars (Accidents)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the availability of compensation for the families of pedestrians killed by police cars pursuing other vehicles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The position in respect of compensation for injury, loss of life or damage to property following a road accident involving a police vehicle is in general the same as following any other road accident. Any compensation or other payments would normally be dealt with under insurance cover arrangements.

  Libyan Citizens
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Libyan citizens are:(a) currently serving sentences and (b) awaiting sentencing in United Kingdom prisons.
  22
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The nationality of remand prisoners is not recorded centrally. On 31 December 1988 the latest date for which information is readily available, central records show seven Libyan citizens serving sentences in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times a body belt has been used on an inmate in prison in England and Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales 1988" (table 10·2 of the latest issue, for 1987, Cm 547), copies of which are held in the Library.

  Firearms Act 1988
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received to date about the Firearms Act 1988(a) from when his proposals were first published until First Reading, (b) between First Reading and Royal Assent and (c) since Royal Assent until the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not kept in the precise form requested but figures compiled on a monthly basis from September 1987, when I announced our proposals, to March 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  1987

  September

  819

  October

  904

  November

  962

  December

  407

  1988

  January

  907

  February

  653

  March

  373

  April

  173

  May

  131

  June

  113

  July

  54

  August

  77

  September

  50

  October

  105

  November

  55

  December

  36

  1989

  January

  89

  February

  120

  March

  78

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to comply with the recommendation of the Association of Chief Police Officers to create a national register for missing persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has now received the association's report. They have requested that he consult the Central Conference of Chief Constables on its recommendations. This he is now doing.

  Mrs. Robina Kausar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when papers were referred to him concerning an entry clearance application made by Mrs. Robina Kausar at the post in Islamabad; when it was discovered these papers had been lost and a duplicate referral requested from the post; when Mrs. Kausar's husband in the United Kingdom was interviewed; when a decision is to be taken on this application made at Islamabad on 24 August 1987; when he received the copy of a letter from the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, dated 5 December 1988 concerning the case, stating it was to be treated with priority.

  Mr. Renton
  Mrs. Kausar's entry clearance application to join her husband, Mr. Muhammed Nazir, for settlement was referred to the immigration and nationality department on 12 January 1988 because documents submitted by the sponsor appeared to have been altered. At no time were any of the papers connected with this case mislaid, and I am sorry that the hon. Member was misinformed on this point.

  Owing to the large backlog of work in the Department, the application was not however considered until 21 November. I received a copy of the letter dated 5 December 1988 sent by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 12 December, by which time we had begun our inquiries into the employment aspects of the application. These were necessary after it was confirmed that Mr. Nazir had furnished forged documents in support of the maintenance requirements of the immigration rules.

  It was not felt necessary to interview Mr. Nazir as our outstanding inquiries could more easily be answered by correspondence with the employer and solicitor. A decision to authorise settlement entry clearance was taken on 10 April immediately following receipt of a satisfactory reply on the employment aspect. Notification has been sent accordingly to the entry clearance officer in Islamabad who will contact Mrs. Kausar once it has been received.

  Cigarettes Sales
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to take any further steps to enforce section 1 of the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 in relation to the sale of individual cigarettes to young people under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Enforcement of the law on the sale of cigarettes to persons under the age of 16 is an operational matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. If the hon. Member is aware of any general problem in the enforcement of the legislation, perhaps he would let us have the details.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial provision is made by the prison department for persons released from custody following their imprisonment for fine default.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: Persons released from custody following imprisonment in
  24
  default of payment of a fine receive a subsistence allowance to cover the period until they can reach an office of the Department of Social Security and a travel warrant or payment in cash for fares to their home address or destination.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the findings of the Audit Commission inquiry into the workings of the probation service; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action his Department will be taking following receipt of the Audit Commission report entitled "The Probation Service, Promoting Value for Money".

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: The Audit Commission found that well planned and targeted probation work can be effective, and that there is an important role for the probation service to play in providing the courts with more commuity-based services. But the Audit Commission calls for several improvements, which have to be made before the probation service can do this: supervising offenders more effectively; focusing activities more sharply on serious offenders; better research and evaluation of effectiveness; closer collaboration with the courts and other agencies; and improving management systems.

  I welcome the report. Further action on its important recommendations will be closely linked to action on the proposals set out in the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community", and the programme of work set out in part 2 of the Green Paper (and in "Tackling Offending: an Action Plan") is already in hand. Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation will be collaborating with the Audit Commission in a series of "value for money" audits in probation areas throughout England and Wales, starting in 1990.

  Parole
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales received notification of their actual parole date after the passing of their parole eligibility date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: Accurate statistics of the number of cases where inmates have been notified of the outcome of their parole review after their parole eligibility date will not be available until a new computer system is operational. In 1988, about 6,100 parole dossiers were delayed beyond this target.

  Bookshops (Arson Attacks)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to what urgent action is being taken in the light of the recent arson attacks on bookshops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that two attacks on London bookshops are at present being investigated. No conclusions can be drawn until the inquiries are complete.

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

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 13 April 1989 at column 1046 and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) on 10 April 1989 at column 321.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures of numbers of cases requiring new consideration in the light of DNA blood tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: As DNA evidence can be produced at any stage of the entry clearance process, it is not readily possible to quantify the number of cases involved. A substantial number of applications and appeals have been resolved on the basis of DNA evidence which established the relevant relationships. A number of cases involving reapplicants who no longer qualify for admission have been deferred pending my right hon. Friend's decision on whether and in what circumstances to exercise his discretion outside the rules.

  Tamil Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Tamils from Sri Lanka who have been given refugee status in the United Kingdom in the last three years.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: Statistics are not kept on the number of refugees who belong to specific ethnic groups. The numbers of Sri Lankans granted asylum in the last three years are as follows:

  Number

  1986

  4

  1987

  6

  1988

  19

  1 provisional.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement explaining the reasons for awarding the contract for the police national computer to Siemens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: The hardware for the replacement police national computer was the subject of an open competition which was won by Siemens plc because its proposal offered best value for money.

  Special Constables
  Mr Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many special constables are employed as security guards.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: Information is not held centrally on the private
  26
  occupations of special constables appointed by chief constables under section 16 of the Police Act 1964. Special constables appointed under other legislation are not a matter for my right hon. Friend, although we are aware of one case where employees of a security firm were provided under contract to the owners of a port and sworn in as special constables by the local justices.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecution Witnesses
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on contacts between prosecution witnesses in the case of Hosni E. Farhat and Ahmed Gaddafi Aidain of Libya; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy towards the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950 in the light of the decision of Mr. Justice Warner to adjourn applications for injunctions brought on behalf of local authorities to restrain various do-it-yourself stores from Sunday trading.

  The Attorney-General
  Enforcement of the Shops Act 1950 is, by virtue of section 71 of that Act, the duty of the local authorities, which have the necessary powers. In my view, the possibility that provisions of any part of any Act may at a future date be held by the European Court of Justice to be incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the treaty of Rome is irrelevant to the question of statutory responsibility for enforcement of such an Act. I accordingly consider that such responsibility in respect of the Shops Act is unaffected by article 177 references that have been made in certain cases, and that accordingly local authorities remain subject to their duty to enforce the Act.

  The decision of Mr. Justice Warner was given in January in a case brought by the King's Lynn, Chester and Worcester local authorities. I understand they were seeking summary judgment on their applications for final injunctions against certain DIY stores. Mr. Justice Warner adjourned the applications on the ground, I understand, that the outcome of the references to the European Court of Justice in other cases would establish whether the defendants had an arguable case or not.

  The learned judge's decision in my view does not conflict with the opinion I have here expressed as to responsibility for enforcement of the Shops Act.

  The proceedings were unusual in that the local authority was seeking to show that the shops had no arguable case and that the authority should therefore have a final injunction immediately. The learned judge, in his discretion, thought this was premature. But, as I understand he was at pains to point out, it remains open to local authorities in England and Wales to seek interlocutory injunctions to restrain Sunday trading: nor does the decision have any bearing on discretionary considerations in the conduct of prosecutions.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide for the latest available 12 month period(a)

  27
  the number of Queen's counsel excluding Treasury counsel, (b) the amount of total public money received by Queen's counsel, (c) the number of cases dealt with by Queen's counsel, (e) the number of cases prosecuted by Queen's counsel, (f) the average fee, brief and refreshers, in prosecution cases, (g) the number of criminal cases defended by Queen's counsel where payment was made from public funds, (h) the average fee for defence counsel, brief and refreshers, in criminal cases where payment was made from public funds, (i) the duration of average criminal case in which Queen's counsel appeared and (j) the average income of Queen's counsel from public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  (holding answer 23 March 1989): There are currently 673 Queen's counsel. In 1987–88, the average brief fee for a trial in the Crown court payable to Queen's counsel representing legally aided defendants was £3,273·20 and the average full day refresher was £271·30. The number of criminal cases defended by Queen's counsel where payment was made from public funds was around 1,440. The other information requested by the hon. Member is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Junior Counsel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney General if he will provide for the latest available 12 month period in respect of the Crown court(a) the total amount of public money received by junior counsel, (b) the number of cases dealt with by junior counsel, (c) the number of cases prosecuted by junior counsel, (d) the average fee, brief and refreshers, in prosecution cases prosecuted by junior counsel, (e) the number of criminal cases defended by junior counsel where payment was made from public funds and (f) the average fee for defence counsel, brief and refreshers, in criminal cases where payment was made from public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  (holding answer 23 March 1989): On 1987–88, the average brief fee for a trial in the Crown court payable to junior counsel representing legally aided defendants was £557·90, and the average full day refresher was £136. The number of cases defended by junior counsel where payment was made from public funds was around 94,030. The other information requested by the hon. Member is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide for the latest available 12-month period, the duration of average criminal case in which junior counsel appeared, in days, the average income of junior counsel from public funds in respect of the magistrates' courts(a) the amount of total public money received by junior counsel, (b) the number of cases dealt with by junior counsel, (c) the number of cases prosecuted by junior counsel, (d) the average fee, brief and refreshers, in prosecution cases prosecuted by junior counsel, (e) the number of criminal cases defended by junior counsel where payment was made from public funds, (f) the average fee for defence counsel, brief and refreshers, in criminal cases where payment was made from public funds, (g) the duration of average criminal case in which junior counsel appeared, in hours, and (h) the average income of junior counsel from public funds; and if he will make a statement.
  28
  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information requested by the hon. Member is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide for the latest available 12-month period (a) the number of solicitors regularly practising in firms offering legal services to the public,(b) the number of solicitors regularly practising in the criminal courts, (c) the number of solicitors' firms on the criminal legal aid panel and (d) the number of solicitors firms on a duty solicitor scheme for police stations; in respect of the Crown courts, what is (i) the amount of total public money received by solicitors retained to defend and (ii) the number of cases in which publicly funded solicitors instructed counsel to defend; in respect of criminal cases in the magistrates' courts, what is (1) the amount of total public money received by solicitors, (2) the number of cases dealt with by solicitors, including those where junior counsel was instructed, (3) the average cost of publicly funded defence cases, and (4) the duration of average criminal cases in hours, in respect of 24 hour duty solicitor schemes, what is (A) the number of visits made to police stations, (B) the duration of the average visit, (C) the total cost and (D) the average cost; and in respect of court based duty solicitor schemes, what is (a1) the number of defendants represented, (a2) the total cost and (a3) the average cost per defendant; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: There are currently 50,494 solicitors in England and Wales with practising certificates. In 1987–88, 405,000 payments were made out of the legal aid fund in respect of criminal cases in the magistrates' courts at an average cost of £281·21 per case. In 1987–88, 170,655 visits were made to police stations under the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme and the total cost of the scheme was £23·2 million, at an average cost per suspect of £85·38. In 1987–88, 99,864 defendants were represented under the magistrates courts duty solicitor scheme and the total cost of the scheme was £4·8 million, at an average cost per defendant of £28·88. The other information requested by the hon. Member is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the issue of the verification of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was last discussed by a meeting of NATO defence ministers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The details of what is discussed at meetings of NATO's Defence Ministers are confidential but NATO's Defence Ministers are briefed regularly on nuclear arms control matters, including nuclear testing.

  RAF (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in the last 10 years security has been tested and evaluated at(a) RAF Finningley and (b)

  29
  840 Signal Unit, Lindholme, for both (i) civilian and (ii) service personnel; and if he will make a statement on the results.

  Mr. Neubert
  Security arrangements at all RAF stations are tested frequently, but for obvious reasons it would not be in the public interest to reveal details of those evaluations or their results.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the last two years the number of(a) movements at and (b) personnel of the armed services who have used RAF Finningley; how many times civilian aircraft were used; and what types of aircraft were so deployed.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since RAF Finningley's task is flying training rather than air transport, aggregated records of military movements are not kept, nor do service personnel normally use the station as an airhead. There were 69 civil aircraft movements at RAF Finningley in 1987 and 25 in 1988, almost entirely by air taxi and light executive aircraft, including air ambulance flights.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and date of deployments of the Skyguard radar system in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Skyguard radar system has not been deployed in a low flying monitoring role in Yorkshire.

  Disarmament
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many nuclear warheads assigned to NATO control have been withdrawn from deployment since April; what types of warhead they were; what has been done with the nuclear material recovered from the warheads; and whether the withdrawals were under multilateral or bilateral agreements or by unilateral decision;

  (2) how many nuclear warheads were deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and in what countries, in April 1959, 1969, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1979, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to reduce by 1,000 the number of NATO nuclear warheads stockpiled in Europe. In 1983, at their meeting in Montebello, the Ministers decided to reduce the stockpile by a further 1,400 warheads. Those two actions together have resulted in bringing the NATO nuclear stockpile in Europe to its lowest level for more than 20 years. The level is being further reduced as warheads are removed in association with the implementation of the INF treaty. All the 2,400 warheads removed were the property of the United States Government; the disposal of the nuclear materials contained in them is therefore a matter for the United States Government. Details of the types and location of NATO's nuclear warheads in Europe are classified, but the number of NATO LRINF and SRINF systems with nuclear-capable variants is set out in figures 18 and 19 of volume 1 of the Statement on Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm 344-I).

  Low Flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify the type of aircraft and operating bases of the military jets which made low-level 30
  flights over East Linton at 4.30 pm on 21 March and at 2.25 pm on 29 March; and if he will make a statement on the speed and height of those flights.

  Mr. Neubert
  United Kingdom and other military aircraft are authorised as a matter of routine to carry out low-level flying training in the area mentioned at heights no lower than 250 ft and at speeds normally not exceeding 450 knots. Aircraft may originate from a number of flying stations in both the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the large uninhabited areas of the world used for low-level flight training referred to in his Department's current advertising campaign for the recruitment of Royal Air Force officers.

  Mr. Neubert
  The RAF flying training at altitudes under 250 ft, which is needed to refine aircrew skills, is mainly undertaken in virtually unpopulated parts of the United States and Canada.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the installation of transponder equipment on military aircraft which will provide warning directly to the pilots of other aircraft flying at low level of the presence of conflicting air traffic.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: The Ministry of Defence has placed a small contract for a study into the feasibility of giving military aircraft collision warning facilities in order to give early warning of conflicting military traffic, in particular, by utilising existing transponder equipment.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to inform the general public of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the Falkland Islands garrison and its upkeep since 1981; what future reviews are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Government policy on the defence of the Falkland Islands has been set out in successive statements on the Defence Estimates. The maintenance of a garrison continues to be necessary in support of the Falkland islanders' right to live in peace and security under a Government of their choosing. The adequacy of that garrison to fulfil its task is kept under constant review.

  Tucano Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tucano aircraft, to the full specification, have so far been delivered to the Royal Air Force for training use; and how many were due to be delivered by this time under the terms of the original contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Fourteen aircraft have been delivered to the RAF; 59 aircraft should have been delivered by now, under the terms of the contract signed on 30 April 1985.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles and at what value were
  31
  purchased by (a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1987–88, the most recent year for which full information is currently available, some 8,200 logistic vehicles, ranging from small vans and cars to heavy trucks, were purchased by the Ministry of Defence at a total cost of £180 million. Apart from 258 bought at a cost of £1·5 million, all of these vehicles were UK-produced in accordance with the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as UK-produced if the UK content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value. No vehicles were purchased by the Ministry of Defence for other public sector agencies.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those provisions of employment law which do not apply to members of the forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The terms of service of members of the armed forces are governed by service law and regulations. The extent to which the provisions of civil employment legislation apply to the Crown in general and to the armed forces in particular is set out where appropriate in the legislation itself. Many of the most significant of such provisions are contained in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; I refer the right hon. Gentleman especially to sections 121 and 138 respectively, which state that those Acts do not apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cricket
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet Mr. Ted Dexter; and if he will make a statement on the future of British cricket.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no present plans to do so. If Mr. Dexter would like a meeting, I would be happy to see him. I wish everyone involved with English cricket a very successful season.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information his Department has on the level of registration and non-registration for the poll tax in(a) England and (b) Nottingham;

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on registration for the poll tax in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. As far as the community charge is concerned, the hon. Member really cannot seriously expect any information on levels of registration before registration officers have even started to compile their registers. Registration officers have until the end of November 1989 to complete their initial registers.
  32
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates his Department has made of the costs of collecting the poll tax compared with collecting the rates in(a) Nottingham and (b) England as a whole.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  We estimate that the cost of collecting community charges in England and Wales would be approximately twice the cost of collecting rates, since there will be twice as many chargepayers as there are now ratepayers. The two tax alternatives proposed by Labour would, of course, cost significantly more than either rates or the community charge to collect.

  We have made no estimate of the collection costs for any individual charging authority.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a ward sister would pay(a) in poll tax and (b) in rates if she lived in (i) a typical one-bedroom flat and (ii) a typical two-bedroomed house in Nottingham.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Based on 1988–89 figures, a ward sister living in a flat or house of average rateable value in Nottingham would pay a rates bill of around £430. This compares with the illustrative community charge figure of £251 (with no safety net) or £231 (with the safety net).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities on current estimates which will levy(a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of poll tax; giving the political control in each authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Illustrative community charges for 1988–89 were published on 23 June 1988 and placed in the Library.

  Based on these figures, the 10 highest ranking areas are Camden, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, City of London and Hammersmith and Fulham. All are Labour-controlled London boroughs, with the exception of the City, which is independent. The community charge in all ten reflects spending by the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority.

  The 10 lowest ranking areas are Isles of Scilly (independent), Runnymede (Conservative), Purbeck (no overall control), Rochester upon Medway (Conservative), Redbridge (Conservative), North Dorset (independent), West Dorset (independent), Hereford (Liberal), Poole (Conservative) and South Herefordshire (independent).

  The county councils providing services in these areas—Kent (Rochester and Medway), Dorset (Purbeck, North and West Dorset), Surrey (Runneymede), Herefordshire (Hereford, South Herefordshire)—are all under Conservative control.

  No Labour-controlled authority figures in any way among the low spenders whereas, with one exception, all the high spenders are Labour-controlled.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list numbers and sources of representations on the poll tax which he has received from individuals and organisations in Nottingham.
  33
  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Correspondence on the community charge is not recorded within my Department according to the local government area from which it is received.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for publicity on registration for the community charge in the period before 22 May, including(a) the timing, coverage and cost of any newspaper advertisements, (b) the timing and cost of any hoarding advertisements, (c) proposed methods of distribution, timing and cost of any leaflets, (d) the use of broadcast media and the timing and cost, and (e) the timing and cost of any promotional tours, breakfast, meetings, and exhibitions involving Ministers in his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  When details of the complete package are finalised, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission research to establish the proportion of the increase or decrease of those registering to vote(a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales as a result of the poll tax and its registration powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to do so. The register of electors and the community charges register are different registers, separately compiled, and we do not think that research of the kind suggested would be profitable even if it were feasible.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the speed with which correspondence between Department of Environment offices in Bristol concerning footpaths and the Secretary of the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society has been dealt; and whether he has any plans to increase the number of officials dealing with footpaths and public rights of way.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Every effort is made to deal with all correspondence as quickly as possible, the resources necessary to deal with work on public rights of way are kept under review. There has been a substantial reduction in the time taken to decide opposed rights of way orders even though workload is increasing.

  Countryside Task Force
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Countryside Commission position statement "Working for the Countryside" and, in particular, on its ideas for a countryside task force.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Countryside Commission issued its position statement "Working for the Countryside" on 31 March to mark the conclusion of the community programme. The statement recognises the value of the contribution made to environmental work by the CP and puts forward suggestions for bridging the gap between CP and the smaller environmental and countryside work component of the employment training programme. I welcome the Commission's efforts with the 34
  Training Agency to encourage as many countryside bodies as possible to use the new scheme as effectively as some have already done. The commission's thinking on its longer-term concept of a national countryside task force is as yet only at a preliminary stage. I have asked the commission to work up the details so we can take a considered view of it.

  Cryptosporidia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities and research centres undertaking research into the incidence of cryptosporidia in water, with an indication of the resources available to them in terms of(a) staff, (b) government financial support, (c) other public sector finance and (d) other sources of financing.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally. However, the expert group on cryptosporidium in water supplies which was announced in my reply of 2 March, column 286, will be examining the occurrence and extent of cryptosporidia in water supplies and the need for further research.

  Sewage Works (North Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any proposals to relax quality controls for sewage works at Ashover, Clay Cross and Kelstedge in the North Derbyshire district of the Seven-Trent water authority.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received an application for a time limited consent variation in respect of the Clay Cross sewage treatment works. No such applications have been received in respect of the sewage treatment works at either Ashover or Kelstedge.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) water authorities, (c) local authorities and (d) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Crown Suppliers (a trading fund account of the Property Services Agency), operate a self-drive vehicle contract hire service, providing vehicles to a number of Government Departments and public sector organisations.

  During 1988, the Crown Suppliers purchased 1,007 vehicles at a total cost of £7,538,640.

  Five hundred and fifty seven vehicles were United Kingdom-produced, on the definition employed by the DTI for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value. The remainder (with the exception of one vehicle) were manufactured within the EEC.

  Details of vehicle purchased by water authorities, local authorities and other public sector agencies are not the responsibility of my Department.

  House of Commons (Terrace Pavilion)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify all the costs associated with the erection of the Terrace Pavilion of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The costs of the Terrace awning which are being carried on my Department's Vote are approximately £35,000. The balance of the total cost of about £150,000 is being paid by the House of Commons Refreshment Department.

  Water Bill (Leaflets)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost to his Department of printing the Water Bill series of leaflets, launched on 10 April.

  Mr. Howard
  Two leaflets have been produced so far, at a total cost of just under £3,000.

  Water Authorities (Advertising)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the amount spent on advertising and publicity by each water authority since 1 January.

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter for the authorities.

  Flood Alerts (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for flood alerts in those London boroughs opting not to be part of the tidal flood warning system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the London boroughs, which have the necessary powers under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, to determine whether the risk of flooding justifies maintaining the siren warning system or taking other action.

  London Residuary Body (Assets)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards exist to ensure that London ratepayers receive the best possible price for public assets disposed of by the London residuary body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyy
  Paragraph 7 (2) of schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 subjects the London residuary body to section 123 (2) of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires the LRB to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to any disposal of land not required for carrying out its functions for less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable. Section 79 of the 1985 Act provides that the LRB is audited in accordance with the provisions of part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which properties have been the subject of discussion between his Department and the London residuary body prior to their disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The disposal of a wide range of the LRB's property portfolio has been the subject of discussion as the need has arisen.
  36
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that records are made publicly available in respect of the price paid and the names of the new owners of former publicly-owned assets sold by the London residuary body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Waste Management (Greater London)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report commissioned from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on arrangements for waste management in Greater London and the former metropolitan county areas is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The report is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report has concluded that the local authorities in the relevant areas are working together effectively under statutory and voluntary arrangements to achieve generally acceptable operating standards, although some areas of possible improvement have been identified.

  I have decided, therefore, that no new arrangements are required under section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 1985, but I have instructed Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to pursue its recommendations for improvements in performance directly with the local authorities concerned.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many anti-competitive practices have been referred to him under the Local Government Act 1988; how many involve the refusal of the use of an authority's depot; and how many times he has exercised his powers under the Act.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: The Department has received approximately 80 complaints about a wide range of alleged anti-competitive practices adopted by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988. About half of these complaints concern the alleged refusal by authorities to make their depots available to contractors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet exercised his sanction powers under part I of the 1988 Act, but a number of authorities have decided to modify their practice after approaches by the Department and other cases are not yet closed. Under similar new powers in section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, however, he has served a notice on one authority for alleged anti-competitive behaviour in the award of building and maintenance work.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge concerning the London Green Belt Estate on 8 March,Official Report, column 524, (a) whether he has to give his consent to the disposal of any title and (b) if he will indicate what is his policy towards the use of his reserve powers under the Green Belt (London and Home

  37
  Counties) Act 1938 about which he gave assurance at the time of the abolition of the former Greater London Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: A High Court judgment of March 1988 established that section 5 of the 1938 Act continues to require local authorities to obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend for the disposal of land held under that Act notwithstanding that other legislation also applies to the sale. In determining applications under the 1938 Act, my right hon. Friend's primary concern, in line with the assurances given in 1984 and 1985, is to ensure that the land concerned continues to fulfil the objectives both of the 1938 Act and of green belt policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 2.

  Stocken Hall, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will list the steps taken by the Property Services Agency to carry out the instructions of his predecessor, following the public inquiry on 7 October 1980, to find a purchaser to renovate Stocken hall, Rutland, as described in a ministerial letter by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) why his Department, when instructing Messrs. Cluttons to offer Stocken hall for sale, permitted the published offer for sale document to state that the sale would be on the basis that the building should be renovated; at what stage his Department established that such a condition was unenforceable; why the sale was permitted to proceed on such a basis; and what steps were taken by his Department to seek a voluntary contractual agreement with the purchasers which would implement the decision in favour of renovation already taken by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: I will write to my hon. Friend about this case.

  Air Pollution
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve stricter regulations on the removal of substances other than lead from exhaust emissions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Strict regulation of emissions of the exhaust gases and particulates from motor vehicles was agreed by European Community Environment Ministers in December 1987. The new limit values, which are contained in a European Community Directive, will be implemented in full in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport expects to consult interested parties shortly on regulations bringing this into effect. A common position was taken by the Community on a further stage of stricter limits for small car gaseous emissions in November 1988. This has been considered by the European Parliament, who have proposed amendments. It is now for the Commission to re-examine the common position taking into account the Parliament's proposals.

  Football Grounds (Arrests)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the total 38
  number of arrests in the current season at the ground of each club in divisions one, two, three and four of the Football League; and what were the comparable figures at the same point in 1987–88.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most up-to-date figures collected centrally by the Association of Chief Police Officers are up to 31 October 1988. At the end of each football season the AC'PO carefully reviews the returns from 43 individual forces relating to the number of arrests made at the 92 Football League clubs. Since the provisional totals have not yet been given a full end of season check, it would he inappropriate to publish a club-by-club breakdown. The available divisional totals are as follows:

  Division

  1987–88 season to 31 October 1987

  1988–89 season to 31 October 1988

  1

  937

  672

  2

  764

  540

  3

  266

  287

  4

  330

  248

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive a report and recommendations from the Parliamentary Ombudsman on Barlow Clowes.

  Mr. Maude
  The handling of an investigation undertaken by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the timing of any report which he may make, are matters for the Commissioner.

  Inner-city Regeneration
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support his Department is giving to encourage the Church and Church agencies to become more involved in inner-city regeneration.

  Mr. Newton
  We have contributed £148.000 to Evangelical Enterprise and £6,000 to Church Action with the Unemployed towards their work for the urban priority areas, and £215,000 to the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility for a linking-up project at Manchester designed to develop church-based projects in inner-city areas. Church-sponsored projects in 10 task force areas have already been helped by task force funding.

  We have also established a churches liaison group, which will advise and assist those both of Christian denominations and of other faiths who wish to develop co-ordinated schemes for action in the inner cities.

  Cricket Bats
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what investigations his Department has made of the impact of watermark disease on the export potential of the cricket bat manufacturing industry in the east midlands;

  (2) what trends his Department anticipates in exports of British cricket bats.
  39
  Mr. Atkins
  The issue of watermark disease has been raised with me on several occasions. I am advised that the virus is not currently a major threat to stocks of English willow, and I do not expect it adversely to affect the export of British cricket bats. As the hon. Member would expect, however, I am continuing to monitor developments closely.

  Monopolies (References)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government's policy on references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is stated in a DTI Blue Paper entitled "Mergers Policy", published in March 1988. The main consideration in considering whether to refer a merger to the MMC is the potential effect on competition in the United Kingdom.

  Newspapers (Proprietorial Interference)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Newspaper Publishers Association on proprietorial interference in the publishing of newspapers.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Oil Prices
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about allegations of price fixing and collusion between the larger oil companies.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the oil pricing policies of the major oil companies, the ownership and operation of petrol stations and their pricing policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about petrol prices. The wholesale supply of petrol is being investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is due to report by 8 November this year.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to publish its report on the motor fuel business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: The Commission is due to submit its report to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State by 8 November. It will be published as soon as possible after it has been submitted to and considered by my right hon. and noble Friend.

  Trade Statistics (1992)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any changes are planned in the collection of trade statistics after 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  A proposal for an EC Council regulation, which sets out a revised methodology for the collection of 40
  trade statistics between member states of the European Community after 1992 to replace the current procedure based on customs' documentation, has been prepared by the EC Commission and will be considered by EC Ministers over the coming months.

  Trade statistics will continue to be collected both for intra-EC trade and for trade with third countries, but the level of detail for commodity classification will be the subject of related legislation and will be discussed by a working party of officials from member states later this year. The Government are seeking to ensure that the collection of these statistics does not impose unnecessary burdens on business involved in trade between member states.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Mullins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many former employees of North East Shipbuilders Limited have found jobs under the British Shipbuilders job creation scheme; and how many of those jobs have lasted for more than one month.

  Mr. Newton
  As at 7 April 1989, 895 out of a total 1,637 former employees had found new jobs and a further 83 had been placed on retraining courses arranged by Sunderland Enterprise and Training Limited. There is no systematic information about how long jobs so far found have lasted, but only 40 clients of Sunderland Enterprise and Training Limited who had found work have so far returned for further assistance.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure the continuation of the current system of national quotas for the multi-fibre arrangement after the introduction of the single European market in 1992;

  (2) what estimate has been made by his Department of the impact which would result upon the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries from the possible introduction of a community quota system for the multi-fibre arrangement after the introduction of the single European market in 1992;

  (3) what representations he has received and what discussions he is holding with the United Kingdom textile industry with regard to the consequences of the introduction of a community-wide quota system for the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not easy to estimate the impact of the possible phasing out of member states' shares of Community quotas under the multi-fibre arrangement, although I have received a number of representations expressing concern. The report which we have commissioned from Professor Silberston on the multi-fibre arrangement and the United Kingdom economy will address this issue.

  The arrangements which will apply after 1992 are not at present determined. The European Commission has taken a general view that individual member states quotas or shares of European Community-wide quotas cannot continue after the introduction of the single European market. How far this will extend to the treatment of textiles and clothing has yet to be settled. The existing Community bilateral agreements with major multi-fibre

  41
  arrangement textile suppliers already allow for some automatic and increasing transfer between member states of each member state's share of the Community quotas. These arrangements work well. However, the present extension of the multi-fibre arrangement expires in 1991.

  The future of the multi-fibre arrangement—and other textiles restrictions—is a matter for negotiation within the current Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations in GATT, which is due to conclude in September 1990. It is still too early to say what the outcome of these negotiations will be.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement outlining the progress which has been made so far in the current Uruguay round of general agreement on tariffs and trade multilateral trade negotiations with regard to the textile and clothing industries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The negotiating group on textiles and clothing has yet to enter detailed and substantive negotiations on the "modalities" for the return of the sector to GATT rules. At the mid-term review, which concluded with the meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee at the beginning of this month, it was reaffirmed that the process of reintegration of the textiles and clothing sector should be on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines and that the modalities should among other things cover the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement and other restrictions inconsistent with GATT, together with the timing and progressive character of the process of integration. The TNC text preserves existing rights and obligations under the present MFA and calls upon all participants to try to improve the trade situation. Lengthy substantive negotiations can now be expected with a view to reaching an agreement within the time frame of the round.

  Off-course Racing Information
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Office of Fair Trading is now considering the monopoly position of the bookmaking interests in the transmission of racing information to the off-course market, in the light of the further allocation of equity in Satellite Information Services shortly to be allocated.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is continuing to monitor developments in the off-course bookmaking market under the competition legislation for which he is responsible.

  Guinness plc.
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how long the inspectors have now been investigating the affairs of Guinness plc; what has been the cost of the investigation to date; when he expects the inspectors to report; and whether the publication of the report will be deferred until all criminal proceedings arising from the Guinness affair have been disposed of.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: The inspectors have completed their inquiries, which have cost £1,657,410. Their report will not be published until the criminal proceedings are concluded.

  James Ferguson Holdings plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how long the inspectors have now been investigating the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc; what has been the cost of the investigation to date; when he expects the inspectors to report; and whether the publication of the report will be deferred until all criminal proceedings arising from the Barlow Clowes affair have been disposed of.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Mr. Lawrence David Ziman, solicitor, and Mr. Walter Max Hoffman FCA were appointed on 10 June 1988 under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc. On 4 July 1988, the same inspectors were appointed under section 442 of the Act to investigate and report on the membership of that company and under section 432 to investigate and report on the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited.

  The investigations have cost £669,244 to date. I am unable to say when the inspectors will submit their report. The question of publication will be considered when the report is received.

  COCOM
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the enforcement of COCOM rules to take account of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Her Majesty's Government expect to see a considerable reduction in export controls well in advance of 1992, which should encourage the freer movement of goods within the European Community. We are examining the most effective means of streamlining our export controls procedures to achieve this, consistent with the need to continue to safeguard the national interest. This will not directly affect the work of the Co-ordinating Committee (COCOM) which is concerned with strategic export controls on trade with the eastern bloc and the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on(a) the progress on discussions to reduce the COCOM, and its period of rotating review and (b) the procedures for enforcement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Her Majesty's Government recognise the vital need to shorten the COCOM control lists to ensure that controls are effective and the support of industry is retained. We are vigorously seeking ways, together with our COCOM partners, to streamline the lists both through the continuous list review procedure, which examines one quarter of the lists each year, and through one-off exercises. Some progress has been achieved, and in 1988, 17 items were partially or wholly removed from the lists and 57 items reduced to lower levels of control. It is difficult in practice to achieve a rapid reduction in the lists, given the requirement for unanimity within COCOM and the need for a strategic re-assessment of any items it is proposed to remove.

  We are discussing with our COCOM partners ways of achieving more rapid progress.

  Eastbourne Waterworks Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the price increases imposed by the Eastbourne Waterworks Company following the takeover of the company by the French company SAUR S.A., in the light of the information provided to him by the hon. Member for Eastbourne in his letter dated 6 April.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: There are no plans to make a reference.

  Nissan
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the export of vehicles manufactured by Nissan UK to the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1989]: My right hon. and noble Friend wrote to Dr. Bangemann, the European Commissioner responsible for industry and the internal market, on 6 March asking him formally to clarify with the French Government that cars produced at Sunderland by Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd. are allowed to enter France quite independently of the level of car imports into France from Japan. Dr. Bangemann has just replied saying that the Commission has now received a formal assurance from the French Government that this will be the case.

  On this basis, Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd. expects that its business with France will continue unimpeded. We welcome this resolution of the position and look forward to discussions with France and other member states on future policy in the European Community on the range of vehicles issues that will have to be considered in the context of completion of the single market.

  Manufacturing Industry (Halifax)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many manufacturing jobs in Halifax have been lost during 1989.

  Mr. John Lee
  The information requested is not available. My Department's small area statistics monitor net only changes in employment between census of employment dates and the latest available figures are for September 1984. More up-to-date employee estimates for local areas, from the September 1987 census of employment, will become available later this year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Week
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has made to the Trades Union Congress national health and safety week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Everyone concerned with work—employees and trades unions as well as employers—has a role to play in ensuring high standards of health and safety. Union-appointed safety representatives have an important contribution to make. I welcome the efforts of the TUC to encourage safety representatives to be more active in carrying out their statutory functions.

  Palace of Westminster (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to bring the Palace of Westminister within the Factory and Health and Safety Acts.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No, I have no such proposals. The authorities of the Palace seek to ensure that the provisions of the Acts are met wherever possible. The Health and Safety Executive has arranged with the Palace authorities for visits to be made to give advice on health and safety matters. Visits may be made on the initiative of either the HSE or the Palace authorities.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the defintion of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Cope
  The following table gives the information requested for the calendar year 1988:

  Number

  Cost £

  Employment Department

  19

  139,795

  Employment Service

  70

  473,912

  Training Agency

  20

  136,831

  Health and Safety Executive

  14

  106,486

  Total

  123

  857,024

  Of these, 25 vehicles were definitely United Kingdom-produced, on the definition, employed by the DTI for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value. A further 95 vehicles comprised models of multinational companies which are manufactured both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. It would be possible to determine how many were United Kingdom-produced only by individual inspection of each vehicle.

  The selection and purchase of vehicles in the Department is normally restricted to European Community made or assembled vehicles.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the number of job clubs, since the start of the intitiative to the most recent date, by year, for the north-west region and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of job clubs for north-west region and the rest of Great Britain from the start of the programme in November 1984 to the latest available date is shown in the table.

  Date

  North West

  Great Britain

  November 1984

  —

  2

  April 1985

  —

  4

  April 1986

  4

  29

  45

  Date

  North West

  Great Britain

  April 1987

  157

  991

  April 1988

  200

  1,204

  February 1989

  207

  1,220

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on what premise closure of 220 employment service job clubs is based;

  (2) when he made the decision to close 220 employment service job clubs.

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

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the advertising and publicity expenditure for the Training Agency for each financial year from 1979 to the present date.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is given in the table:

  Spending on advertising and publicity by the Manpower Services Commission

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1979–80

  n.a.

  1980–81

  5·5

  1981–82

  4·7

  1982–83

  6·3

  1983–84

  4·9

  1984–85

  6·1

  1985–86

  17·0

  1986–87

  34·9

  1987–88

  35·9

  Information on budgets for 1988–89 and 1989–90 for spending on general publicity, to include the Training Agency, will he found in table 7.29 on page 25 of the Public Expenditure White Paper, cm. 607, published January 1989. Details of final expenditure for 1988–89 are not yet available. Detailed decisions on expenditure by media group for 1989–90 as requested have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the advertising and publicity expenditure for his Department for each financial year from 1979 to the present date.

  Mr. Cope
  The amount spent by the Department of Employment on advertising and publicity in each financial year is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1979–80

  0·7

  1980–81

  0·3

  1981–82

  0·4

  1982–83

  0·5

  1983–84

  0·5

  1984–85

  0·3

  1985–86

  1·2

  1986–87

  16·4

  1987–88

  10·5

  1988–89

  118·3

  1 This includes expenditure for the Employment Service. Training Agency expenditure is not included.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the report of Deloitte Haskins into the efficiency of skill centres.

  Mr. Cope
  Deloittee, Haskins and Sells reported on the feasibility of moving the Skills Training Agency into the private sector. The report will not be published.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of which skill centres are under-used.

  Mr. Cope
  Details of the utilisation of individual skill centres are commercially confidential in the context of the private tender sale process.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of what the core business of each skill centre will be following privatisation.

  Mr. Cope
  We hope that skill centres will become viable businesses that provide good training for both unemployed and employed people.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legally binding guarantees he will obtain in order to secure for the public sector benefit of any windfall gains on sale of assets following skill centre privatisation.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 13 March that he would make provision for the Government to share in any development gains in the years immediately after sale. We shall be receiving professional advise as to the form such provision should take.

  Earnings
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the average weekly earnings of full-time 16-year-old 17-year-old and 18-year-old employees, for each year since 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is provided in the table.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees whose earnings were not affected by absence—Great Britain

  April

  Aged 16 £

  Aged 17 £

  Aged 18 £

  1979

  34·7

  40·8

  49·8

  1980

  41·9

  49·6

  60·7

  1981

  47·5

  55·4

  66·9

  1982

  50·1

  59·5

  71·8

  1983

  52·6

  61·4

  76·4

  1984

  55·0

  63·7

  78·8

  1985

  60·2

  70·0

  83·3

  1986

  66·8

  74·5

  91·5

  1987

  73·4

  81·1

  96·0

  1988

  79·7

  92·5

  107·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  YTS
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the levels of the 1985 YTS allowance
  47
  for first and second-year trainees would have been had it risen annually in line with (a) the retail prices index, (b) average earnings and (c) the average yearly rate of inflation.

  Mr. Cope
  The two-year YTS was introduced in April 1986, at which date the YTS allowances were set at £27·30 per week for first year trainees and £35 per week for second year trainees. If the allowances had been increased in line with changes in the retail price index they would have been £31·25 and £40·07 respectively in February 1989. If adjusted in line with increases in the average earnings index, the allowances would have been £33·57 and £43.04 respectively in January 1989. Adjusting the allowance for the rate of inflation is equivalent to the adjustment made for changes in the retail price index. Many trainees receive more than the minimum level of the trainee allowance.

HEALTH

  Eye and Dental Examinations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring of charges for eye and dental examinations his Department is undertaking; and what are the initial results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Mellor
  There is no charge for NHS sight tests. We shall be monitoring the position in respect of private tests in the autumn. Concerning the dental examination, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 March to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) at column 421.

  Inspectors of Anatomy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of Her Majesty's inspectors of anatomy are in post; how many vacant posts there are; what is the position in Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement on the qualifications for this post.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's inspector of anatomy is appointed for the inspection and licencing of premises for anatomical examination in England, Scotland and Wales.

  The appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the chief medical officers for the aforementioned countries.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds have been specifically earmarked for the care of the mentally ill following the closure of mental hospitals in(a) the current and (b) each of the last two years in each health region;

  (2) on what information about mental health his Department has allocated funds to regional health authorities in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  For the most part, allocations to regional health authorities do not make separate provision for individual clinical services or client groups. It is for authorities to determine how the resources available to them should be spent in line with national policy guidelines and their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  A total of £6 million has, however, been made available over the last three years specifically for mental illness development projects in the community. The aim of this
  48
  initiative has been to establish or improve multidisciplinary community-based services for people with mental illness, especially adults suffering from serious disorders. Regional shares of these funds are shown in the table.

  Additionally, joint finance is available to support the development of community services planned jointly by health and local authorities and the voluntary sector and to promote the shift from hospital to community care. The total joint finance allocation to regions in each of the last three years has been:

  Year

  £ million cash

  1987–88

  110·9

  1988–89

  112·9

  1989–90

  118·5

  Some two thirds of these allocations have been or will be spent on services for mentally handicapped, mentally ill and younger physically disabled people.

  Mental Illness Development Projects: Allocations

  RHA

  1986–87 (£000s cash)

  1987–88 (£000s cash)

  1988–89 (£000s cash)

  1989–90 (£000s cash)

  Northern

  —

  139

  144

  151

  Yorkshire

  —

  106

  161

  169

  Trent

  10

  114

  137

  144

  East Anglian

  15

  149

  149

  1—

  North East Thames

  —

  128

  143

  164

  North West Thames

  35

  139

  145

  112

  South East Thames

  —

  113

  115

  120

  South West Thames

  —

  145

  161

  126

  Wessex

  —

  166

  202

  53

  Oxford

  18

  149

  134

  112

  South Western

  —

  73

  161

  202

  West Midlands

  25

  142

  196

  175

  Mersey

  33

  99

  142

  152

  North Western

  —

  141

  137

  144

  Bethlem and Maudsley SHA

  —

  141

  74

  78

  Totals

  2136

  1,944

  32,221

  1,902

  Notes:

  1 East Anglian's 1989–90 allocation is still the subject of discussion between the Region and the Department.

  2 Includes £40k issued as capital.

  3 includes £284k issued as capital.

  Mental Handicap and Illness
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his best estimate of the numbers of people with(a) mental handicaps and (b) mental illness who are aged 65 years and over; and what advice on services and other provisions for these groups his Department gives to health and local authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no basis upon which to estimate the prevalence of mental illness or mental handicap, neither of which is a well defined term, among the estimated 7·4 million people aged 65 years or more. I can say that at 31 December 1986, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, the number of people aged 65 years or more in NHS hospitals and units in England was as follows:

  Number

  (a) Mental Handicap hospitals, units and community units

  5,552

  (b) Mental illness hospitals and units

  34,341

  49
  In recent years we have issued the following relevant guidance, copies of which are in the Library.

  DHSS Study Team Report "Helping Mentally Handicapped People with Special Problems".

  Health Advisory Service Report "The Rising Tide".

  Government Response to the Second Report from the Social Services Committee Cmnd. No. 9674.

  Hospices
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete his review into the funding of hospices.

  Mr. Mellor
  I expect to complete the review shortly.

  Trainee Nurses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainees have entered nursing for a state registered nurse or registered general nurse course in England and Wales for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  Numbers entering registered general nurse training England: years ending 31 March

  Number

  1986

  14,220

  1987

  14,014

  1988

  13,581

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the pilot areas chosen for Project 2000.

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions are currently taking place with the 13 selected demonstration districts on the manpower and financial aspects of their proposals. Following these discussions financial allocations will be made.

  Health Authorities (Surplus Land and Buildings)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the proceeds of surplus land and buildings disposed of by health authorities since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 19 December 1988 at columns 131–34. Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available.

  Hospitals (Cleaning Contracts)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the occasions since the award of private cleaning contracts at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the Thanet district hospital and the royal seabathing hospital upon which payments for specific cleaning areas have been suspended.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of Canterbury and Thanet health authority to obtain the information requested.

  Cot Deaths
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the major causes of sudden infant death syndrome.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the report of what I said during the Adjournment debate of 20 March at columns 885–90.

  Mr. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects into cot deaths funded by his Department and their cost since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  A full list of research directly funded by the Department of Health since 1979 which may be relevant to cot deaths is not readily available. The Department did however fund a major study specifically into cot deaths, co-ordinated by Professor Knowelden of the medical care research unit at Sheffield university, for the period 1976 to 1985. The total cost, including sponsorship of a seminar to facilitate dissemination of the findings, was around £285,000.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. For current MRC reseairch relevant to cot deaths I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Mellon (Mr. Latham) on 20 February at columns 524–25.

  Mr. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have died in each year since 1979 from sudden infant death syndrome.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table, which gives the number of deaths registered at age under one year with any mention of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cot death or similar term irrespective of whether or not it was assigned as underlying cause of death.

  Number of deaths registered under one year of age with any mention of sudden infant death on the death certificate, England and Wales 1979–801

  Year

  Number

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1979

  637

  442

  1,079

  1980

  740

  482

  1,222

  1981

  755

  510

  1,265

  1982

  822

  510

  1,332

  1983

  827

  488

  1,315

  1984

  716

  526

  1,242

  1985

  787

  514

  1,301

  1986

  945

  559

  1,504

  1987

  918

  610

  1,528

  11988

  905

  538

  1,443

  1 Provisional, January—November.

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 14 March,Official Report, column 162, in what foods the thermo-tolerance of listeria has been studied.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The foods used as a base for the research referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on 14
  51
  March at column 162 were cooked beef, chicken and carrots, chosen to provide an across the board sample of texture and density of food commonly used in cook-chill catering systems.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 14 March,Official Report, column 162, what conclusions were reached during tests as to the length of time specific temperatures must be maintained during the heating and reheating of cook-chill food in order to destroy listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The authors of the research concluded that a temperature of 70°C for two minutes at the slowest heating point of the food was required for the effective decontamination of listeria monocytogenes.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Freeman
  Only 5 per cent. of the vehicles purchased in 1988 for the then Department of Health and Social Security were for the use of Department of Health staff and some 60 per cent. of all DHSS vehicles purchased in that year were United Kingdom produced on the definition employed by the DTI for statistical purposes under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works price.

  Information in the form requested in respect of the purchase of NHS vehicles is not available centrally. This is a matter for each regional and district health authority. The total value of vehicles purchased in the NHS in 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, was £22·371 million.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of social workers employed by local authorities, on(a) unpaid leave of absence and (b) paid leave of absence, to undertake activities as councillors in neighbouring local authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of children in care because of family homelessness.

  Mr. Mellor
  A child may be taken into care for a number of reasons of which homelessness may be a contributory factor, although not identified as a specific cause in the statistics.

  Provisional figures show that there were 420 children in care in England at 31 March 1987 where the specific cause was that their family was homeless.

  District Health Authorities (General Managers)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the pay gradings of each district health authority general manager in the Yorkshire region.

  Mr. Mellor
  The gradings of district general manager posts in the Yorkshire region, and the salary grade rates from 1 September 1988, are set out in the table. In addition, district general managers are eligible for a discretionary addition of up to 10 per cent. of the grade rate (to reflect differences in job weight) and performance related pay. Details of the performance-related pay awarded to individual general managers are confidential between them and their employer.

  Grade

  Grade rate at 1 September 1988 (£)

  Districts

  1

  37,110

  Leeds Western

  Leeds Eastern

  Bradford

  2

  35,450

  Hull

  York

  East Yorkshire

  Huddersfield

  Wakefield

  Calderdale

  3

  33,790

  Scunthorpe

  Dewsbury

  Grimsby

  Harrogate

  Airedale

  Pontefract

  Northallerton

  Medical Secretaries
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will consider recognising the diploma of medical secretaries as a basis for proficiency awards;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce a separate salary scale for medical secretaries;

  (3) what are the current pay scales for each area health authority for medical secretaries.

  Mr. Mellor
  Pay and conditions of service for medical secretaries in the NHS are matters for negotiation in the administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council. Medical secretaries are employed in various grades with basic annual pay scales for adults ranging from £5,059 to £9,440. London weighting of up to £1,267 is payable in addition. The grading of posts, according to their particular responsibilities, is a matter for individual employing authorities. Additional allowances of up to £667 may be payable for tested proficiency in typing, shorthand and audio skills. The qualifications recognised for automatic entitlement to proficiency allowances which do not include the diploma of the Association of Medical Secretaries, Practice Administrators and Receptionists are also determined by the Whitley council. Negotiations are continuing in the council on proposals for changes in the pay and grading structures of all administrative and clerical staff.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each health authority paid in the latest year for which figures are available in agencies fees for personnel to cover medical secretary duties.
  53
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will summarise, and place in the Library, the reactions he has received from general practitioner, consultant and nurses organisations to the proposed reform of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have already received a wide range of comments from many people but I expect many more. I will take them fully into account as the process of implementation goes forward. All the organisations have taken steps to publicise their reactions and I see little useful purpose in my summarising their views on which I am sure the Library is well placed to brief the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to treat general practitioners who volunteer for budgets as running a demonstration project and ensure that the proposed reforms are only a framework, not immutable.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are currently considering the detailed operation of the practice budget scheme so that the first practices can have their budgets from April 1991 onwards. We will of course then keep the system under review and make any improvements which are necessary in the light of experience.

  Hospitals (Opting Out)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reactions he has received from the first six hospitals which were expected to opt out of health authority control.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have never had expectations about which hospitals, from the many potential candidates, will be among the first applicants for self-governing status. Some recent reports to the contrary were based on the mistaken belief that the first six hospitals involved in the development of the resource management initiative were automatically expected to choose self-government. The chief executive of the National Health Service management board has asked regional health authorities to forward expressions of interest in self-government to the Department by 31 May.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on payments made to each member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 28 November 1988 at columns 149–50.

  Mowbray Grange Hospital, Bedale
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce a decision about the future of Mowbray Grange hospital, Bedale.

  Mr. Freeman
  Proposals such as this need careful consideration. I do however expect to be able to announce a decision shortly.

  Doctors (Investigations)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests he received from family 54
  practitioner committees to approve out-of-time investigations into allegations involving one or more doctors in 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  Forty four.

  Young People (Care)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to local authority social services departments concerning support for 17-year-old young people leaving care.

  Mr. Mellor
  The powers and duties of local authorities for children leaving care are set out in sections 27 to 29 of the Child Care Act 1980.

  For the past six years the Department has given a grant to the voluntary organisation First Key to enable to promote effective planning by local authorities for young people leaving care and to develop good practice, through consultancy work with individual local authorities and through conferences and publications.

  Proposals to extend and enhance the powers and duties of local authorities for children leaving care are contained in clause 20 of the Children Bill now before the House. If agreed, it is intended that a detailed circular of guidance will be issued to local authorities on implementation of the provisions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates the take-up of rebates on the community charge will be.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates the take-up of rebates on the community charge will be.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates will be the take-up of rebates on the community charge.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates will be the take-up of rebates on the community charge.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates will be the take-up of rebates on the community charge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect just over 11 million people to receive community charge benefits when the scheme is fully in place throughout Great Britain.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had recently with local authorities on housing benefit.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had recently with local authorities on housing benefit.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had recently with local authorities on housing benefits.
  55
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had recently with local authorities on housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has regular meetings with the local authority associations throughout the year to discuss housing benefit and we consult them formally on proposals for regulations.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate for the number of households eligible for family credit in Wales; and what number of households are receiving family credit in Wales.

  Mr. Moore
  We do not have separate figures of eligibility for Wales. About 20,000 families in Wales were actually receiving family credit at the end of January. This compares with 14,000 families who received family income support supplement under the old scheme.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he anticipates that the number of awards of family credit will reach 470,000.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he anticipates that the number of awards of family credit will reach 470,000.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, when he anticipates that the number of awards of family credit will reach 470,000.

  Mr. Moore
  Since family credit began last April, more than 650,000 awards have been made.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of family credit recipients are receiving £30 or more.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of February, more than 35 per cent. of family credit recipients were receiving £30 or more per week. Awards are made for 26 weeks, so these families are guaranteed at least £780, tax free, over the six months. This confirms that the families who are most in need of family credit are already claiming. But we recognise that there are still many families who are not aware that they may be eligible. That is why we have just begun our major advertising campaign.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of family credit recipients are receiving £20 per week or more.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of February, about 60 per cent. of family credit recipients were receiving £20 or more per week.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average award made to recipients of family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information on family credit is derived from an examination of amounts in payment at the end of February 1989; this indicated that the average amount in payment at that time was around £25 a week.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the simplified family credit form (FC1) to be issued; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The new version of claim form FC1 is already available in local social security offices. Stocks are being distributed by the Post Office and should be available in their offices within the next few days. Claims for family credit will continue to be accepted on the old style forms.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated take-up of family credit during 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The percentage take-up of family credit in 1989–90 will not be known until information from the 1989 family expenditure survey is available.

  Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is being done to encourage older people to carry on working.

  Mr. Scott
  From 1 October the pensioners' earnings rule is to be abolished so that pensioners will receive automatically their full state retirement pension, to which they are entitled, regardless of their earnings. This will increase choice and flexibility for people over pension age who wish to work.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the pensioners' earnings rule will be abolished.

  Mr. Scott
  From 1 October 1989.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is being done to give more choice and flexibility for older people who want to carry on working.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Older people who wish to carry on working will have more choice and flexibility from 1 October 1989 when the earnings rule for pensioners is to be abolished. Pensioners will be able to go on working without having their state pension reduced and will no longer be barred from receiving a full pension if they work more than 12 hours a week. It will still be possible for people to defer drawing their pension for up to five years after pension age, thus increasing their entitlement by about 7·5 per cent. for each year of deferment.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are currently estimated to be earning in excess of £75 per week and are subject to pension reduction or abatement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Approximately 2,500 individuals currently have their pensions reduced as a result of the pensioners' earnings rule, which is to be abolished from 1 October 1989.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next plans to review the level of child benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend is required to review the level of child benefit each year, and he does this as part of his annual review of benefit rates. He will announce his decision to the House in the usual way in the autumn.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of take-up of child benefit.
  57
  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated to be 98 per cent.

  Income Support
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for the full uprating of income support for claimants in receipt of transitional additions.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for the full uprating of income support for claimants in receipt of transitional additions.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for the full uprating of income support for claimants in receipt of transitional additions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The income support payable to all but a small number of claimants was uprated last week. We have no plans to change the rules for uprating.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase the level of payment and take-up of constant attendant allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 6 March at column 449 and my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 January at column 574.

  Widows' Benefit
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing in response to the ruling made by the Social Security Commissioner on 28 February in respect of widows' benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The women affected by the commissioner's decision have been identified and are being paid. Any widow who thinks she may be affected and has not been contacted should approach her local social security office.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the weekly state retirement pension for a single person following the recent uprating; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 10 April the full weekly rate of state retirement pension is £43·60 for a single pensioner, and £69·80 for a pensioner couple. In November 1979 the full weekly rate was £23·30 for a single pensioner, and £37·30 for a pensioner couple.

  National Insurance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the proposed changes in employees' national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received only one representation.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the effects of the recently announced changes in national insurance contributions.
  58
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The reform of national insurance contributions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 14 March builds on the system of reduced irate contributions for lower paid employees which was introduced in 1985. As at present, people earning less than £43 a week will not pay contributions. From October 1989, however, employees earning £43 a week or more will pay a contribution made up of 2 per cent. of the first £43 of earnings and the standard 9 per cent. (7 per cent. for employees contracted out of SERPS) on the balance of earnings up to the upper earnings limit, currently £325 a week.

  These changes are a major reform of the way in which employees' contributions are determined. They will remove two of the three steps in the national insurance system which can result in pay increases being more than offset by higher contributions, leaving the employee worse off. And the first step, when people start paying contributions, will be more than halved.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will be affected by the reform in the way in which employees' contributions are determined.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government Actuary's Department estimates that during the second half of the 1989–90 financial year a weekly average of about 19 million people in Great Britain will be affected by the change in the structure of employees' national insurance contributions. Of these, about 15 million will gain £3 a week.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the changes to be made in employees' national insurance contributions will take effect.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From the tax week which begins on Thursday 5 October 1989.

  Women's Refuges
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received recently on proposed changes to funding for women's refuges.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of hon. Members, organisations and members of the public have made representations echoing those made by organisations representing women's refuges mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 January at columns 417–18.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual expenditure in benefit payment, per capita, in the last financial year for(a) registered disabled people of working age who were unemployed and (b) people with no known disability of working age who were unemployed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many supplementary benefit payments under the urgent cases regulations were awarded in the period
  59
  (a) April 1985 to March 1986 inclusive, (b) April 1986 to March 1987 inclusive, and (c) April 1987 to March 1988 inclusive in respect of each Department of Social Security local office of Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool; and what were the amounts awarded from each office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of successful claims made under the urgent cases provisions is in the table. I regret that information on the total amount awarded for each office is not available.

  Statistical years (April to April)

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Redcar

  465

  544

  722

  Eston

  658

  535

  484

  Middlesbrough

  1,677

  1,486

  1,199

  Stockton

  948

  915

  1,113

  Hartlepool

  1,210

  897

  622

  Source: Internal Management Information Statistics.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single payments were awarded in the period(a) April 1985 to March 1986 inclusive, (b) April 1986 to March 1987 inclusive, and (c) April 1987 to March 1988 inclusive in respect of each Department of Social Security local office of Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool; and what were the amounts awarded from each office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers and total values of supplementary benefit single payments made by all offices of the Department for the periods in question is in the Library.

  War Widows
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's future proposals for war widows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The standard basic rate of tax-free war widow's pension, which is 30 per cent. higher than the taxable national insurance widow's pension, was increased from £53·50 to £56·65 a week from 10 April 1989. On top of that, age allowances are paid of £6–10 at age 65, £12.20 at 70 and £15£30 at 80, and 85 per cent. of war widows receive an age allowance. War widows may also receive a retirement pension if they worked and paid contributions, and it is estimated that about 75 per cent. do. War widows with children receive an addition of£12·60 a week for each child and may also receive a rent allowance of up to £21·55 a week and an education allowance of up to £120 a year. It is proposed to maintain these very preferential provisions for war widows.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what aspects of entitlement to community care grants he has under review.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None at present, but we are continuing to monitor closely the operation of the social fund and have recently commissioned independent research into the extent to which it is meeting its objectives. We have taken a number of steps to improve local awareness and understanding of community care grants and are currently considering what additional measures 60
  might be taken to improve national information on the scheme. We shall also shortly be issuing revised guidance to social fund officers in the social fund manual.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of social security benefit expenditure in 1988–89 was devoted to unemployed people; and what were the comparable figures for the previous two years.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest estimate is that benefits for unemployed people were about 12 per cent. of total social security benefit expenditure in 1988£89, compared with over 16 per cent. in 1986–87 and about 14 per cent. in 1987–88.

  Carers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his future plans for the welfare of people looking after relations.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall look at invalid care allowance in the light of the results of the OPCS surveys of disability, together with benefits for disabled people themselves.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners were in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1979, 38 per cent. of pensioners tax units1 were in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution. By 1986 this figure had fallen to 24 per cent.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  1 A pensioner tax unit is a single person of pensionable age or a couple where the man is of pensionable age.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the percentage of divorced and separated men who do not contribute towards the maintenance of their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This Department does not hold information in the form requested. The information we have relates only to maintenance paid for lone parent families receiving income support (formerly supplementary benefit), of whom 95 per cent. are lone mothers. The most recent figures available are for May 1987 and show that fathers were not paying maintenance for children in about 60 per cent. of the cases involving divorced mothers and about 70 per cent. of cases involving separated mothers. The Government are naturally concerned by these figures.

  Source: Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiry 1987.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the availability of attendance allowance to the carers of children under the age of two years who suffer severe disability.
  61
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 22 February at column 682.

  Young People
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to help young people who are experiencing particular difficulty in living independently.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 13 March, at columns 27–8.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that no young person in Stoke on Trent North will be evicted as a direct result of the benefit changes on 10 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The principal aim of the reform of income support for people living in board and lodging accommodation is to put this group on a par with the majority of households who look to the housing benefit scheme for help with accommodation costs and income support for help with other necessities. The new arrangements therefore take a substantial step towards making the social security system neutral as to accommodation type, thereby removing perverse incentives for both claimants and landlords towards particular kinds of housing. Help with any reasonable lodging charge is available through housing benefit. For the majority of boarders, transitional arrangements are in place to make good any shortfall between the new and old levels of

  Full board: charge £55 a week

  Claimant type1

  Basic income support £

  Income support transitional protection2 £

  Other income £

  Income support entitlement £

  Housing benefit entitlement3 £

  Total income £

  Disposable income4 £

  March 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  65·30

  —

  29·50

  35·80

  —

  65·30

  7·80

  17-year-old on YTS

  65·30

  —

  35·00

  30·30

  —

  65·30

  78·0

  17-year-old not on YTS5

  65·30

  —

  —

  65·30

  —

  65·30

  10·30

  April 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·30

  29·50

  9·60

  26·20

  65·30

  7·80

  17-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·30

  35·00

  4·10

  26·20

  65·30

  7·80

  17-year-old not on YTS

  20·80

  18·30

  —

  39·10

  26·20

  65·30

  10·30

  Claimant type1

  Basic income support £

  Income support transitional protection2 £

  Other income £

  Income support entitlement £

  Housing benefit entitlement3 £

  Total income £

  Disposable income4 £

  March 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  65·15

  —

  29·50

  35·65

  —

  65·15

  18·65

  17-year-old on YTS

  65·15

  —

  35·00

  30·15

  —

  65·15

  18·65

  17-year-old not on YTS5

  65·15

  —

  —

  65·15

  —

  65·15

  21·15

  April 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·15

  29·50

  9·45

  26·20

  65·15

  18·65

  17-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·15

  35·00

  3·95

  26·20

  65·15

  18·65

  17-year-old not on YTS

  20·80

  18·15

  —

  38·95

  26·20

  65·15

  21·15

  62
  benefit for up to three months. The Government believe that these arrangements give sufficient time for both claimants and landlords to adapt to the new benefit rules.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing the calculation of net weekly spending power of each of the following (i) a 16-year-old person on first year YTS, (ii) a 17-year-old person on second year YTS and (iii) a 17-year-old person leaving care and not on a YTS scheme, both under the existing system for paying board and lodging and under the proposed system from April, and in all tables working on the following assumptions: that the persons have no parents and must live independently in the Redcar Department of Social Security ILO area(a) in full board accommodation, occupying one room costing £55 per week, (b) in bed, breakfast and evening meal accommodation, occupying one room costing £44 per week and (c) in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, occupying one room costing £33 per week that in all cases the young person incurs a travelling cost to and from YTS, of £2·50 per week and that the rent and rates element of the charge consists of £23 rent, £4 general rates, £1 water rates and charges of £1 for laundry and £1 for cleaning; and in each case, if he will indicate the items and services which remain to be met by the individual out of their net weekly income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The information requested is as follows:
  63

  Bed and Breakfast: charge £33 a week

  Claimant type1

  Basic income support £

  Income support transitional protection2 £

  Other income £

  Income support entitlement £

  Housing benefit entitlement3 £

  Total income £

  Disposable income4 £

  March 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  65·00

  —

  29·50

  35·50

  —

  65·00

  29·50

  17-year-old on YTS

  65·00

  —

  35·00

  30·00

  —

  65·00

  29·50

  17-year-old not on YTS5

  65·00

  —

  —

  65·00

  —

  65·00

  32·00

  April 1989

  16-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·00

  29·50

  9·30

  26·20

  65·00

  29·50

  17-year-old on YTS

  20·80

  18·00

  35·00

  3·80

  26·20

  65·00

  29·50

  17-year-old not on YTS

  20·80

  18·00

  —

  38·80

  26·20

  65·00

  32·00

  Footnotes:

  1 The tables show figures calculated on the basis that the same individual is claiming benefit in both March and April 1989.

  2 To protect people who would receive less benefit overall as a result of the change in benefit rules, transitional protection is provided as follows:

  Long-term protection: for people in supported lodgings who receive care and support from the landlord.

  Up to 52 weeks: for families in hotels who are not sponsored by a local authority.

  Up to 13 weeks: for any other person on YTS or ET, or aged 25 or over, or a vulnerable person aged under 25.

  No protection: for fit, unemployed people aged under 25 who were previously subject to time limits.

  3 Actual housing benefit entitlement would be calculated by the local authority by deducting from the overall changes given, of £55, £44 or £33, the appropriate amounts in respect of meals, fuel and other ineligible items to arrive at the eligible rent, which they may then restrict if they consider it to be unreasonably high. The actual eligible rent could accordingly be higher than the £23 suggested resulting in a higher level of housing benefit payable.

  For the purposes of these tables, housing benefit entitlement has however been calculated on the basis of the suggested rent of £23 (which it is assumed does not include the charges for water, laundry, cleaning, or any other ineligible items), and eligible rates of £3.20 (£4 less 20 per cent.).

  4 Disposable income has been calculated by deducting the following expenses from the gross income of income support, housing benefit and YTS allowance (as appropriate):

  — Overall charge of £55, £44 or £33 respectively;

  — Travel expenses of £2·50 (for YTS participants)

  5 It has been assumed that the individual

  a. is eligible for income support under regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; and

  b. was exempt from board and lodging time limits by virtue of paragraph 16(4) of schedule 5 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which was in force immediately prior to 10 April 1989.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the Minister of State for Social Security visited the Peto Institute for conductive education in Hungary.

  Mr. Scott
  I visited the Peto Institute for conductive education in Budapest on 19 September 1988 and on 20 September 1988 I visited the institute's outstation at Kiskunhalas.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled has associated the Government with the appeal for the launch of an international foundation for conductive education; and what funds have been allocated so far.

  Mr. Scott
  I sent a message to the Hungarian Government on the occasion of the launch of the appeal for the international foundation for conductive education on 14 March expressing support for the appeal and the hope that the United Kingdom would be able to be involved in the development of the international foundation. Discussions are still in progress about possible funding, and no sum has yet been offered.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the occasions on which the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled has had meetings with Ministers in other countries to discuss the appeal for the launch of an international foundation for conductive education; and what was the outcome of those discussions.
  64
  Mr. Scott
  During a visit to Hungary from 18 to 21 September 1988, I learned of plans for an international foundation for conductive education, in the course of discussions with Hungarian Ministers. Conductive education was also discussed at the visit to the United Kingdom of the Hungarian Minister of Health in October 1988. A formal invitation to participate in developing an international foundation for conductive education was not, however, received until December 1988. I have not discussed this matter with overseas Ministers in person since then, but I met an official delegation from the Hungarian Government on 17 January to discuss the plan in greater detail, and I sent a message to the Hungarian Deputy Prime Minister at the launch of the international appeal for funds for the new institute.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vehicles, and of what value, were purchased by(a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 182 vehicles were purchased in 1988 at a cost of £1·3 million, for use on matters connected with social security.

  Of these vehicles 173 were United Kingdom-produced, on the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes under which a vehicle

  65
  is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what arrangements he is making to accommodate those former elderly residents of private residential homes displaced as a result of the failure to uprate the maximum level of support to cover the cost of keeping such elderly people in private homes;

  (2) what is the estimate of the number of elderly people with little or no savings who will be unable to continue to live in private residential homes as a result of the failure to uprate the maximum level of support to cover the cost of keeping such elderly people in private homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no evidence to show that people are being displaced from homes. The Department continues to provide significant cash help to people who choose to go into residential care, to help them meet their fees. We aim to assist people to pay reasonable charges.

  From this month we are providing extra help to nearly nine out of ten people who claim income support in residential care and nursing homes.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the contents of his recent circular to his Department's offices on the amount to be left to the claimant after deducting unpaid poll tax; and on what authority this instruction was given.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) on 14 April at column 743.

  Boundary Changes
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider the effects of recent boundary changes on the social fund allocations for Havant and Portsmouth South local offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The effects of an earlier boundary change have been reassessed and as a consequence the budgets for both Havant and Portsmouth South local offices have been revised from 1 April 1989. The revised figures are:

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Per head of caseload £

  Havant

  188,253

  77,732

  40·40

  Portsmouth South

  184,749

  79,454

  30·60

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long, on average, claimants wait after submitting a claim for a transitional payment to the transitional payment unit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 13 April at column 685.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Healthy Food
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review his policy on the case of low cholesterol and healthy food to be served in all canteens at the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so at present. The Refreshment Department is aware of the need to promote the use of low cholesterol and healthy foods as far as is compatible with meeting the overal demands of Members and staff.

  Ten-Minute Bills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to end the current procedure of queuing for ten-minute Bills, and to institute a sytem of ballots which limits hon. Members to one Bill per Parliament.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Discussions have been taking place through the usual channels about possible changes in the arrangements for giving notice of ten-minute Bills. I have also asked the Select Committee on Procedure for its opinion, but I am not yet in a position to bring forward any proposals.

  Refreshment Department Staff (Facilities)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission has any plans to improve rest room and changing facilities for Refreshment Department staff.

  Mr. Beith
  Action has already been taken by the Services Committee to improve rest and changing facilities for Refreshment Department staff and a contingency plan exists for making additional accommodation available should a further need be identified by the General Manager of the Refreshment Department, whose responsibility it is in the first instance to determine the precise nature of his Department's requirements.

SCOTLAND

  Food Poisoning (Prisons)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recent representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about food poisoning in prisons and remand centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on 9 March. In its letter, COSLA referred to two outbreaks of food poisoning at Longriggend remand centre and urged that steps be taken to remove Crown immunity. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have since written to colleagues and myself on the matter.

  The subject of Crown immunity in the area of food hygiene is one which is being considered in the current review of food legislation. Meanwhile, the Government take very seriously any matter of health and hygiene within penal establishments in general and kitchen areas in particular.

  In the two cases referred to by COSLA, the environmental health officers from Monklands district council were immediately invited to help trace the source of the infection. In the light of the advice given by them, improvements in the kitchen have been carried out.

  Scottish Community Education Council
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to further develop the Scottish Community Education Council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In January 1989, we approved the council's corporate plan setting out its major priorities for the next three years as adult basic education; work with young people; adult and continuing education; and training for community education providers. It is open to the Council to propose changes to its priorities. Further development will depend to a large extent on the council's ability to generate income from its activities.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the redistribution of constituencies in Scotland; what is the average electorate of constituencies in Scotland; and when the Constituency Boundary Commission will next report upon constituencies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no proposals for the redistribution of constituencies in Scotland. It is the statutory duty of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to submit proposals to him every 10 to 15 years. The commission's next report must be submitted between February 1993 and February 1998. The average electorate of constituencies in Scotland is 54,624.

  Registers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he holds about the use made of electoral registers in the compiling of the community charge registers currently operating in Scotland.
  68
  Mr. Lang
  Section 17(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, provides that community charges registration officers shall, for the purpose of discharging their functions, have access to and the use of any information which electoral registration officers for their areas may have acquired in connection with any of their functions. In Scotland the community charges registration officers are also the electoral registration officers. I have no information about the uses made of electoral registers by individual community charges registration officers.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) the Highlands and Islands Development Board, (c) the Scottish Development Agency, (d) the Forestry Commission, (e) the police and fire services, (f) local authorities and (g) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number and value of vehicles purchased by the Scottish Office, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency, the Forestry Commission and other public sector agencies for which I am responsible, is set out in the table.

  Department

  Number

  Value (£)

  The Scottish Office

  119

  932,532

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  1

  18,537

  Scottish Development Agency

  7

  63,708

  Forestry Commission1

  68

  448,642

  Other Public Sector Agencies

  50

  406,899

  245

  1 The Forestry Commission figures show purchases of vehicles for use throughout Great Britain.

  Of these vehicles, 226 were United Kingdom-produced on the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom context exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value.

  Information on the number and value of vehicles purchased for the police/fire services and local authorities is not held centrally and cannot be obtained without disproportionate costs.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the implications of the intended closure in June of the Dundee operation of the artificial limb manufacturers Robert Kellie and Son Ltd. on the services provided by the limb-fitting centre in Broughty Ferry, Dundee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Although Robert Kellie and Son Ltd. formerly supplied all artificial lower limbs provided by the limb fitting centre in Broughty Ferry, Dundee, the firm declined to tender for the contract which started on 1
  69
  January 1989 and now supplies only conventional metal limbs (on sub-contract to the main supplier of lower limbs to the centre). These metal limbs are no longer prescribed for new amputees, who are fitted with modular limbs of a more modern design. Many other amputees are changing to modular limbs. But it is important that conventional metal limbs should be available for the diminishing number of patients who need them. Arrangements will therefore be made, before the intended closure of Robert Kellie and Son Ltd., to find another source of suitable limbs.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the illegal interception of communications in Helensburgh; and if he will bring forward further legislation to prevent such incidents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One. The interception of communications is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy that present Training Agency policies on health and safety, equal opportunities for people with disabilities and ethnic minorities will continue through local agencies and Scottish Enterprise;

  (2) what arrangements through local agencies and Scottish Enterprise will be put in place to ensure (a) people with learning difficulties and (b) the long-term unemployed will be effectively catered for;

  (3) what arrangements will apply to ensure that private employers on local agencies boards will not have vested interests in the local agencies' expenditure decisions;

  (4) what arrangements he proposes for independent monitoring of (a) the quality of Scottish Enterprise delivered training and outturns and (b) local agency delivered training and outturns;

  (5) whether civil servants on secondment to local agencies or Scottish Enterprise will be able to alert Ministers to any financial irregularities that they find in (a) local agencies, (b) Scottish Enterprise, (c) contracts training providers and (d) other contracts;

  (6) what arrangements he intends to introduce to ensure that quality training is provided by local agencies;

  (7) if he will make it his policy that the employment rehabilitation service in Scotland will remain as part of the United Kingdom employment rehabilitation service run through the Training Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  We are currently reassessing the proposals in the Scottish Enterprise White Paper in the light of all the responses received, and will announce our detailed decisions in due course.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money was spent on the billboard advertisement covering Sainsbury's plc participation in the employment training scheme in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Employment Training bill-board campaign featuring Sainsburys, IBM and Wimpey ran 70
  throughout Great Britain in January and March. The cost of £660,000 cannot be broken down to attribute expenditure to Scotland or to individual companies.

  Brook Street Bureau
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what experience the Brook Street Bureau has of providing services for long-term unemployed in areas similar to Ferguslie Park, Paisley.

  Mr. Lang
  Brook Street has experience of providing job placements for a wide range of clients.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will provide details of the amount of public money paid to fund the private initiative in the Ferguslie Park area of Paisley by the Brook Street Bureau;

  (2) if he will provide details of the contract between his Department and the Brook Street Bureau for the provision of employment services in Ferguslie Park, Paisley.

  Mr. Lang
  Brook Street will be entering into a contract with the Scottish Development Agency in connection with the provision of job placement services for the Ferguslie Park training, employment and enterprise development company which is being set up by the Ferguslie Park partnership, implementing the joint strategy for the regeneration of Ferguslie Park. The details of that contract are commercially confidential; payments are related directly to the number of residents placed in work, and the majority of Brook Street's income will come not from the public sector but from employers' placement fees.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what parts of the employment service his Department fails to provide and Brook Street Bureau will fulfil;

  (2) whether the Ferguslie Park decision has a.ny implications for the future of the employment service on a local and national basis.

  Mr. Lang
  The future of the employment service is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The job placement services offered by Brook Street as part of the Ferguslie Park training, employment and enterprise development company will complement those provided by the employment service.

  Area Manpower Boards
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the possible and actual attendance of the private sector representatives on area manpower boards, for each area manpower board, for the last full year that those boards were in operation.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of attendance by private sector representatives on area manpower boards from October 1987 to September 1988 are as follows:

  Possible

  Actual

  Central and Fife

  50

  27

  Highlands and Islands

  55

  38

  Grampian and Tayside

  53

  33

  Lothian and Borders

  55

  26

  Dumfries and Galloway

  60

  24

  Ayrshire

  55

  26

  Glasgow

  60

  36

  Lanarkshire

  60

  31

  Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Argyll

  66

  30

  YTS
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether YTS trainees, currently aged over 18 years, who stay at home receive any additional payment to cover their 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  YTS trainees who are 18 years old or over will be eligible to apply for a rebate on the full community charge, up to a maximum of 80 per cent., depending on their income and personal circumstances. YTS allowances have not been increased to take account of the community charge.

  Training and Employment Grant Scheme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Development Agency, and when his Department will be in a position to publish conclusions, on a revised training and employment grant scheme for Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency has submitted for approval proposals for the implementation of a revised training and employment grant scheme. My officials are considering and evaluating the proposals with agency staff. I will shortly be in a position to decide whether the new scheme should be implemented. The TEGS 8 scheme, which was due to end on 31 March, is continuing to operate in the meantime.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make an announcement on compensation for storm damage to be paid to Scottish local authorities and others.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to Highland regional and Inverness district councils on 10 February requesting detailed reports of flood damage and extra costs incurred. Highland region replied on 6 March and Inverness district on 6 April. All district councils were asked to report costs incurred in dealing with the effects of

  Highlands Health Board

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. G. Bruce

  1 April 1987

  Caithness Local Health Council

  Mr. M. Cumming

  1 April 1987

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Dr. R. S. C. Ferguson

  1 April 1985

  BMA: Local Medical Committee

  Mrs. C. B. Fraser

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty District Council: Council of Voluntary Services

  Dr. C. A. S. Galloway

  1 April 1987

  BMA: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mr. W. G. Johnston

  1 April 1983

  Sutherland Local Health Council

  Mrs. V. MacIver

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Mr. A. K. Robertson

  1 April 1987

  Area Dental Committee of Highland Health Board

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1983

  Mrs. H. E. Betts-Brown

  1 April 1985

  Highland Health Board

  Mr. J. Forbes, JP

  1 April 1989

  Lord Sanderson

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  1 April 1989

  Highland Health Board

  Mr. B. A. Merchant

  22 June 1981

  Highland Health Board

  Mrs. S. M. C. South

  1 April 1985

  Highland Health Board

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  1 April 1989

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  72
  the storm on housing. The information received from these and other sources is now being assessed. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement shortly.

  Tobacco (Sales to Children)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to take any further steps to enforce section 2 of the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 in relation to the sale of individual cigarettes to young people under the age of 16 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. Chief constables in determining the deployment of resources to combat any particular problem have regard to the overall policing needs of their areas.

  Scottish Homes Leaflet
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the factual inaccuracies contained in the leaflet, "Introducing Scottish Homes: Your New Landlord"; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that tenants receive correct information.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: I have already conveyed to Scottish Homes the importance which I attach to the provision of comprehensive and accurate information to tenants. It is the responsibility of Scottish Homes to satisfy itself as to the factual accuracy of its own material. I shall, however, pass to the chairman of Scottish Homes any comments about the leaflet which the hon. Member may care to draw to my attention.

  Health Boards (Membership)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the names of members of the Highland health board and the date of appointment and nominating body of each member.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: The information requested is as follows:
  73

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Miss I. Urquhart

  1 April 1989

  Highland Health Board

  Mr. R. Stewart

  1 April 1989

  General Manager; appointed to the Board in accordance with paragraph 10·20 of the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555).

  Farmers' Income
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in Scotland received annual incomes from farming of(a) less than £4,999, (b) £5,000 to £7,499, (c) £7,500 to £9,999, (d) £10,000 to £14,999, (e) £15,000 to £19,999 and (f) over £20,000, respectively, for the latest convenient year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The information set out in the table for 1987–88 approximates as closely as possible to the income ranges for which information is sought and is estimated from a sample of accounts covering most types of full-time farm. The sample does not cover intensive and mixed farms and a small number of very large farms is also excluded.

  Net farm income range £

  Number of farms

  less than 5,000

  6,600

  5,000 to 6,999

  1,400

  7,000 to 9,999

  2,500

  10,000 to 14,999

  1,900

  74

  Net farm income range £

  Number of farms

  15,000 to 19,999

  1,500

  20,000 and over

  3,000

  Net farm income is the reward to the farmer and his wife for their manual work and for running the farm, and the return on their investment in stock and machinery.

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

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information about non-agricultural income is available only from a one per cent. sample of the tax records of individuals registered as having a self-employment income from agriculture and horticulture. For the 1985–86 assessment year, the latest available, the average total income per farmer was £11,845, and the average agricultural and horticultural income was £6,368.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Brake Lights: Proposals
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the installation of a third brake light in the rear windows of motor vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): Yes, my Lords, provided that they do not dazzle following drivers. We announced in the motorway safety package last year that we would discuss with other EC countries the possibility of requiring high centre-mounted brake lamps on new vehicles. These discussions are continuing.
The existing law does not prevent voluntary fitment of these lamps. To avoid dazzle we are proposing that stop lamps fitted in the rear windscreens of new cars in future should be half of the intensity of standard brake lamps.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Is he aware that in a nose-to-bumper situation, which occurs frequently on all our roads including the motorways, the conspicuity value of lights in the rear window will be of enormous help to all drivers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory found that improved driver reaction times resulted from the use of such lamps, particularly where obligatory brake and rear position lights were combined.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, most noble Lords will appreciate the common sense in the Minister's reply. Is he aware that many of us have complained to ourselves time and again about the dazzling which occurs from such rear lights; therefore, we appreciate the fact that their power will be limited?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that, although we are making regulations to reduce the intensity of the rear lamps, manufacturers who fit them as standard are doing so already.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the innovation of an electronic braking system that is increasingly being fitted to more expensive cars? Is he also aware however that it is being used as an enhancer of performance rather than as a safety device? Is he aware too that it causes accidents involving other people whose cars are not fitted with that system? Is there not an argument for cars having a sign in the back indicating that they are so fitted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure of the system to which the noble Viscount refers. Therefore, I cannot say whether it would be good to have a special sign on cars fitted with the system.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of a related point to the Question put by my noble friend? It is the distance at which cars follow each other, especially on motorways. Is he aware that in general cars follow each other far too closely and do not have the braking power to avoid a rear collision? Is he able to bring to the attention of the police the need to enforce more clearly the regulation concerning the distance between cars?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point; I am sure we are all personally aware of such incidents. Time and time again the department emphasises the fact that people should not travel too closely behind the car in front, and that is made clear in the Highway Code. Obviously, the police should enforce that requirement where possible and any assistance that can be given would be welcome.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his excellent replies. Is he aware that in the United States all cars must be fitted with such brake lights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, that is the case, as it is in Canada. I believe that when they were first fitted there was a considerable improvement but that there have since been complaints about dazzle.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the ideal distance between two cars travelling on a motorway at 70 miles per hour?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is that within which one could stop safely should anything happen to the car in front.

Conservative Central Council: Security Cost
2.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost of security at the Conservative Party conference at Scarborough in March of this year, and who paid it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the additional costs of policing the Conservative Party's central council meeting are estimated at about £40,000. The cost of that will be met by the North Yorkshire Police Authority under the normal police funding arrangements. The Government contribute both directly through police grant—which is at 51 per cent. — and indirectly through block grant.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not believe that, in view of the increased cost of securing conferences

543
of all parties, the cost should now be borne by the national Exchequer and not by the local authority in whose area a conference is held?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not think so. Forces have to meet requirements of national as well as local significance. Special payments have been made to police forces only in exceptional circumstances, generally of an unforeseen nature, when the efficiency of the police force would otherwise have been threatened. I do not believe that the event referred to in the noble Lord's Question comes within that category.

Episcopal Appointments: Arrangements
2.44 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what criteria the Prime Minister chooses which of the candidates selected by the Church of England to recommend to the Crown for episcopal appointment.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's recommendations are dependent on advice received from within the Church both on the candidates proposed and on the needs of the particular appointment. Such advice is confidential.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend has omitted to say whether it is necessary for the candidate to be a Christian or is that confined to the see of Durham?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend would expect me to give details of particular cases. The advice given has always been kept confidential because of the need to protect the prerogative of the Crown.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the political views or attitudes of the candidates are not one of the criteria taken into account by the Prime Minister when she recommends an appointment to Her Majesty the Queen? Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, in view of the criticisms of the Church of England by members of the present administration, can he say whether or not the administration, from the Prime Minister down, still believes in the principles of an established Church?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the final question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat wide of the original Question. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately unhelpful when I say that I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to my noble friend Lord Onslow in answer to his supplementary question except to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has always scrupulously adhered to the arrangement first
544
announced by the then Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, was that particular arrangement not a total change of the constitution, carried out without any consultation with either House of Parliament but merely a cobbled agreement between the Church and the then Prime Minister's office? Did that not delete from the prerogative of the Crown and the Prime Minister?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is right in that assumption. The choice has never been unlimited as there can only be a limited number of suitably qualified candidates in any given case. The arrangements introduced in 1977 were designed expressly to ensure that there was a more complete appraisal of the available candidates.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the greatest hope for the restoration of tranquility and stability within the Church of England would lie in the restoration of the original balance in the choice of candidates between the high, low and middle or evangelical Catholic and middle stump, and that the imbalance of the recent past should now be corrected?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend has given a very interesting point of view; but once again it falls fairly wide of the original Question.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, may I ask a friendly question from next door? Is it the case that under these arrangements the Prime Minister has a discretion to alter the order of names as received from the Church; and does Her Majesty enjoy the same discretion?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my remarks about the prerogative of the Crown apply even more resoundingly in answer to my noble friend's supplementary question than to previous questions. However, I repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that she has always scrupulously adhered to that agreement.

Motorway Accidents: Statistics
2.47 p.m.
Lord Borthwick Lord Borthwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people die or are injured each year on (a) two-lane and (b) three-lane motorways.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in Great Britain in 1987, the latest year for which detailed figures are available, 44 people died in accidents on two-lane motorways, and 1,540 people were injured. The equivalent figures for motorways with three or more lanes were 225 people killed and 6,490 injured.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, in view of that Answer, can we not in future have all motorways with three lanes? That would be safer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously the choice of whether to have a new motorway with two or three lanes depends on the expected volume of traffic on that particular stretch of road.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity of discussing the number of lanes on bypasses rather than motorways. I recognise that that is slightly wide of the Question. However, is he aware that, for example, in Somerset there is very considerable concern about two roads which have recently been built—that is, the Ilminster bypass and the relief road from Tiverton. They have been built with two lanes. In one case it is an extension of the A.303 which is a dual carriageway up to that point. There has already been a significant number of fatalities on those two roads. Will the department please reconsider its policy on building new bypasses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a question rather wide of the one on the Order Paper; but I take note of what the noble Lord said, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my honourable friend.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Department of Transport's calculations on use of motorways are always wrong, does the Minister not feel that it would be good if all motorways had three lanes instead of two?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that most are. We have recently announced that the missing section of the M.40 is to be three-lane. However, in not all cases does the volume of traffic justify three lanes; sometimes only two lanes are justified.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the figures given to my noble friend Lord Borthwick. The figures are interesting. Bearing in mind the excellent figures published in Friday's papers showing that English drivers are supposed to be the safest in the EC, does not my noble friend agree that if the recommendations in the North Report, including those on motorway driving, are implemented speedily, the number of casualties and fatal injuries will be dramatically reduced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think I have anything to add to what I said in the recent debate on the North Report. The fatality rate for motorways is about half the rate for other non-built-up roads, while the overall casualty rate is about one-third of that on other non-built-up roads.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that when his Answer appears in Hansard the figures he gave may appear to be misleading? Would it not be better if we had figures relating to the number of accidents to miles of two-lane and three-lane motorways rather than the straight statistics that he gave?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I have given an Answer to the Question as it was put down on the Order Paper. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that the total casualty rate for motorways is 19 per 100 million vehicle kilometres; for two-lane motorways the rate is 21 per 100 million vehicle kilometres; and for motorways with three or more lanes the figure is 18 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

Business
2.51 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.

Business of the House: Debates, 26th April
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord McGregor of Durris and the Lord Ezra set down for Wednesday 26th April shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Lockwood be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
2.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The broad purposes of the Bill are to restructure the provision and regulation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales, to enable the privatisation of those services, and to update Scottish water and pollution law.
This is a major Bill by any standards and we believe it is a good Bill. It will be good for us as consumers and as taxpayers; it will be good for the environment; it will create a more efficient and more effective water industry. It is the way to achieve the standards we all want to see.

547
Water is essential to life. People want to be sure that water and sewerage services will be there when needed. They want drinking water that is clean and safe. They want sewerage services which pose no threat to health; ideally, out of sight and out of mind. They want to know that river quality is being improved, and that beaches are safe to use.
I doubt whether any of us in this House would dissent from these desires; indeed, I suspect that there would be little between any of us on the general objectives we would set for the water industry. For that reason, many of the measures in this Bill deserve general support, even though there may be details which merit close discussion.
More fundamentally, there are those who accept the case for changes in the way the industry is regulated, but not the case for privatisation. However, it is crucial to the approach of this Bill not only that the roles of regulation and production should be given to separate bodies but that the responsibility of the state should be clearly confined to regulation, while the business of production passes to the private sector. Only then can we end the temptation to fudge quality objectives because of financial constraints.
People are quite right to demand proof that this Bill is in their own best interests. None of us wants to see change, especially radical change to one of our most essential industries, simply for the sake of it. As I have said, people are rightly concerned about reports of the need for purer drinking water quality, improved sewage treatment, fresher rivers and cleaner beaches. People are also concerned about increased prices as a result of the major investments required to meet those improved standards. Those concerns are not new but they have nothing to do with privatisation.
However, privatisation has everything to do with them. The measures in this Bill will lead to a better organised, more efficient and better motivated industry—an industry properly equipped to tackle problems head on. This Bill provides the framework for a thriving, efficient, private sector water industry within a strong framework of public regulation.
It is a daunting task to explain the main provisions of a Bill of 187 clauses and 26 schedules in only a few minutes. Part I establishes the framework of new bodies that will take on the water authorities' current functions. A new National Rivers Authority will be dedicated to maintaining and improving the quality of our rivers and protecting land from flooding. This environmental watchdog will be complemented by a new Director General of Water Services—a consumer watchdog—whose tasks will include the fixing of the maximum charges for water services, while ensuring that efficient water companies can finance the standards set by Government. There will be regional rivers advisory committees and new customer service committees, independent of the water and sewerage businesses.
Part I also imposes general duties on the Secretary of State and director general to ensure the proper provision of water and sewerage functions in the future. The duties also include the very important
548
requirements to further conservation and provide recreation, to which I shall return later.
Part II of the Bill puts in place all the mechanisms needed to ensure the proper provision of water and sewerage services by the new companies. Chapter I contains the procedures for appointing companies, for enforcing the conditions of appointment, for the appointment of a special administrator in cases of serious default or insolvency and to control mergers of water companies in order to safeguard proper comparative competition.
Chapters II and III impose water supply and sewerage duties, requiring the provision of infrastructure and supplies of wholesome water to specified standards. Chapter III also provides for control over trade effluent discharges; while Chapter IV determines charging methods for all these services. Chapter V contains the financial provisions necessary to establish the new companies, and Chapter VI amends statutory water company powers so that they can be appointed water undertakers and also convert to plc status if they so choose.
Part III is the other substantial part of this Bill. It establishes how rivers and other waters are to be managed and protected, mainly by the National Rivers Authority. Under Chapter I the Secretary of State will set new objectives for river quality, and the NRA will control discharges and take other steps to attain those objectives. Under Chapter II it will also license abstractions to ensure the proper management of water resources. The remaining chapters in this part deal with land drainage, flood defence, fisheries, navigation and other matters.
Compulsory purchase and works powers, together with the necessary safeguards, are contained in Part IV. These are necessary to ensure that all the duties in this Bill can be properly carried out. Part V introduces new water and pollution provisions for Scotland, while Part VI deals with the usual miscellaneous matters.
I think your Lordships may find it helpful if I summarise the package of proposals by referring to three main themes running through this Bill: protection of the consumer, removing conflicts of interest, and providing financial freedom for 10 major businesses.
The first theme is the benefit to customers, through the establishment of higher drinking water and environmental standards and through other service standards and controls over prices. The new companies will have to meet clear, strict drinking water quality standards, against a background of a new criminal offence of supplying unfit water and a new enforcement regime backed by a new drinking water inspectorate with full and unprecedented powers to go in and carry out technical audits of records, actions and procedures.
European drinking water standards will be incorporated in regulations under the Bill—in other words, incorporated directly into British law for the first time. The public will have access to information on drinking water quality that will make it absolutely clear whether water supplies comply with the standards set out in the regulations; and, if not, what the company is doing to remedy the problem.

549
Other standards of service are set out in the Bill and will be in regulations; the companies will have to meet standards, or, in some cases, pay a penalty. The enforcement powers in Clause 20 will enable the Secretary of State and director general to specify what action should be taken to remedy breaches of drinking water and other standards. These will be clear and open processes, and subject to the scrutiny of the courts.
A key part of our new regulatory system will be controls on charges. These controls will be set in the first instance by the Secretary of State, and thereafter by the director general, the new consumer watchdog. Clause 7 of the Bill governs this process. Under it the charge limits will be set at levels which will ensure that water and sewerage functions are properly carried out and that companies can earn sufficient returns to raise the finance that they need. Both of these considerations are essential from the consumers' point of view. It is in nobody's interest in the long term if companies are unable to finance their activities. But Clause 7 also provides specifically for consumers' interests to be protected and for efficiency, economy and competition to be encouraged. That will restrict charge levels to what is necessary.
We are not saying that this will prevent charges from rising. Charges will have to increase to pay for higher standards. No one disputes that. What the Bill will ensure is that consumers pay no more than is necessary to allow companies to provide water and sewerage services efficiently to the standards we are setting.
The second main theme is the removal of current conflicts of interest. I have said that it is important for us to prove the case for change. I can illustrate that case by reference to river pollution. Surely none of us can accept the continuation of the current process whereby the same authority that sets the targets for river quality can itself later adjust those targets downwards if it fails to control pollution. That is almost as if students were asked to set their own exams and mark their own papers. Nor surely can any of us conceive of employing a poacher as a part-time gamekeeper. Yet we ask the water authorities to police river pollution when they themselves are a source of such pollution. It is simply not reasonable to expect the best performance from a system such as this.
The establishment of a new National Rivers Authority will be a major step forward for the environment and will remove the potential for such conflicts of interest. But the NRA can only be truly effective if it is in separate ownership to those it controls, including suppliers of water and sewerage services. The Government will set clear standards and timetables to maintain and improve river quality. The NRA will then control river pollution and ensure that the national standards are achieved. Only through privatisation can firm and consistent controls be applied effectively to the water industry and other businesses alike, by persuasion or prosecution. For the first time a new charging system will mean that polluters will have to pay the cost of pollution control. The NRA will have the teeth, the cash and the staff to do this effectively. Dr. John
550
Bowman has today been appointed chief executive by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell who, as your Lordships know, is chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee and to whose speech we are looking forward.
The benefits to customers and the removal of potential conflicts of interest are inextricably bound to the third main theme running through this Bill. That is the creation of economic and managerial freedom for the industry within the strong public control I have mentioned. This freedom can only be achieved if we remove the water industry from the public sector and the nationalised industry financial controls which are necessary so long as it remains there.
All experience shows that businesses are more efficient and successful in the private sector than in the public sector. The water industry is no different. The daily measure of performance provided by the share price will itself provide a discipline and spur to management and to those of the workforce who have invested in the company, releasing the energies and entrepreneurial talents of the industry.
There is no doubt that cleaner rivers, cleaner beaches, and purer drinking water cost money. But much of the cost of these improvements falls on the public purse. We have a major spending programme under way to reduce the backlog of investment including that dating from the late 1970s, when the last Labour Government inflicted long-term damage by cutting capital investment programmes. Those reductions were criticised by an all-party Select Committee in the other place. The good news is that we have been able to ensure that capital investment by the water industries has grown in each of the last eight years. Even so, we are not satisfied. Even though we are increasing investment by 20 per cent cent. this year alone there is still a lot to be done. That is why we have set in hand a major programme of capital investment aimed at bringing water standards up to scratch as soon as possible. The cost of maintaining improvements and high quality is substantial.
Freeing the new private water companies from government financial restrictions will mean an end to that competition. The industry will be free to pursue the most effective investment strategies for cutting costs and improving standards of service. Coherent long-term investment strategies will no longer be subject to interruption by changing political priorities. Those who argue that the industry could be released from public sector controls while remaining in the public sector have to show why this industry alone could be exempted when other priorities are just as pressing. I have to remind your Lordships that this was not a case that the IMF accepted—if it was ever put to it—in 1976. The consequence of that was a 50 per cent. real terms cut in sewerage investment and substantial cuts in other investment over a very short time. The detrimental effects on the quality of water and on the environment were inevitable.
Before concluding, I want to turn to one or two specific areas where I know that this House will have a particular interest. First, I want to remind the House that a quarter of the water supply industry is

551
already in the private sector. The principle of private sector operation within public regulation is already conceded. But some who are in favour of privatisation would prefer, I gather, to follow the statutory water company model to the letter. No doubt we can return to that later, but for now, I want to make sure that they are aware of the unambiguous analysis of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1986. The commission found that for these unnatural companies, where dividends are limited, the normal private sector incentives for managers to keep plugging away at cost reduction simply do not exist. They concluded that the existing private companies were not in their view a useful model to follow. This Bill protects the customer against abuse of the natural monopoly position by strong, fair regulation, while providing the financial freedom to encourage efficiency. That is the best approach.
Then there is the question of the management of land by the new water and sewerage plcs. Over a third of water authority land is in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Its conservation is important for the nation. The value of this land for recreation has also been recognised since Victorian times.
That is why this Bill provides for the current duties that apply to water authorities to be continued, clarified, detailed in a code of practice and given teeth. In addition, the new National Rivers Authority will act to promote conservation and recreation. The new companies and the NRA will be bound to further conservation and have regard to the preservation of public access to much of their land. They will also have to make their land and waters available for recreation in the best manner, although in this there will often be a balance to be drawn between conservation and recreation.
Most important, the conservation, access and recreation duties are enforceable by the Secretary of State. In considering enforcement action the Secretary of State will take account of the extent to which the new companies follow the best practice set out in a code. We have already published a draft so that all can see what will be required of the industry in the future.
In the other place, the Bill has been amended to make clear that the access duty will apply to concessionary paths and the right to roam, where this has been granted by the water authorities, as well as to public rights of way. In addition, rights of public access and amenity under local enactments, covering, for example, the Elan Valley and parts of the Lake and Peak Districts, could not be altered by the Secretary of State.
Together these measures will provide a secure framework for the protection, enhancement and fuller enjoyment of the water environment, not just of our rivers, lakes and reservoirs, but also of the water industry land in the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere.
These and other issues will absorb our attention over the coming weeks. We look forward to listening to the arguments that are put forward. But the main thrust of the Bill is clear. We are all consumers. We
552
will all benefit from improved standards. Whether we are looking for better water to drink, better water to fish in, better water to sail in, or better water to bathe in, privatisation under this Bill is crucial to the achievement of those goals. On detailed analysis only privatisation can provide a clear and full separation of the management of industry from regulation of that industry. Only privatisation can provide true accountability in place of the potential for conflicts of interest which block the road to higher standards. Only privatisation can provide the industry with the freedom of financial and operational management which is needed if improved standards are to be achieved quickly and efficiently.
The Bill represents a great breakthrough in the long history of both private and public water and sewerage provision in this country. We are convinced that it is the right way forward. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only thing that gives me pleasure in rising to the Dispatch Box to speak on the Bill is the prospect of crossing swords once again with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. We have had this experience on a number of occasions in the past. Although our disputes have never been less fierce, they have always been courteous. I can see that that will happen again, at least on his side.
Much of what I have to say on the Bill was said much more succinctly and better by Joseph Chamberlain in 1874. He said:
"All private regulated monopolies, sustained by the state, in the interests of the inhabitants generally, should be controlled by the representatives of the people, and not left in the hands of private speculators".
He went on to say:
"The waterworks should never be a source of profit, as all profit should go to the reduction of the price of water".
I said "much of what I have to say" because I did not want the House to delude itself into thinking that I would sit down at this point. I propose to show that the Bill is wrong for the water industry itself, wrong for the taxpayer, wrong for those whom the Government think might be persuaded to invest in the water industry on flotation, wrong for the consumer and wrong for the environment. In other words, I disagree with every single one of the points put forward by the noble Earl.
I should like to deal first with the water industry. The noble Earl spoke about the opportunities of economic and managerial freedom. Let us be quite clear about this. The privatisation of the water industry proposed in the Bill will not bring about a free market or the benefits of a free market. Under the proposals in the Bill water undertaking plcs will not be like public limited companies in the private sector. Plcs in the private sector have the right to control their own assets, to control their own investment, to dispose of their assets if necessary, to set their own prices, to refuse to supply customers if they choose so to do, to divest themselves of part of

553
their business if necessary, and in the end, if they have to, to go bankrupt.
Not one of those rights applies under the regulatory regime which is to be imposed under the Bill. The Financial Times described it as a "very harsh" regulatory regime. If the conditions of privatised water plcs are not the same as those that apply in the true private sector, what argument can there be that the benefits which accrue, according to government theory, from the free market, can also apply to the water plcs?
The crux of this matter is in the arguments about competition. The Water Authorities Association, which has a strong vested interest in privatisation—or at least its top managers have such an interest—has argued that there will be some substitute for competition in this natural monopoly. It says that there will be competition between one water authority and another. The Government have shot the ground from under that argument very thoroughly by making it clear in the past few months that the price setting mechanism—the RPI plus K mechanism—will be applied separately to each water authority. They have done so because they recognise that the conditions of costs and the nature of supplies that apply in separate water authorities will be different from one another. If the Government cannot apply a common standard to the profitability of water authorities, how on earth can the investors in the business, the public at large or the consumer have any idea of whether the water companies are being efficiently run? The argument for comparative composition does not stand up for a moment.
The same is true of the argument on share price. If the Government cannot set common standards for the efficiency of the industry, how can those proposing to buy shares make the distinction? This applies also to the third argument of the Water Authorities Association. It says that this will be regulated by capital markets. The other arguments it uses are so trivial that it is hardly worth referring to them. It says that there will be real competition in greenfield sites—in completely new developments, new towns and so on. If that amounts to more than 1 per cent. of the supply in this country I shall be very surprised. It also says that there could be real competition in supplies to large industrial consumers. Again, that argument makes sense only if those industrial consumers happen to be right on the boundary between one site and another. The argument, therefore, that the water industry will benefit from privatisation and that management in the water industry will also benefit is extremely thin.
The Government argue that the taxpayer will benefit. Let us look at the figures, even if they are only in outline. The assets of the water industry have been estimated at approximately£27 billion. Flotation is not referred to directly in the Bill but it has been a proper matter of public discussion over many months now. The informed estimates are that the proceeds of flotation might result in a gross return to the taxpayer of perhaps£5 billion to £7 billion. Therefore we are already talking about a discount of 80 per cent. in the value of the water industry against what the taxpayer may expect to receive.
554
Unfortunately it does not stop there. The water industry of its nature is intensely dependent on long-term capital. The debt of the regional water authorities has been calculated at approximately £5.2 billion. It has been made clear that, certainly for some and possibly for all of the water authorities, in order to make them attractive on the market, the long-term debts will have to be written off. It could easily happen that virtually all of the proceeds of flotation will be squandered in writing off debts to the Government.
One has also to remember that the taxpayer receives not the proceeds but the proceeds less the cost of flotation —in other words, the cost of all of the advisers and all those concerned in the City with the flotation. We are already paying the cost. We already see a totally unnecessary and futile attempt to persuade us about the need for water. Our newspapers and our advertisement hoardings are full of it. It will not be very long before our television screens are full of this nonsense. A totally unnecessary advertising campaign is being put out by the Water Authorities Association at the expense of the water consumer. It is doing so only because it anticipates privatisation. When we come to the Government's advertising after the Bill becomes law, as we fear it will in some form or another, we shall see an even greater waste of taxpayers' money on this privatisation procedure.
The argument has been well rehearsed by the noble Earl as to whether some of the advantages he sees in privatisation could exist without privatisation. One example is the National Rivers Authority. We welcome the National Rivers Authority. It is a significant advance on the 1986 privatisation proposals. However, from the point of view of flotation, what does the National Rivers Authority do? It takes away from the regional water authorities virtually all of their non-profit making, environmentally necessary functions which would, if they were left with the water authorities, effectively ruin the flotation. The White Paper itself says that land drainage is not a commercial proposition. What is happening? The parts that can be floated off are being floated off at, as will become clear, a rather poor price. The parts that are environmentally necessary will remain the responsibility of the taxpayer. The taxpayer and the consumer will suffer. None of that is new. Indeed, in the early Stuart days, the days of mercantilism, successive monarchs thought that they could benefit their own bankrupt treasury by awarding monopolies. Godfrey Davies, the author of The Early Stuarts, gives the figures. He says:
"It is calculated that in order that the Crown might receive £80,000 a year gross from the monopolies in starch, coal, salt and soap, the consumer had to pay between £200,000 and £300,000 a year more for these articles".
If one adds a few noughts on to the end of that figure for inflation, that is the position in which we shall find ourselves in 1989–90.
I turn now to the supposed investor. I have been looking at some of the opinions expressed in the City by stockbrokers who have to advise their clients as to whether this will be a good investment. I think that the most clear exposition of those opinions is that from Mr. Nigel Hawkins from Seymour, Pierce

555
Butterfield, who was himself a Conservative candidate at the last General Election. He describes water as:
"Not an exciting investment".
That must be so.
The basic demand for water from the water industry grows by, at most, 1 per cent. per year. We have an industry which is extremely capital intensive. It is quite different, for example, from the National Freight Corporation, or one or two of the claimed successes of the privatisation procedure. We have an industry which, as the noble Earl made clear, is heavily constrained by EC directives. Indeed, we shall have to look more carefully at how closely the Government are going to pay attention to such directives.
We have a regulatory framework, which I have already described as very harsh, which will effectively stop those natural monopolies from exercising their natural monopolistic rights to charge monopoly rents. Above all, we have an industry —as the noble Earl made clear in his most candid speech—which has been starved of capital for many years. Even the minimum amount of investment which is necessary for replacement of the system has not been reached in virtually any year since 1973. I make no party political point about that issue; I am simply saying that past investment, from the point of view of the investor, has been too low. Thus we have an industry which needs more investment but which is constrained by regulation and by European Community directives. It will therefore be extremely difficult to sell the industry to the investor at the time of flotation.
I turn now to the crux of the debates which we shall have on the Bill as it proceeds on its various stages through your Lordships' House. The truth of the matter is that however strong the arguments may be for consumer interest to be protected by amendment, or for environmental interests to be protected by amendment, the Government will be forced to oppose them. They will have to do so not on consumer or environmental arguments, but because they cannot risk an already delicate flotation falling short. That is their difficulty. That is why the business managers on the Government side, in this House and in another place, will have to keep up a high attendance of those who do not listen to the arguments. I say that because those who do listen to the arguments, those who are concerned about consumer interests, those who are concerned about environmental issues and those who know about the water industry, will not be taken in by the Government's arguments for one moment. That is the difficulty they will face, and I can assure the House that that is the difficulty which we shall exploit.
The fact of the matter is that the water industry is, even in strict capitalist terms, not a suitable candidate for privatisation. Let us leave the consumer and environmental arguments to one side for a moment. In order for an industry to compete effectively for capital in private markets, it should have an earnings per share increasing at, say, 10 per
556
cent. to 15 per cent. per year. How will that figure be derived from the water industry, the core business of which increases by, at the most, 1 per cent. a year? It will only come from higher prices, which will be constrained by the Director General of Water Services; from less investment, which will be constrained by the European Community; from lower quality, which will be constrained by the Government and by the European Community, or from disposal profits on disposal of assets. That is the crux of the matter. That in the end is the intention behind a large part of this privatisation procedure. That is where the consumer, the environmental interests, as well as the taxpayer, will be short-changed by the privatisation procedures which we see before us at present.
The noble Earl announced—and I listened to him with great interest—changes in the Bill that he proposes to put forward which will allow further access to land in our national parks and elsewhere. We wait to see what those amendments are before we comment upon them in detail, but, in principle, that announcement is welcome. However, that is only a small part of the risk to the environment from this Bill.
The land assets of the water industry amount to nearly half a million acres of which 97,000 acres are in Wales alone. Those land assets are not, in most cases, essential to the industry. They have been built up at the expense—I hasten to say—of local ratepayers, rather than taxpayers, in our great cities over a period of more than 100 years. They were expropriated from those ratepayers in 1973 on the argument that the local authorities would still maintain a majority of the membership of the new regional water authorities. That arrangement lasted for 10 years until the next Conservative Government were elected. But in the 1983 Act that provision was taken away.
Such assets are worth incalculable amounts of money. In our countryside especially it is almost impossible to say how much they are worth in money terms. But it is clear to all of us, and especially clear to Members of this House, that such land assets in the Lake District, the Peak District, in Wales and elsewhere, are of incalculable value because they are of value to our quality of life. However, that is only one part of the matter. The other part is that the assets, particularly those of the Thames Water Authority which exist in our urban areas and many of which are now surplus to operational requirements, are worth very calculable amounts of money.
If we look at the assets of the Thames Water Authority and if we look at the Perry Oaks sludge treatment depot—which, no doubt, will be Terminal 5 at Heathrow in due course—or, if we look at 93 acres in Stoke Newington or at the many unnecessary reservoirs (unnecessary because the water ring main which now exists around London, in the South West near Staines) we will see that those assets are worth billions of pounds.
Moreover, we run a serious risk that they will be thrown away in a flotation in exactly the same way—although much worse—as assets from the Royal Ordnance factories were when they were sold far too cheaply to British Aerospace. I thought that

557
after the criticism which was made about that sell-off the Government would not have the nerve to come forward again with similar proposals. Yet this Bill does not contain anything like adequate assurances that the assets which belong to the people—whether they are ratepayers or taxpayers—will not simply be used as a benefit for private profit.
If we look at water quality, the problem there is very serious indeed. There are a million households in this country with water supplies which contain nitrates at a level which is above that permitted by the European Community. For example, the Anglian Water Authority will have to spend from between £60 million and £70 million over 10 years in order to deal with that problem. We have taken no effective steps to deal with European Community rules on pesticides. Ten per cent. of Welsh households are at risk from excessive lead in their water. A vast amount of investment is required and it is required as a result of neglect over a significant number of years. Moreover, the privatisation procedure which we have before us does not give us any confidence that that neglect will be dealt with.
I could extend the arguments about the environment at some length. However, many of my noble friends are much better informed than I on such matters. I have no doubt that they will be talking about the polluter pays principle; they will be talking about codes of practice for leisure access to water authority land and they will raise many other points with which I simply do not have time to deal.
I make it clear, as I did before, that we welcome the National Rivers Authority. We wish it well. We wish it adequate resources, staffing and powers. We do not however welcome many of the powers of the Director General of Water Services.
I now refer to our responsibilities towards consumers. The problem we have with the consumer regulation proposed in the Bill is that the Director General of Water Services has direct control for customer service committees which are set up under the Bill. We believe, just as we believe that the codes of practice should be statutory, that the customer service committees should be independent of the Director General of Water Services who has responsibilities which are different from looking after the consumer.
The Bill is defective in so many ways that it would be impossible for me to pinpoint even the most important. I shall pick one example only which shows the way in which the treatment of consumers and the environment is inadequate in the Bill and will need to be amended as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House. That example relates to the duties of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services under Clauses 7 and 8. Despite strong protests over the past months as the Bill was going through another place, the Bill still says that the first duty of the Director General of Water Services and of the water company plcs is to achieve a reasonable return on assets. It is only subject to that duty that there is any protection for the consumer or the environment. While that conflict exists, and while the return on assets takes priority over the interests of the consumer and the environment, we shall not be reassured that the
558
consumer and the environment are beneficiaries of the privatisation procedures.
On all those matters, we find a conflict in the privatisation proposals, the terms of this lengthy and elaborate Bill and the interests of the consumer, the environment and the economy. The Daily Telegraph—no enemy of the Government—summed the whole matter up a few weeks ago by describing it as a "wholly misguided venture". It said:
"It is still not too late to think again".
I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments which will be put forward on all those points; to listen with an open mind and not to reject them out of hand; and to seek to improve the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
I warn the Government that whatever they may think about the Bill, the privatisation of water is deeply offensive to the people of this country. That has been proved over and over again. I repeat the words of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition who, echoing the words of Joseph Chamberlain, said only last week:
"Water is our country's largest natural monopoly. We in the Labour Party believe that it must be publicly controlled and fully accountable. We will end the private monopoly and bring the water industry back into public control".

Hillsborough Disaster
3.34 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement about the disaster at the Sheffield Wednesday Football Club ground at Hillsborough Stadium on Saterday which is now being made in another place by my right hounourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statment is as follows:
"Everyone has been horrified by this incredible tragedy in which 94 lost their lives and 174 were injured.
"Shortly after the start of the match there was a surge of spectators on the Leppings Lane terrace which crushed many at the front against the perimeter fence. This accounted for most of the deaths and injuries.
"The match was due to start at 3 p.m. To help ensure orderly access, the gates of the ground were opened at 12 noon. At 2.30 p.m. most of the Nottingham fans were in the ground, but many of the Liverpool supporters were still arriving. It was clear to the police officers in charge that there was ample capacity still to be filled in some parts of the enclosure allocated to Liverpool.
"At about 2.45 p.m. there was a large crowd of Liverpool supporters at the turnstiles in Leppings Lane behind the West Stand. There was difficulty in coping with the pressure on the turnstiles and the police used loudhailers to urge the crowd to be patient.
"At about 2.50 p.m. more Liverpool supporters arrived and the numbers in front of the turnstiles increased. Some supporters started to climb the walls and turnstiles and those at the front of the

559
crowd outside the stadium were under considerable pressure from those behind.
"The senior police officer present considered that there was a possible danger to the lives of the spectators at the front of the crowd outside the stadium. In order to relieve the pressure he arranged for an exit gate near the turnstiles to be opened to let a section of the crowd through. The relationship of that action to the disaster on the terrace shortly afterwards is clearly a central question to be investigated.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I yesterday visited the football ground and the two Sheffield hospitals which received casualties. I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations at the ground, including the many spectators who gave their help; and to those others, including the hospital staffs and voluntary agencies who have since been working so hard treating the injured and consoling the bereaved. We heard many accounts of courage exerted on behalf of others.
"I have asked for further factual reports from the police and other services, the local authority and the Football Association. Inquests will be held in due course. But over and above this, there is clearly need for a full and independent inquiry to identify the causes of the disaster and to examine what needs to be done to prevent such an accident happening again. I have therefore asked Lord Justice Taylor to carry out an inquiry, with the following terms of refrence:
"To inquire into the events at Sheffied Wednesday football ground on 15th April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports events."
"Mr Brian Johnson, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, has agreed to assist the inquiry as an assessor; and arrangements will be made as necessary for other qualified assessors to be appointed and for the inquiry to be provided with technical advice and support. I am asking that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed. Lord Justice Taylor will visit Sheffield tomorrow to begin his investigation. I am grateful to him for agreeing to undertake this task.
"However, we need also to take a wider view. The Government believe that the future of football in this country lies in a national membership scheme in designated grounds, and now it seems also in providing all-seated accommodation at major football clubs. This would involve the disappearance of terraces at those grounds. It might also involve amendments to strengthen the Football Spectators Bill so that its provisions for the licensing of grounds matched this concept. We shall be considering these matters urgently and bringing forward changes as soon as possible.
"An appeal fund is being set up by the civic authorities of Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield. The Government will be contributing £500,000 immediately towards this fund.
"This was a devastating tragedy. Our deep sympathy goes to the families of those who died, to those recovering and to those still fighting for
560
life and health. We owe a duty to these passionate supporters of football to examine urgently and thoroughly the causes and background, and to do all in our power to prevent such a thing happening again."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the sombre Statement of the Home Secretary. The whole House will join with him in offering our deep sympathy to the bereaved families of the many victims and to those who were injured in Saturday's terrible tragedy at Hillsborough. The whole nation shared, and still shares, in their grief and their suffering.
Perhaps I may express our gratitude to all who responded so quickly at the scene of the tragedy to what was going on and who worked so admirably in saving, and trying to save, lives, in comforting the dying and in helping the injured. I refer to the police officers, the fire officers, the doctors, nurses, the hospitals and other emergency services. It is a particular satisfaction, in view of other previous events, to say thank you also for the endeavours of the football supporters on the ground. On Saturday they acted with discipline and compassion. No one behaved badly that day.
We welcome the decision of the Home Secretary to set up a public inquiry and the appointment of Lord Justice Taylor to conduct it, with assistance. The public will need an unequivocal and authoritative account of what happened at Hillsborough, why it happened and what needs to be done to prevent any disaster of that kind ever happening again. It seems clear that the report of the inquiry will be followed by a reorganisation of football ground control and that this may take some time to achieve.
The greatest emphasis so far—and the Statement of the Home Secretary seems to point to this—has been placed on replacement of standing terraces with seating accommodation. But will not some action be taken at once about one particular matter? Will the Home Secretary consider making an immediate recommendation to those safety committees and chief constables who have insisted on football clubs installing perimeter fences giving urgent thought to their existence and to the part they played in Saturday's tragedy? I am informed that many football clubs have warned for years against perimeter fencing on the ground that it was a potential danger. On Saturday it seems to have proved lethal. I think that the House may well wish to know what the Government will do about that immediate, limited but important matter.
May we assume that the recommendations of the public inquiry will not simply be about conditions inside football grounds on which public attention has previously been focused, but also about crowd control outside the turnstiles and on the way to matches when large crowds are anticipated? Was not this a critically relevant factor last Saturday?

561
I end with an assurance of the Opposition's ready co-operation in passing any legislation directed to ensuring the safety of the public who come for enjoyment to football matches, so popular a feature of our lives. The nation expects that out of Saturday's tragedy effective steps will be taken to protect the safety of the public and its enjoyment of sport.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Statement. Is he aware that in this appalling tragedy all of us are grateful to the emergency services who did such magnificent work? Again, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in paying tribute to the very large number of football supporters, both of Nottingham Forest and of Liverpool, who gave assistance to those who had been so grievously injured in this episode.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers three questions. First, is he aware that we warmly welcome the appointment of Lord Justice Taylor to conduct the inquiry and the fact that Mr. Brian Johnson, the chief constable of Lancashire, has agreed to be one of the assessors?
Is the noble Earl prepared to indicate whether Lord Justice Taylor will be invited to produce an interim report on one particular question? That is the issue of perimeter fencing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has already referred to that, but it is clear that it was a major factor in this dreadful disaster. Is the noble Earl aware that many of us hope that, if Lord Justice Taylor forms a view on the matter, he will be encouraged to produce an interim report dealing with it so that Parliament can take appropriate action?
Is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, aware that although there was a reference to the Football Spectators Bill in the Statement which he has just repeated, many of us think it inappropriate to become involved in an argument once again on this matter? We shall have the opportunity of debating it on Third Reading next week. But is the noble Earl also aware that it is clear that the large crowds trying to gain admission at the turnstiles in Leppings Lane just before the match began were clearly a significant factor in what happened thereafter? We can deal with that matter next Monday, but the noble Earl will recognise that we shall want to debate the subject if the Government intend to continue with the Football Spectators Bill in its present form.
Lastly, is the noble Earl aware that many of us agree with the Statement by the Home Secretary that the idea of having all seated facilities at football matches has now been clearly and dramatically placed on the agenda again? If Lord Justice Taylor forms a conclusion on the matter at an early stage in the inquiry, is the noble Earl prepared to indicate that the Government would welcome an interim report from him on that issue as well?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the manner in which they have accepted the Statement
562
which refers to one of the most horrifying accidents that we have seen recently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked what action the Government would be prepared to take with regard to the perimeter safety fencing. He will recall that many grounds have the fencing in direct response to the Popplewell inquiry and that the fences were put up for reasons of added safety. Obviously that is a matter which will be considered by the public inquiry. I think it would not be appropriate to take advance decisions as yet upon that. However I note the noble and learned Lord's concern.
He also referred to the crowd control outside the football stadium. I had cause to inquire how many police were involved. There were 773 police involved at the football match, two-thirds of whom were outside the stadium and one-third inside. To those who are concerned that there were not enough police at the ground, I would merely say that that figure works out at about one policeman for every 70 spectators.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether we would welcome an interim report from Lord Justice Taylor. I think he will be concerned to make an interim report, if he feels he is able to when he has considered the circumstances. I am sure he will realise the apprehension and concern that exists for an immediate response, provided it can be done with success and dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, also referred to the Football Spectators Bill. I realise the concerns which he and others have. It is right to say that the Government consider it seemly to delay the programme of the Bill for a short while in respect of what has happened.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we also wish to thank the noble Earl for the Statement which he has made. However, we regret the reasons why he had to make it. I wish also to extend our sympathy to the bereaved and injured and our appreciation to the emergency services and to the spectators who behaved so well when this happened.
We agree with the suggestion in the Statement that the time has come to move towards all-seated accommodation. We think that only stadia providing that kind of accommodation should be licensed to stage the big games. If perimeter fencing and penning is continued on grounds of safety, we suggest that the design of the penning should be urgently reviewed. It would appear from what we saw on television over the weekend that there was room at the sides of the terraces but the design of the penning was such that those in the middle could not move sideways to get into areas where there was space.
We think the methods of communication between the police inside the ground and those outside should be urgently reviewed, so that both know what is going on in their particular area. Perhaps, with hindsight, if there had been better communication on Saturday, the police outside might have asked for the kick off to be postponed and might have been able to placate the crowd and carry out an orderly admission into

563
the ground. The frustration of those who could not get into the ground confirms the view of many of us that this is the kind of thing that is likely to happen if ID cards are issued. We support any move to delay the implementation of the Football Spectators Bill and the ID cards, at least until grounds have been looked at again, and until the seating and the accommodation for spectators is satisfactory.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I understand her views about all-seated accommodation and that a licence should reflect that. The Government are also thinking along those kinds of lines. With regard to the methods of communication concerning crowd control between police inside and outside grounds, that is obviously a matter which Lord Justice Taylor will be considering.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I join in the sympathy expressed by other noble Lords to the bereaved families, and in the gratitude to those who gave immediate help. The last occasion in this country when crowd pressure caused a disaster was in Glasgow on 1st January 1971 at a Celtic-Rangers match. More than 60 people lost their lives that afternoon. I have the sad recollection of visiting the ground shortly afterwards, as Secretary of State for Scotland, and of visiting the injured in hospital. As a consequence of that tragic episode, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of the late Lord Wheatley who, besides being a distinguished judge, was a keen follower of football.
After the Wheatley Committee's recommendations had been digested, many of us hoped that the dangers of crushing in football crowds had been removed. Besides considering the report of the Hillsborough inquiries now being set in train, will the Government check whether all appropriate action has been taken on the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly see that the point made by my noble friend is looked into.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, Saturday was a sorrowing day for football supporters and a sad and salutary day for the football clubs. However, is it not time that football clubs stopped treating their supporters as caged prisoners of war? This method is not conducive to safety. As the Minister suggested in the Statement, increased safety will come with increased comfort and decent conditions. It is about time clubs improved their facilities in keeping with the needs of decent human beings.
In the light of recent events, I ask the Government to abandon Part I of the Bill proposing the football membership scheme. The scene that we witnessed outside the Sheffield Wednesday ground last Saturday could be a preview of the operation of the football membership scheme—a malfunctioning computer, then mayhem, with the possibility of another surge into the ground.
The fences went up because of pitch invasions by football hooligans. If, as the Football League and the
564
Football Association have repeatedly said—this was argued strongly during the course of the Bill in Committee—they have put their house in order within the grounds and there is no trouble any more, then why not pull down the fences and see if sanity prevails? If so, the Football Spectators Bill can be scrapped.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions. I think that anyone who saw the pictures of the events that occurred last Saturday would have some sympathy with the feelings of the noble Lord about people being in cages. However, I should just remind the noble Lord that those fences were put up in order to prevent some of the other disasters which we had previously witnessed. What very often happens is that when a disaster occurs, one reacts to that and often that has another effect later on.
I understand the view which the noble Lord has expressed. I would only say to him that our intention is that these places must be safe. All these matters are bound to be looked at afresh in view of what has happened, but safety is important. The noble Lord asked whether we would abandon Part I of the Football Spectators Bill. I am bound to tell him that the whole purpose of that Bill is to prevent hooliganism and to allow for ordered football matches. I know it is controversial and I do not wish to get into that kind of controversy this afternoon. However, I think the noble Lord will understand if I say that the Government do not intend to abandon it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join with previous speakers in expressing deep condolences to the bereaved in this terrible tragedy. However, the noble Earl must be aware that during my short time in this House this is the third time that a Minister has risen from the Government Front Bench to make a Statement on appalling tragedies in football that could have been avoided. I am talking about the Bradford disaster which took place near where I live and the Heysel disaster involving heavy loss of life which resulted in extensive debates in your Lordships' House. We have had the Popplewell Report.
Part II of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 is introduced by the words, Application of Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 to all sports grounds. Can the noble Earl give an undertaking that the committee of inquiry to be set up under Lord Justice Taylor will make a detailed investigation as to whether these particular conditions have been adopted, applied and enforced? Bearing in mind that the victims of these disasters are always football spectators, will the Government give urgent consideration to representatives of supporters in general being included on the committee of inquiry under Lord Justice Taylor? I think that that would make the inquiry more generally acceptable and would destroy any suggestion of a whitewash, of which in the past there has been more than a whiff.
I should like to support my colleague on the Front Bench, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-

565
Jones, in his request for the immediate removal of those zoo-like bars which are placed behind the goals, supposedly in order to prevent hooliganism. There is no record of any spectator in this country dying in a football ground as a result of hooliganism. There is a record of an 18 year-old supporter of Tottenham Hotspur being knifed in Belgium, for which no one was brought to trial. Will the Government give consideration immediately to the removal of those bars, which played a major part in the appalling sequence of events at Hillsborough on Saturday?
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked whether safety conditions would be considered. He will realise that under the terms of reference of the inquiry, Lord Justice Taylor will be in a position to consider those safety conditions if he thinks fit.
The noble Lord asked whether supporters will be included in the inquiry. That will not be so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Why?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will contain himself, I shall explain. The inquiry is to be conducted by Lord Justice Taylor, who will have with him an assessor—or more than one assessor—in order that he may reach his conclusions as quickly as possible. It is not the intention to have a whole range of individuals to assist him, although he can call upon assistance and advice as he thinks fit.
The noble Lord said that sometimes in the past there has been a whitewash. I thought that that remark was unfortunate. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention of any whitewash. What has happened is an absolute disaster. We want to find the best way of ensuring so far as we can that it does not happen again.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question regarding the assessor. I do not believe that the Home Office has realised the implications. The chief constable who has been asked to serve as an assessor is a very respected chief constable and a personal friend of mine. Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that the inquiry will be conducted by an eminent lawyer and a chief constable, I feel that it would be wise for the Home Office to appoint another person and to name that other person. I accept that the judge can call upon other assessors, but I think that it would be advisable for the Home Office to name another assessor from outside the legal profession or the police authorities.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. The Statement states:
"Mr Brian Johnson, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, has agreed to assist the inquiry as an assessor; and arrangements will be made as necessary for other qualified assessors to be appointed and for the inquiry to be provided with technical advice and support".
Other assessors can and will be provided.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, all or us who have participated, either actively or as spectators, in any sport felt deeply shocked and saddened this weekend. I join in the condolences that have been sent to the bereaved in this disaster and in the appreciation of the magnificent work that was done on the field and outside the ground, particularly by the inhabitants of the locality of Hillsborough all through the night.
I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions. First, in view of the implications of the disaster for the Government's objective in t he Football Spectators Bill of increasing safety in football grounds, do the Government not consider that the progress of the Bill should be suspended, at least until the preliminary report of the judicial committee is published?
Secondly, I have known the Hillsborough ground and its surrounding area for many years. I should like to raise with the noble Earl one point which has not been raised so far. It is a point about which I doubt whether he has any knowledge and he may not be able to answer my question this afternoon. If he cannot, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of his right honourable friend and see that an answer is given.
I have talked to people who spent all night comforting the bereaved and helping to organise them in the grisly task of identifying the dead bodies of their relatives and friends. That process went on until the early hours of Sunday morning.
The reports that I have had at first hand indicate that there was very little direction, no leadership, and a great deal of chaos. A great deal of pain was suffered by those who had to wait until the early hours of the morning for the process of identification. Can the noble Earl say who is responsible for the organisation of the social services and the essential help for those who find themselves in that distressing situation in such a disaster? This applies to all disasters. Is there any central agency that can organise the many willing helpers? As understand —and I stress, as I understand—from those who participated, there was virtually no direction, no leadership and no organisation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether or not those matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred are fact will undoubtedly come out in Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry. I can tell the noble Lord that when anything of such a nature happens, the emergency services—fire, police and ambulance—take the lead. There are plans for dealing with disasters of this nature. I have not heard reports which lead me to believe that I he situation was as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has suggested.
The noble Lord referred to the Football Spectators Bill. As I explained earlier, the Government think it seemly to delay the progress of the Football Spectators Bill for a short time in deference to what has happened.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl assuring the House that the judicial inquiry will include an examination of what happened during the night following the disaster?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. The judicial inquiry has its own terms of reference. They would enable Lord Justice Taylor to cover those points if he thought it appropriate.

Water Bill
4.8 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the privatisation of water is probably the most controversial of the privatisation measures which this Government have introduced. I think it right to recall briefly the way in which their thinking on privatisation appears to have developed.
Initially the intention was to transfer to the private sector from the public sector those enterprises which could respond positively to competition; namely, those which were either already in a competitive situation or potentially in one. Such bodies for example as Amersham International, Jaguar, Associated British Ports, National Freight, National Bus, Britoil, were transferred.
That policy seemed to be confirmed in the Conservative Party's manifesto in 1983. That stated:
"Merely to replace state monopolies with private ones would be to waste an historic opportunity".
Clearly, here was a statement of intent that, when there were transfers from the public to the private sector, they should be within the framework of competition. However, that policy seemed to be modified in due course. When the Government turned their attention to the privatisation of what had previously been regarded as public utilities, that raised an entirely new issue. There was then very little escape from the fact that, in transferring those massive organisations to the private sector, they would be so transferred either as total monopolies or as quasi monopolies. That raised the whole difficult question of regulation.
Our first experience of that matter was with Telecom. I do not believe that one can say that the first few months at any rate of the experience of the privatised Telecom organisation was regarded as entirely successful, although, to be fair, it is making very great efforts to recover from that experience now. Then there was the example of the gas industry which was simply transferred as it stood as a public monopoly into the private sector, in spite of many qualms being expressed on this side of the House. While there was some degree of regulation for the domestic market, there was none at all for the industrial market. In due course, that matter was referred to the Monopolies Commission which ruled that there had been an abuse of monopoly. Corrective action has now been taken. That lesson appears to have been learnt regarding the electricity industry, and efforts are being made to introduce a degree of competition at the generating end.
However, in the case of water, it is difficult to see how any major element of competition can be introduced. That raises the whole question of the way in which it is being handled. Initially, when the Government announced their intention to privatise water, they did so in the White Paper of 1986 in
568
which the intention was to privatise the 10 water authorities as they stood on the basis of the river catchment areas, on which basis they had been created in the Water Act of 1973.
However, in due course, the Government changed their mind. They were subjected to a considerable amount of pressure from varying interests, and after the 1987 election they came forward with the proposals that we now have before us. I believe that it would be a pity if, because the Government have changed their mind—no doubt on reasonable grounds—we should in any way demean the very substantial contribution made by the water authorities on the river catchment basis. Initially, when the Government came out with their changed proposals, the chairmen of the water authorities were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the proposal. They since appear to have come round.
We are now concerned with the new proposals. There are undoubtedly very grave doubts about the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned. As regards consumers, there has probably not so far been a measure so unpopular—certainly not among privatisation measures—which has struck the public imagination. Noble Lords will have seen the many reports on consumers' reactions. I have in front of me one of the latest which I received this morning from the Consumers Association. It conducted surveys in November and February and noticed very little change in consumers' response. I do not wish to go into detail, but the report stated:
"For every positive comment—for example, that service or water quality would get better—we recorded 11 negative ones".
Rightly or wrongly therefore there is a perception of serious doubt about the measure in the public mind. I should have thought it important for Parliament to try to allay those doubts in whatever ways we can.
As regards environmental groups, they too are very dubious about the impact of the measures. Grave concern has been registered by a whole variety of groups in which Members of all sides of this House are much involved. That matter will undoubtedly be dealt with later. So far as we on these Benches are concerned, my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport will deal with that matter when he speaks.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, expressed the doubts that potential investors have expressed about this sort of investment with its severe and restrictive regulation. There are therefore doubts all round. I believe that we shall have to bear those doubts in mind as we go through the various stages of dealing with the Bill.
Against that background, I should like to draw attention to some of the specific issues which I feel will attract a good deal of attention when we come to later stages. Let us start with the National Rivers Authority. I believe that the NRA concept, as it has now developed, has obtained pretty strong support. We heard that point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and we on these Benches support the concept. It is satisfactory to note that, in his organisation of the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, puts the emphasis on its regional organisation. That is fine; but I am a little disturbed

569
that those regional bodies are described in the Bill as advisory. I believe that, if the emphasis is to be on regional operation—with which I entirely agree—a stronger mention of their regional activities should be inserted in the Bill. In the debates in another place, concern was expressed about whether the NRA will have the resources necessary to do its vital job. We shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about that matter later. It is a matter into which we shall want to go.
Next there is the question of consumer representation. Consumers' interests will certainly be taken into account because the Director General of Water Services will have to set up consumer service committees. But that raises the large issue of whether those committees should be dependent on the regulator. The regulator's role is different from pure consumer protection. He is there to see that all interests are served—the interests of the producer, the supplier, the consumer and so on. There is therefore a strong case, as has been ventilated in the debates elsewhere, that a strong, independent consumer organisation should be set up. I am sure that we shall consider that point when we come to the next stage.
The question of price regulation raises many issues. Of course, there is general agreement that, if a monoply is to be privatised, there must be very strict regulation of prices. There is no argument about that, but the pricing formula, as described in the document accompanying the Bill known as the Model Instrument of Appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers—which I recommend as important reading for all noble Lords—shows how complex the whole arrangement for price control is. When one starts to read it, it gives the impression that it will be fixed according to clearly defined principles; but then one finds that there is a K factor which can be varied according to the capital commitments against which the different authorities or companies may come up. Then there is what is known as the cost pass through factor—it is almost as if we are talking about a character in Jules Verne—and there is the discretionary pass through factor.
That is entirely new jargon and will take a great deal of getting used to. It appears to mean that one starts from a precise way in which prices shall be determined. Then one has three quite important modifying factors; namely, the K factor, the cost pass through factor—which is meant to reflect new statutory obligations that could involve capital expenditure—and the discretionary pass through factor which, as I understand it, is meant to reflect untoward developments that could not have been foreseen when the prices were originally fixed. So there is an enormous amount of discretion in this whole pricing area and I am sure that we shall want to go into that in great detail.
The question of competition also arises. The regulator has a duty to introduce competition. I tried to probe into what he was intended to do about it by initiating a debate in this House on 8th November. It seemed to me that there was relatively little scope, and competition by comparison to which the Government attached so much importance is really very difficult to go by because of the enormous
570
variation between different regions and the different companies. The only kind of competition that could possibly be introduced would be at the production end. It cannot be done at the selling end but it may be possible at the production end. That is something at which we need to look.
Next there is the question of the local authorities and their status. Inevitably they are involved in this whole area. They have their environmental health responsibility, their very widespread sewerage responsibilities at the present time on an agency basis, and they are involved in waste disposal, recreational and other similar functions.
What is not clear is whether they will retain those activities or whether they will be diminished under the terms of the Bill. That is something that we shall want to probe. I should have thought that the local authorities must continue to play a very large part in these matters. They represent the local communities. They have built up skill and know-how in these sectors. I should have thought it quite wrong that their responsibilities should be diminished.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of land assets. I am sure they will be mentioned by other noble Lords. Perhaps there is as much concern about what the new companies will do with their enormous land assets as there is about any other aspect of the Bill. I think that we need to do something more than is envisaged in the Bill to allay apprehensions in that regard.
Let me conclude by trying to suggest four ways to allay the very serious and grave doubts that consumers, environmentalists and potential investors have in this proposition. We have a duty in this House to do everything we can to try to improve this measure. The Bill went through another place virtually unscathed. In this Chamber we must try to have modifications made if we possibly can. I put forward therefore four proposals for consideration.
The first is that because this is an industry which now faces an enormous increase in expenditure as a result of standards which were either fixed in the past and not yet achieved, as under the Control of Pollution Act, or are now being fixed as new ones by the European Community, I think that there ought to be a special way of facilitating this. I should therefore like to propose that there should be retention of all or part of the proceeds of privatisation, and that they should be credited to a Water Development Fund under the control of the NRA to pay for these special improved standards. That would to a considerable degree allay the, fears of the public about what will happen to water charges.
Secondly, because of the grave concern that the payment of and progressive increase in dividends could become a dominant factor in the way in which these enterprises are run, I suggest that initially they be launched on the basis of either preference shares or convertible loan stock. That is a proposition which in fact has been put forward very strongly and consistently, and I have seen many references to it in the Daily Telegraph. It would mean that both consumers and investors felt that they had better safeguards. Consumers would feel more protected

571
because there would be a limit on the amount of dividend, at any rate for a specified period, and investors would feel safer because they would know precisely where they stood. I strongly recommend that proposal for consideration.
Thirdly, to stimulate competition we ought to study very carefully the proposals in the Electricity Bill. A major effort is there being made by the Government to introduce competition at the generating end. The comparable activity in water of course lies in the water treatment and sewage treatment plants and in the distribution network. I think we should look again at the Bill to see if some greater degree of competition could be introduced in the operation of those parts of the water business.
Finally, my fourth proposal is to do something about the land. For example, there has been a suggestion that the freehold of the land should be transferred to the NRA but its usage should be retained in the hands of the companies. If they wished to dispose of any part of the land they would have to obtain authorisation and give justification for it to the NRA. So that is a way in which the fears about indiscriminate land disposal and development could be allayed.
I have made these suggestions and drawn attention to the matters which I feel we shall certainly want to consider. The aim and object must be to try to improve this measure in the light of the very definite public apprehension that it has aroused.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I think it somewhat revealing that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his opposition to this Bill, relies on something which was said by Joe Chamberlain in 1875 about natural monopolies being publicly owned. It showed how dead, unfortunately, is still the thinking in the Labour Party, because a great deal has happened since 1875, including the realisation that in general the nationalisation of anything is a disaster.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the assets of the water authorities being of the order of £20 billion and lamented that these were apparently to be sold off to the public for substantially less than that. But as they stand at the moment they are of no particular use to anyone in developing and modernising the industry. They are locked up. Water cannot use them as security to borrow money. The noble Lord also referred to the Royal Ordnance fiasco. I think that he had a good point there. The Government did overlook the potential value of the land or the sites attached. However my understanding is that no such mistake will be made this time and the possible potential development value of any land which may be sold with the water authorities will be fully valued and reflected in the price of the shares.
I support this Bill because I believe that private ownership always works better than public ownership. That is so whether the operation is in a highly competitive field or to a large extent is a monopoly. Indeed, where there are strong monopolistic conditions, private ownership is even more
572
necessary for the benefit of the customers' pockets. In the case of water it is necessary for the customers' health as well as for the benefit of the environment. I do not draw the same conclusion as that drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, from what has happened to British Telecom. British Telecom was a great sprawling monopoly until privatisation in 1984. Its capital equipment budget had to be approved yearly by the Government and, like water, it could not use its assets as security for any loans that it might have wanted to raise. It could not raise money as a privately owned business can. Any money borrowed went straight against the public sector borrowing requirement, and all governments try to keep public sector borrowing down. That is the nature of the beast. So British Telecom was woefully kept behind by all governments in modernising its system and it could not get its prices down either.
Professor Sir Bryan Carsberg has been Director General of Oftel since privatisation in 1984. On 21st March he spoke at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and said:
"Governments do not generally effectively regulate industries that they own. Regulation and ownership should be separated and separation is not effectively achieved by entrusting regulation to a separate part of the ministerial department when the same minister, or even a different department with a different minister, exercises ownership rights. In any case, ministerial regulation involves the risk that long-term industrial interests may be sacrificed to short-term political ones".
We have seen plenty of that going on since the last war; and it is about time we ended it. Sir Bryan went on to say:
"Incentive regulation works best in conjunction with private ownership because the incentives do not motivate people so effectively under state ownership".
Sir Bryan has fewer powers than the regulators of water will have under this Bill. However, his regulating achievements have been remarkable all the same. From January 1980 to June 1984 the retail price index went up by 43.4 per cent. BT's main line prices in the same period went up by 51 per cent. There was therefore a real price increase of some 5.3 per cent. But from June 1984 to March 1989, when Oftel was getting under way, there has been a very different story. The retail price index has gone up by 25.9 per cent. while BT's main line prices have risen by only 5.5 per cent. There has therefore been a price reduction in real terms of 16.2 per cent. in the past four and a half years.
Sir Bryan's new formula for the next four years means that BT's main line prices will be held yearly at 4.5 per cent. less than inflation—whatever that may turn out to be. That could not have happened under public ownership. Nor could the great improvements in BT's services. From now on, new exchange lines must be installed within two working days of the promised date. Repairs must also be carried out within two working days. Otherwise, BT will have to pay a fine of a minimum of £5 a day to the customer for every day it is late. Even though there is an upper limit of £1,000 for residential customers and £5,000 for business customers, this will certainly be a very sharp incentive for much speedier service.
At the Tote, of which I am the chairman, we have some experience of Sir Bryan's beneficial activities.

573
Our new private lines to our betting offices were continually breaking down. They were often left unrepaired for days. BT kept promising to put them in order again but never did. However, when I contacted Sir Bryan's office he dramatically improved the situation and we now have a far better service. We should have been helpless had BT still been nationalised. We should have been waved aside and no one would have taken any notice.
Again, under Sir Bryan's prodding, 96.5 per cent. of public call boxes are now in working order at any one time. This compares with 77 per cent. in 1987. There have been many other improvements and more are on the way. All this is directly relevant to the privatisation of water. Publicly owned authorities allowed to regulate themselves cannot and will not regulate themselves properly.
Recently, The Sunday Times published a series of articles showing how one great water authority after another blatantly failed to use its powers to prevent water pollution by others and in particular to prevent water pollution by themselves. For instance, one in three of the Anglian Water sewerage works created pollution illegally during 1987. They are by no means alone in failing to carry out the law or to see that the law is implemented. As Juvenal wrote, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". In other words, under public ownership, who is to guard the guards? Juvenal was talking about the futility of guarding wives against potential lovers because of the ease with which naughty wives can for their purposes seduce guards with whom they are in very close contact. However, with privatisation of water, the guards will be completely independent. They will not live in the same house; and they will be non-seduceable.
The Director General of Water Services will be like Sir Bryan Carsberg of Oftel. He will fix the prices of water. They will be the same everywhere so that the less and the least efficient of the new private companies will make less profit. That will provoke their shareholders into demanding more efficiency; and there will be no more jerking up water prices, as there was recently by the privately owned companies which supply 25 per cent. of our water trying to get in on the act before the new control arrives in this Bill which controls all water prices even though they were previously privately owned water authorities. When they are privatised, the investment of the water authorities will not be a charge on the public sector borrowing requirement.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, remarked, during the 1970s the Labour Government unfortunately had to be rescued by the International Monetary Fund. Investment in keeping water and sewerage plants up to date was slashed by a third, and prices rose first by 42 per cent. and then by 26 per cent. But now that the water authorities can raise money in the City for investment, there will be no longer any bars to modernisation which there always are when there are governments in charge, and in particular Labour governments. Nor will the new Director General of Water Services be any less vigilant than Sir Bryan at Oftel. There will not be one guard for water; there will be two. The second will be the National Rivers Authority with the noble
574
Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as chairman. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that he was a great success as Secretary of State for Wales. He has the energy, the powers and the ability to make the water companies far more pollution conscious than they ever were in the public domain.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will tell the privatised water companies what they must do. Their shareholders will suffer dire penalties if they do not obey the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. To begin with, the cost of obtaining purer water and preventing the pollution of the environment will put prices up, as the Minister said, but not much of that is going to be borne by the Government. Most of it will have to be financed by the privatised firms. As the years go by, pollution will disappear from our rivers and coastline, and our water will become cheaper in real terms. It will have a much higher standard of purity than today. That may be bad business for the mineral water companies—they do much of their trade because of the widespread impurity of our tap water—but it will be good business for water consumers.
There will also be the Director General of Water Services to penalise water companies which do not treat their customers decently. For example, when they fail to reconnect disrupted water supplies within a given time they will be forced to pay compensation or, if they do not comply with the charter that the Director General will publish, saying what consumers are entitled to expect, consumers will receive a cash refund for the defects of the water suppliers.
The similarities with Oftel are obvious. It is working with British Telecom and it will work with water. What we should be afraid of with regard to water is if water is not privatised. Self-regulating publicly owned water authorities would never set for themselves the high standards which will now be exacted from them. The spur will be a nasty loss of profits if they do not comply. Water and sewerage have never been free since we stopped living in a state of nature and began to care about health. This Bill will secure the cheapest possible pure water. There will be far stronger safeguards against pollution than there could ever be under cosy public ownership, when Ministers and civil servants restrict investment and ignore their own misdeeds and those of their friends in the public domain.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, throughout my 15 years' membership of your Lordships' House very few Bills have aroused so many fears and doubts among so many organisations as this Bill. Many of the environmental organisations want to be sure that there are enforceable measures in the Bill to secure the permanent protection of the landscape and our countryside. They want to be sure that the existing provision for public access will remain. They want to see the code of practice made mandatory and areas of really fine landscape importance vested in some kind of public body or a voluntary body managing those areas in the public interest.

575
After privatisation a great deal of land will pass to the public companies which will then be able to exploit their assets. They will have a strong incentive to do so, given the high cost of modernising the sewerage systems and conforming to the EC health standards. I do not believe that the safeguards in the Bill are in any way adequate. They are only discretionary; they are unenforceable; and, in any case, they would no longer apply if the land was not absolutely necessary to the water authorities.
The National Rivers Authority has only discretionary powers to police the management of the water catchment lands. The Secretary of State's powers of enforcement are limited and subject to the need to give precedence to financial considerations. The proposed code of practice on environmental duties of the new plcs will not be enforceable as the Bill stands. At the same time there is no duty laid upon the plcs to manage their land sensitively or to maintain access agreements on land not needed by them.
The National Trust is one of the organisations concerned that existing planning controls are inadequate. If the water companies start to sell off the finest areas of our countryside and landscape, then the National Trust will find itself under considerable pressure to acquire or accept the land. It does not have the necessary resources to either buy, manage or preserve such large areas.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors also has doubts about the code of practice. It feels that the code does not tackle the problem of continuing conservation and recreational facilities and says that it is too riddled with phrases like, "having regard to", "taking account of", or, "provide as far as is reasonably practicable". Everything seems to be subordinated to economic expediency. We must have a positive management plan. Public access must be preserved and the plcs should not be allowed to evade their obligations by forming subsidiary companies to deal with one or more of their properties. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors is satisfied that neither the code nor the Bill as drafted could prevent this happening.
The Ramblers' Association is naturally worried about access to the countryside. We all have the right at present to go on foot into a great deal of very lovely countryside. Unless amendments are made to the Bill the plcs will only have to have regard to the desirability of preserving access and will be able to form subsidiary companies and find new owners to whom they can transfer or sell the land. The Bill also encourages water undertakers to charge people to walk on land which, until now, they have freely roamed.
The National Farmers Union is expressing grave concern about increases in water charges, especially in rural areas which tend to be at the end of a long pipeline. This means more expense, greater difficulties of maintenance and much less profit to the plcs. If rural charges become prohibitively expensive, the NFU fears that there will be a reversion to the private supplies. They are worried that a decline in the quality of water may ensure. It is
576
also worried about the compulsory purchase powers which are given to the plcs and the artificially limited rates of compensation for the land which they require. What is going to happen to the agricultural tenants on land which passes to the plcs on privatisation? That land should be protected from inappropriate development, and informal access should be maintained.
I am sure that other speakers will give more detail of the views of the Nature Conservancy Council. It too has questioned how the quality of our rivers will be improved and maintained. It doubts whether the NRA will have the right resources, or adequate resources, to cope with environmental protection and regulatory functions after privatisation. If there are to be real benefits to nature conservation, then the Nature Conservancy Council must also have the necessary resources and powers to do its job properly.
The National Consumer Council is worried about the lack of independent and national consumer representation. The regulator is there to balance the public interest; he is not there as a public watchdog. There should be a national consumer body with real consumer expertise among its members.
The Minister referred in his excellent opening statement to the amendments that he will be proposing with regard to conservation within national parks. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on these Benches we await those amendments with interest. However, if they are only going to require the National Parks Authority to notify the water companies of any features within the parks which it regards as having special importance and only require the plcs to consult the park authorities about proposals which would significantly affect those sites, then we could be in a very dangerous situation. Indeed, the Open Spaces Society suggests that this would lead to a three-tier landscape: the water company land in the parks which the park authorities consider to be special; the other land in the parks which is not deemed to be special, and the land outside the parks. I believe that the land outside the parks and that portion of the parks not labelled "special" will be at greater risk if this kind of classification is used because those two categories of land make up the majority of the half million acres of the water authority holdings. They might be at greater risk with that type of amendment than they would be without it.
The park authorities will have no powers to prevent companies carrying out damaging activities on the land. The plcs are only likely to be able to consult the national parks about their proposed activities in special areas and then to take account of their views. We must place a firm duty on the water authorities, the water companies and their successors, to protect the landscape, the natural beauty, and the conservation value of the land which they now own.
We also want to seek to protect and not to interfere with or encroach upon the public right to enjoy and use the land as at present. We need to keep the rights of access and the freedom to roam on our hills and countryside. Although the Local Authorities Association supports the establishment of the

577
National Rivers Authority, it is uneasy about the supply, disposal and pricing of water by commercial organisations which are monopoly suppliers within their own regions. The association takes a very firm view that the management of the water industry should remain in the public domain and allow for democratic involvement in its management.
The Association of County Councils wants to ensure that the rivers authority has all the powers and resources necessary to enforce the maintenance of the standards of water quality for environmental protection and for pollution control. It wants to see local government involvement on the National Rivers Authority, on the regional river advisory bodies and on the flood defence committees. It asks for better consumer representation that is proposed at present and it would like to see some form of statutory liaison arrangements between the counties, the National Rivers Authority at regional level and the privatised plcs to ensure the proper co-ordination of structure and district planning and water resource strategies. It would also like to see some liaison in the forward investment policies of the water authorities.
The local authorities are afraid that existing public provision of very many water facilities and recreational facilities might be at risk or be discouraged by aggressive charging or by developing and disposing of non-operational water authority lands.
The counties suspect that the planned expenditure on vital flood protection will fall heavily on local communities through the precept and, like many other organisations and individuals, they are concerned about the implications of water pricing, including the system of water metering, for low income consumers. If there is likely to be an increase in the level of disconnections, we must have safeguards against environmental and health hazards. These have community health implications and it is right that the county councils should be concerned about the matter. There is a wide and rich variation of views, doubts and fears, and in general terms we have to remember that the Government paid nothing for the present water authorities, so they do not own them or their assets.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made very clear, under the present set-up in private companies there is a limited fixed return for the shareholders, and any excess goes back into improving the services or is used for consumers' benefit. I believe the assets of any proposed sale have to be retained to improve the infrastructure. I support the view that some way must be found to use a substantial proportion of the sale proceeds for the infrastructure, for work on sewers, sewage disposal and sewage works. Those costs should not all fall on the consumers just because the Government's financial grip over the last decade has not allowed for essential works to be done.
Privatisation without compensation is as wicked as nationalisation without compensation. In 1974 the local authorities received not one penny when their water service assets were transferred to the regional water authorities. All they had was an assurance that there would be a majority of local authority representatives on the new boards. In 1983 that assurance was discarded. The proposals in this
578
Bill remove any last hope of democratic involvement in running the water industry.
There can be no genuine competition in the water industry, only comparisons between one plc and another. That does nothing to help the consumer, who has to get his water in the area where he lives. The consumers are going to be completely captive and at the mercy of private profit-making monopolies.
Privatisation is also going to bring with it the added burden of paying dividends to shareholders, and the impact of rising prices will bear most heavily on the poorest families. Under the new social security changes, water charges will have to be met from the general social security benefits and not from any specific allowance. I fear there may be many more disconnections for non-payment. We know the difficulties that some of the poorer consumers now face because the existing water authorities are unwilling to accept instalments from those who do not have a bank account. Private profit-making companies must not have the complete power to disconnect consumers. If you are deprived of your water supply there is no alternative that you can use. Water is vital and necessary to each one of us. The power to disconnect is too great to be given to junior officials in water companies. Any debt must be pursued through the courts, and disconnection should be considered only in extreme circumstances.
On these Benches we are not convinced that the privatisation of water will be in the best interests of the general public. We believe that the charges will rise and that the consumer will lose out. As a party, the SDP is not against the privatisation of some industries, but water is not the right vehicle for that kind of exercise. We will co-operate with the other parties in this House to do what we can to amend the Bill as it passes on its way.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have to confess that I am a relatively recent convert. Although party to the original decision to privatise the water industry, I was not an enthusiast. After taking up my present job, I argued for a while that it was the decision to go for an NRA that was important and that it could operate almost equally well whether the industry was in the public or the private sector. But, as chairman of the advisory committee, I have been uniquely placed to discover the condition of our rivers and the truth about what has been going on within the industry and inside Government. I changed my mind, and have become one of the strongest advocates of privatisation. I now firmly believe that simply to establish an NRA to control public sector bodies would be a hopelessly unsatisfactory solution. There are two reasons for that.
The first reason is financial. Anyone who has had experience of public expenditure matters must recognise that, whatever the political colour of the government, there will be tight constraints on expenditure and the investment needs of the water industry will be subordinate to the overall requirements of Exchequer policy and of government

579
expenditure priorities. I now firmly believe that the right course is to have an independent policing body that sets standards and seeks to enforce them while leaving the industry to go the markets for its finance.
The second reason is the old one about poachers and gamekeepers. On the whole, people have talked about this matter simply in terms of the reluctance of water authorities to take effective action to police their own discharges, but there is another aspect. We have to face the fact that if the water authorities remained in the public sector the NRA would almost inevitably find itself circumscribed by the fact that the actions that it took would sometimes have very uncomfortable results and resource implications for the Government. I can imagine all too well some of the indirect pressures that might be applied to an NRA that was judged to be acting with excessive enthusiasm.
If I reach that conclusion I do so because of what I have discovered since I took up my present duties about the unhappy reality of the long-existing relationships between the water authorities and the responsible government departments. The truth is that at present we have a system of discharge consents that is to a significant extent not based on objective standards but designed to do little more than maintain the status quo and ensure that at least the situation does not get worse. The arrangements have been designed with a view to avoiding an embarrassing number of failures and an excessive number of prosecutions of public organisations. Even when set on that basis, they have not fulfilled the objective and a considerable number of sewage treatment works consistently fail to achieve satisfactory standards.
We must therefore move away from the cosy relationships which I am afraid are inevitable when public bodies seek to police themselves and each other. I believe that the present Secretary of State for the Environment deserves much more credit than he has so far been given for getting the structure right and for introducing a measure of such immense potential for improving environmental standards.
Already the decision has had the effect of bringing into the open and making a subject for public debate the truth about the unsatisfactory state of our rivers and what needs to be done about them. There is a need for an immense and sustained attack on these problems. The Bill provides a mechanism by which we can hope to succeed in that great task.
It is a brave and necessary Bill. It is brave because the Government may be blamed for cost increases that are not the result of privatisation but of the price that must be paid for environmental improvement. I hope that the Government will not dismiss too lightly the idea that some of the resources released by the privatisation measure should be ploughed back in order to speed up the environmental programme within a pattern of more acceptable price increases.
I am confident that the scope exists to make the NRA a formidable and effective body. In broad terms I am satisfied with the powers given, although there are changes which I should welcome and to
580
which I shall refer. The scope for adequate financial provision also exists so long as the Government accept our recommendations that the NRA should be given the widest possible charging powers to reduce to a minimum its dependence on the Treasury. My committee's arguments have been set out in detail in its response to the Government's consultation document Charging for Discharge Consents and can be found in the Library. However, if I am to ask for wide charging powers I must ensure that we run the NRA as efficiently as possible.
I was astonished by the criticisms which were voiced in another place about a statement I made in a speech last October. In it I said that we should operate a slim, efficient, cost-conscious organisation. I make no apology for that statement, which does not imply any judgment about what should be the total size of the organisation or of the resources devoted to the tasks which it must perform. The size and resources will ultimately depend on the job to be done, on the amount that can be recouped in charges and on the level of grant. The only certain fact is that, whatever those resources, the more efficiently we use them, the more we shall be able to do.
I should like to make only two further comments about resources. I am certain that the volume of sampling, monitoring and laboratory work must be substantially increased. We are budgeting for a large increase in the sampling costs during the first two or three years of our operations. However, while travelling round the regions I was startled to discover how little technical innovation there has been so that sampling can be carried out more efficiently. At times I gained the impression that we have gone little further than the use of buckets for taking samples. I have already given instructions that we should urgently set in hand a major programme of research and development in order to introduce on the widest possible scale automatic sampling techniques that will significantly reduce the cost of the operation and enormously strengthen the NRA's ability to control pollution.
My second observation about financial matters concerns borrowing powers. I welcome the amendment, which was introduced at a late stage in the House of Commons, giving the NRA borrowing powers for its land drainage and flood protection functions. However, I seriously wonder whether it is wise, when there is already a requirement that the NRA should have the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, to specify that the clause will be used only to meet expenditure in emergencies. That is a point which needs further probing.
So far I have talked of resources in only financial terms. The most important resources of the NRA are its employees. At one stage I was afraid that we might find it difficult to attract the very best people. I need not have feared. We have had no difficulty in attracting men and women of the highest possible calibre at every level in the organisation. My noble friend Lord Caithness has told the House the name of the new chief executive. Dr. Bowman is a man of high reputation and his qualifications are highly suited for the new job.

581
In the regions the new units are up and running and in most cases they are working in their own buildings independently of their water authority colleagues, although they are still formally employed by them. I have no doubt that if the Bill becomes law later in the summer the regional units will be fully ready to take over their responsibilities. I am absolutely satisfied that the laboratory arrangements based on the recommendations of my committee will enable us to supervise the water authorities and other dischargers with complete confidence and integrity, and that any ongoing contractual relationships will not compromise our independence.
Most of the work of the NRA will be carried out in the regions. We propose to have not more than 60 people in the policy unit in London. There will be 6,500 outside London. While we must have national objectives and consistent national policies, we shall seek to give the maximum flexibility and the greatest possible scope for local decision-making to regional management and to the local advisory boards that we intend to set up. We shall also be enormously dependent on the advice of our committees at regional level.
I should like to return to what, apart from protecting life and property through flood defence, will be the most important single task of the NRA. It is to improve the environment of our rivers by reducing pollution. I have spoken of the cosy, incestuous relationships that have inhibited effective action. Clearly, it is vitally important that the NRA is seen to be independent, effective and determined. It is for that reason that, from the outset, my committee has dug in its toes about an issue which is important not only in terms of future effectiveness but as a symbol that there shall be no covering up of unpalatable realities.
I have referred previously in this House to the subject of look-up tables. Properly used, they can be a useful tool to avoid some of the inherent difficulties which arise when performance must be measured on the basis of relatively few samples. What was wrong was that more weight was given to the need to protect the water authorities against unfair prosecution than to the need to protect the environment and river users. My committee feels most strongly that the present system cannot be a satisfactory basis for monitoring discharge consents except for the shortest possible transitional period. In our view, both the effectiveness of the NRA's monitoring function and public confidence are dependent on that being accepted and water authorities being placed in the same position as all other dischargers.
We should much prefer an immediate decision and a clear timetable for implementation. But if the constraints dictated by an imminent flotation—and the legal complications of that are extraordinary—lead the Secretary of State to decide that there must be further consultation about method, it is a job that the new NRA should be told to do speedily and independetly of any review of standards (which is a separate issue) with a view to early introduction of the new arrangements. My committee fully understands the resource problems of implementing large capital programmes and will always be ready
582
to discuss reasonable timetables for compliance. We are not prepared to compromise the integrity of the NRA by endorsing arrangements which we believe to be fundamentally unsound.
Those who pretend that environmental measures do not raise big practical and financial problems delude themselves and may delude others. It is for that reason that we believe that as long as the system is clear and equitable, the Government are perfectly entitled to allow the water authorities which have firm and agreed programmes for improvement time to carry them out.
Let us make no mistake. Even if there is an agreed programme, there will be cases where, for a variety of reasons, standards are not complied with. In those circumstances the NRA should not—and if I am responsible will not—hestitate to take firm and effective action. Our objective is not to prosecute but to raise standards. However, we must make it perfectly clear that once the timetables are set and once the standards are established, if people do not fulfil their obligations and fail to respond to warning or prompting they should suffer the penalties provided by the Bill and—this may be more important—the judgment of their fellow citizens.
There are detailed points in the Bill which still concern me, including the practicality of the relationships proposed between the NRA and HMIP, but those can be dealt with in Committee. However, there is one matter which is fundamental to the relationship of the new NRA with government. We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that the NRA is to be a strong and independent body. Yet the Bill provides that its management arrangements should all be subject in some detail to the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which in practice means their officials. I am talking about what may be described as pay and rations matters. Here we have a new organisation being set up in a new climate of government where great emphasis is rightly placed on management responsibility. We face a situation that those responsible for running the NRA are to be second guessed by the officials on a whole range of day to day matters. That is a little absurd and will not improve the temper of the chairman. I have asked that the issue should be looked at again. Within financial limits, we should be allowed to run our business in the most efficient way possible and be answerable for our own performance.
A risk which confronts the chairman of the NRA is that if he ever mentions one of his responsibilities, he will probably be accused of neglecting others. Because I have concentrated on certain important points of principle, I hope that it will not be thought that I do not attach great significance to the full range of the NRA's new responsibilities. I keep being told by angling organisations that their concerns and interests will be neglected. I can think of nothing less likely. They are strongly represented among the members of my committee and at every level in the organisation. We are also working hard to ensure that our committee structure is widely representative of all river users. We attach high importance to the conservation of the plants and wildlife beside our rivers.

583
In assessing its priorities the NRA will need the wisdom of Solomon. Indeed, I sometimes think that he had a much easier problem to solve than is likely to confront the chairman of the NRA. Already I hear the clamour of argument as birdmen and farmers, navigators and fishermen, riparian owners and canoeists, industrialists and the green campaigners all argue that the rivers are for them. They are all right, but they are not for each of them exclusively and those who work in the NRA will have an immensely difficult job in meeting all their demands and seeking to fulfil all their aspirations. However, I believe that this immensely important environmental Bill provides us with an opportunity to do all of them a great and considerable service.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, first, I must warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on a brilliant analysis of the Bill before us. I thought it was an outstanding performance and I believe that all noble Lords in the House must be grateful for what he put before us, whether or not they agree with his arguments. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on an extremely impressive analysis of his responsibilities, some of which I should like to touch upon in a few moments.
The Bill before us today is, in some important respects, a logical development from the Water Act 1973, on which I led for the then Opposition. I went to the Library just before lunch today, and I am correct in my supposition that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and myself are the only two persons on the list of speakers this afternoon who spoke on that occasion in 1973. Of course, that Act established the present water authorities on a river catchment area basis—a pattern now generally accepted with approval, although its more distant future under privatisation is not entirely clear.
My party was less than enthusiastic about the subsequent modification of the Act in 1983, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. That removed the local authority members from their preponderant position on the water authorities. However, as I pointed out in earlier legislation, there was no real democratic control. The local authority members were not amenable to the electorate for their decisions or for their work on the water authorities. Therefore, I personally welcomed the change in 1983 as one for the better. It secured a much more effective management by a smaller number of people, chosen on the whole for relevant experience, although political patronage intrudes from time to time in the appointments.
We are now faced with the proposed separation of the regulatory from the operational functions by the establishment of the National Rivers Authority and its regional centres. To my mind that is a very wise step. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made abundantly clear in his speech today, it can work satisfactorily only if the National Rivers Authority is by some means or other afforded adequate resources, including attractive career opportunities for its scientific and technical staff. I
584
believe he is quite correct in claiming that the NRA has so far attracted people of outstanding ability, including Dr. Bowman, whose appointment was announced today. However, it will have to prove that it can keep them. I am not quite so confident about that unless other conditions are fulfilled.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned, the NRA will have to work out a modus vivendi with the Inspectorate of Pollution, and it has already lost the first round. I may be at fault, because I have not read the 388 pages of the Bill word for word, but the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to a particular inspectorate for drinking water. I am not certain what that means. However, no doubt we shall find out at a later stage of the Bill.
I also hope that the Government will seek advice from the NRA to argue their case with authority in relation to the expanding corpus of water quality legislation and cognate proposals emanating from Brussels and also, to some extent, from the European Parliament. At a later stage we shall have to consider in detail the responsibility of the NRA for flood control, fisheries, navigation, and so on, but generally speaking most people with some knowledge of the matter, including Members of the House who have so far spoken, warmly welcome the new proposed body.
We now come to the other half of the Bill before us and the privatisation of what are currently the water authorities. Here, I must say that the intellectual dishonesty of much of the Government's case as put to the public makes people like myself, with a long-standing acquaintance with the water industry, really depressed. The most obvious examples have been the references to the existing statutory water companies, about which I have no doubt we shall hear something from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth.
Many of your Lordships must have heard on the radio and seen on television even the Prime Minister herself, and others in authority such as the chairman of Thames Water, refer again and again to the statutory water companies as though they were shareholder-oriented and governed by the same market interests as the plcs which the Government wish them to become. It would be unparliamentary to suggest that a Minister or other person in authority was a liar, and I do not intend to do so, but in my vocabulary someone who knows the truth and conceals a significant aspect of it with a desire to deceive—I can only put it like that—comes very near the line. There have been far too many references to "Twenty five per cent. of the water industry is privatised already". It is not an ordinary privatisation. It is not in the form of the plcs proposed under this legislation.
We then have what many of us can only regard as the nonsense of comparative competition. Again, that is an absurdity to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the physical differences between the different geographical water supply and distribution systems: the unavoidable costs according to whether one can rely on river flow or has to maintain aquifer storage; whether one is supplying a large, concentrated urban population or, as in Wales, a very thinly dispersed rural population for the greater part of the

585
area; whether you have to deal with a long coastline with many beaches and complex estuarial systems, and so on. Where the operator is in any case obliged to maintain the services regardless of profitability, comparative competiton for basic necessities loses its meaning.
Of course, Mr. Ridley and his friends draw attention to diversification, by which the newly fledged plcs may make profits regardless of geographical boundaries or natural hindrances, provided they have the true entrepeneurial spirit. I must confess that I was astonished to find, from the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, that among suitable enterprises for the newly liberated water companies, Mr. Ridley listed cable television. A Back-Bench Conservative colleague from North Wales included funeral services. I hope the chairman of Welsh Water will relish his new role as a profit-making undertaker!
I am not against suitable exploitation of expertise. If one can build a dam in Thailand or a reservoir in northern Nigeria and improve on technical experience and skill in that exercise, by all means do so; but as a consumer I have no wish to see the enterprises on which the community relies for the proper management of the most absolute necessity of life speculating their resources and spending their energy and talents on matters which have no rational relationships whatever with their responsibilities to the public. I am sure I represent the vast majority of consumers and householders in this view. We do not want it.
Only glib references are made in public to the charging formula and to the cost of the services of the director general and the customer services committees. I understand that these costs will fall on customers. I also understand that profit from diversification will be kept for the shareholders. Any ordinary citizen who understands the charging formula by which his bills will be regulated and who can give a reliable value to the "K" factor will be cleverer than most Members of your Lordships' House. It also seems that profits on land sales will go to shareholders and will not be used to reduce charges to customers. If I am wrong about that, I should be glad to be told.
On the other hand, we are warned that the cost of renewing a largely outworn water supply and sewerage system will fall squarely on the consumer. The extent of these enormous liabilities was examined with some throughness a few years ago by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. One could go on for some while on that line but I shall resist doing so because there are many who wish to speak this afternoon. I find it completely unconvincing that we have to go in for plcs with all these extraneous interests in order to have a intelligent disposition of the water and sewerage systems in this country.
It is true that the organisation so ably represented by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is an acceptable improvement. It is also true, as the chairmen of the water authorities have stated in their memorandum which I believe was circulated to all Members of your Lordships' House, that the present situation
586
is not satisfactory. It is particularly galling to any member of a water authority to learn that inherited debts, which have been an intolerable millstone since 1973, may now be liquidated by the Treasury on account of flotation. The water authorities have been trying for years to get the Treasury to make some contribution and to take some of the burden of interest charges from the shoulders of the present-day consumers.
For the consumers themselves—which means all of us—if the proceeds of selling off public assets for which the Treasury paid nothing in the first place are not used to clean up the system and renew the crumbling pipes and sewers which neglect has rendered unsatisfactory, if not actually unsafe, it would be so grossly unfair that one cannot understand why any government should even contemplate it. There should be no hesitation in announcing that the proceeds of this particular privatisation, if it is to come about, should not be lost in the maw of the Treasury but should be directed for use whence they came. I believe there is general agreement in many parts of the House that this is an exceptional privatisation and that it should be treated exceptionally.
I refer again to the conditions which could make the NRA really effective. No party or government in modern times has really stood up to the Treasury on the administrative side, as opposed to the fiscal or monetary side of public policy. I am depressed by the suggestion in my own party's rethinking process that some colleagues are once again proposing to set out a new department as a counterpoise to the Treasury. We tried that in the 1960s and it did not work. If we are to make any form of public enterprise satisfactorily enterprising as well as responsible, one must tackle the Treasury itself. It would be no bad thing to start with water.
In saying that, I am thinking not just of the water companies but of the National Rivers Authority. I will keep my detailed comments on this for a later stage in the Bill when I have studied the very interesting and comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. However, I have this advice for the noble Lord. Unless he can secure a better relationship with the Treasury than other quangos have obtained, the high hopes he has so eloquently expressed may not be realised. They are hopes with which I have every sympathy; but he could find himself, if he is not successful, the keeper not of the jewel in the crown but of a poor relation in the privatised water industry.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, there will be general agreement that we have had a good crop of speeches, with many more to come. I hope I will be excused of partisanship if I say how much I enjoyed the powerful arguments deployed by my noble friend Lord Wyatt and how persuasive I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who certainly heightened confidence in the future under the proposed legislation.
Despite an apprenticeship of some 10 years in your Lordships' House, Second Reading debates are

587
the only parts of the legislative process that I find wholly comprehensible. My understanding is that Second Reading invites us to take a broad view of principles from any vantage point that we may have. My only claim on your Lordships' brief attention is as a humble market economist. I acknowledge that this humility is often well disguised. But then the central case for a market economy is a confession that we do not know enough about the future of rapidly changing industries and economies to control matters very effectively from the centre. Indeed there is increasing agreement among economists from the East and the West that a major merit of competition is that it disperses responsibility and allows a variety of people, who think they know what they are up to, to stake out their own money and show how well they can do as judged by the sovereign consumer.
But what are we to do about public utilities where geographical monopoly appears inevitable for technical reasons? According to my economic adviser, Professor Milton Friedman, we are faced with three unalluring alternatives; namely, private monopoly, public monopoly or public regulation. Despite the quite extraordinary complacency of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others about the public status quo in this and other nationalised industries, all three of these options are highly imperfect. As so often in economics we have to choose between evils. Professor Friedman has described how even good market economists have disagreed. Thus he tells us how Henry Simon from Chicago University so disliked the results of public regulation of private monopoly in America that he urged outright public monopoly as a lesser evil. Walter Euken, a noted German liberal, so objected to the public monopoly of the German railways that he recommended public regulation. Friedman's conclusion was:
"Having learned from both, I reluctantly conclude that, if tolerable, private monopoly may be the least of the evils".
The overriding objection to the present public monopoly of water, as of anything else, is that it unites economic and political power in the same frail hands. We might all agree that governments have indispensable functions in facilitating all production. First, over a century or more they have accepted the responsibility for setting standards with labelling, purity, safety, weights and measures and all the rest. Secondly, the Government have responsibility for monitoring the results. Thirdly, they have the responsibility of enforcing compliance and where necessary imposing penalties. Nationalised industry fundamentally violates this division of labour. We have had many analogies about students setting and marking their own exam papers. Mine is that it is like a game of cricket in which the bowler umpires his own appeals and the batsman keeps his own scorebook.
I strongly support this latest measure of denationalisation as separating economic activity from direct political control. It is not quite Friedman's untrammelled private monopoly, but the necessarily uneasy and rather messy compromise of private property rights heavily qualified by public regulation. It is at least a great deal better than that disgraceful enterprise of a national gas monopoly launched by
588
Mr. Peter Walker and Sir Daniel Rooke. Under this Bill, the gain for consumers is to escape from the mischief that has plagued state industries in the whole of the post-war years whereby decisions on pricing and long-term investment are perverted to serve short-term political expediency.
I listened with astonishment to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who seemed to complain—I quote his words—that "past investment has been too low". Who made it too low and how did that come about? Perhaps the noble Lord will consult his friends and colleagues who will tell him the reasons. I do not doubt that both parties share some part of the responsibility for collapsing sewers and fractured water mains. Their political curbs on investment have been all the more damaging in an industry like water where demand for both quantity and quality has been increasing. It has been said that we do not so much consume water as borrow it and return it later with pollutants added. The trouble remains that there has been more borrowing and pollution without sufficient re-investment and extension of plant. During unprecedented inflation, investment has been held back in effect by under-pricing and under-provision for depreciation.
Therefore I have a further reason for welcoming denationalisation and the new entrepreneurs now straining at the leash. We may at last hope for more rapid progress towards paying for water more equitably and economically by metering. When I switched to a water meter six years ago my bill immediately halved because I no longer had to subsidise my neighbours who were topping up their swimming pools, keeping their lawn sprinklers on all night and, I suspect, having many more baths and showers at my expense than was really good for them.
My interest in metering dates back to 1962 when the Institute of Economic Affairs with which I have some association ran an essay competition for students. The subject was The scope for pricing in maximising the efficiency of resources. What should be of particular interest to noble Lords on the Labour Benches is that the competition was named after Evan Durbin who was an outstanding economist and a colleague of Hugh Gaitskell as a Labour MP. One of the judges was the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who at one time was a distinguished academic economist. The first price of 250 guineas was shared between two academics who wrote about economic charges for water. They showed that direct pricing by metering in Malvern and, more commonly, abroad leads to greater economy in consumption including fewer dripping taps. If that seminal IEA paper had been heeded 27 years ago we would have seen earlier progress with metering and a slower growth in demand which would have moderated the cost that now confronts the industry for investing in higher capacity.
In conclusion I say that opposition to metering has been one further example of the hidden price that we have paid for insulating the water industry from the vigorous life force of the market. This Bill brings the prospect of sharper cost comparisons, keener cost consciousness and more effective cost containment. It deserves the support of all who thirst

589
for pure water as cheaply as it will be possible to provide.
5.39 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords,
"First water, then gold, preferring necessity before pleasure".
Those were the words of Francis Bacon, speaking in another place in 1601. The sense that has underlain a great deal of the debate on this Bill is that there is something special about water. It goes a long way back. Even Adam Smith, whom I hope that this Government will not fault on ideological grounds, reckoned sanitation as among the acts of public good that should not be left to the provision of the market. In part that is because water is essential for life. I take the point that the Prime Minister has made that food is equally essential to life. But one imagines that the Prime Minister knew enough about the market to know that food is not a single commodity. Every day we observe foods competing with each other in the market.
What is special about water is not only that it is essential to life but also that, for once in a blue moon, it is generally true that there is no alternative. One of the many reasons why I am on these Benches is that I have never been able to bring myself to see a general ideological preference either for private or for public ownership. I believe that noble Lords opposite will understand what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead meant when he described steel as the Monte Cassino of the Labour movement. Similarly, I wonder whether water may prove to be the bridge too far of the Conservative movement.
Having said that about my inability to form a general preference, I force myself to the difficult task of considering criteria. One of the criteria is that something is not entirely suitable for private ownership if it is a natural monopoly. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said about having a private monopoly if "tolerable". It is an interesting phrase. It reminded me of a passage in the Koran which says that a man may have four wives if he can treat them fairly. There is now a school of Moslem theologians which regards that as a prohibition. We might regard the noble Lord's caveat in the same light. I know about the doctrine of competition by comparison. If I understood correctly what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said on 8th November, it is essentially a competition in the share price. That doctrine seems to come out of the "ivory square mile".
Another possible criterion is the objectives which we wish to set for an industry. On these Benches we are perfectly content with the privatisation of an industry where the profit motive may legitimately apply and where it is a suitable management objective. Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and British Steel are cases in point. However, the objectives of the water industry seem to be primarily non-commercial. The chief priority must be at all times and in all circumstances to provide a service. That includes the uneconomic task of providing resources in a drought of the kind that happens only once in a century. I cannot see that as being in the interests of a commercial company, and I cannot see it as fair to impose on
590
a commercial company non-commercial objectives without paying for meeting those objectives. There are such cases in plenty in the Bill itself.
I was interested, for example, in Clause 39, which makes provision for a compulsory transfer of water between one area authority and another. There is no leaving that to the play of the market. I was interested also in Clause 79, which provides that there shall be no charge for water supplied for fire fighting. I am glad that the problem has been spotted. It seems a little unreasonable that a water authority with commercial objectives and with shareholders to satisfy should have to meet the cost itself. If the Government wish to impose a non-commercial objective, they should pay for it.
One possible criterion, and a good one, for whether an industry should be in public or private ownership is whether we could let it go bankrupt. The relevance of that factor to the story of Rolls-Royce is clear. In Clauses 23 to 30, this Bill provides clearly that the water authorities cannot be left to go bankrupt. Indeed, the Government are aware that they cannot run water on strictly commercial criteria. While I was listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, I wondered at moments whether it was being proposed not to subject the industry to the discipline of the market but to the discipline of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord by that remark. I was much impressed by his speech. It allayed at least some of my fears about the Bill. However, the noble Lord is not a market in himself.
I also think that there is a good deal of sense in the well tried principle that reorganisation leads to disorganisation. I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, even if not the noble Lord, Lord Harris, accepted the burden of proof. When I think about the problem of reorganisation leading to disorganisation, I am somewhat dismayed by the implications of Clause 50, which provides for separate pipes, subject to some safeguards, for every separate household. When I think of the impact of that provision on my own street, which is almost all flats, I wonder when I shall ever be able to walk across the street again.
Is there any empirical case, as distinct from an ideological case, for the Bill? The case is slender. In another place the Secretary of State argued the case in terms of efficiency. That is a limited definition of efficiency. It is a problem we have had with the Government before. They think that efficiency means the same as cheapness. In the provision of a service, it does not. There may be an incentive to make it cheap. There is no incentive to supply remote rural areas, a problem about which I hope my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley will say more later. There is no incentive to provide spare capacity. If there were an incentive to be more efficient in providing clean water, the whole apparatus of the National Rivers Authority would have been unnecessary.
The Secretary of State also argued that it was necessary to privatise because a privatised industry will not be bound by the yearly limits of public expenditure planning. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises what a self-condemnation

591
that statement was. Who fixes those limits? The Government know perfectly well that more money needs to be spent, and yet they say that, even though Parliament is sovereign and they have a large majority, they cannot spend that money. I understand that the Treasury, like the poor, is always with us. The Treasury is made up of civil servants—and neither the adjective nor the noun should be forgotten. The Treasury is not our master.
I also wonder whether the Government are correct in believing that there is an inexhaustible private purse just waiting to be tapped. I share the doubt expressed by my honourable friend Mr. Livsey in another place that the private sector has the resources necessary for the control of pollution. The figures show that there are some reasons for doubt. The national debt is now down to £157 billion. The private sector debt, including mortgages, is now £236.4 billion. Is the private purse really so very much more inexhaustible than the public purse? If more money needs to be spent, as it does, is that really an argument for privatisation? I cannot see it.
I accept that at the end of the day we have to pay. Either the consumer or the taxpayer has to pay. That means that we have to pay. However, the form in which we do it is not entirely irrelevant. The way in which the charges are shared out is relevant. There is an advantage in terms of fairness, which is something not yet to be forgotten about, in proportioning the charge between those who can pay rather than letting it fall strictly on the consumer at the point of use. One of the factors about charges at the point of use is that they actually deter use, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, argued clearly. He prided himself on reducing the number of baths he took because of the cost of water. The noble Lord's habits are his own affair, but is this public policy? That is an important question.
A year ago I would never have thought that I should be speaking on a Bill which would make the Education Reform Bill look small. I think that the volume of legislation—and I mean that word literally—has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am glad to have the chance to add a few words to this debate on the Bill. I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Caithness on his presentation of this vast and complex Bill. He did so in what seemed to me—I made a note of this—to be most mellifluous terms. There are indeed many conflicts to come. However, the legislation certainly sounded very easy when he explained it to us. I congratulate my noble friend on the creation of the NRA; and I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on his presentation of the subject. I have no doubt that the NRA will provide a robust safeguard for the future water environment of our country. I congratulate my noble friend upon putting forward that proposal in the Bill. Further, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will make a most successful chairman.
592
As a matter of historical interest, the Government produced their first publication on privatising the water industry four years ago. It was a discussion document which invited reactions to their proposal at that time to privatise the 10 regional water authorities, complete with all regulatory and statutory functions. I tabled an Unstarred Question in this House in order to express my own doubts about the merits of the proposal. Indeed, other noble Lords were good enough to join me in the matter. I pointed out then the constitutional necessity of cutting off from the proposed plcs the regulatory and environmental functions of the regional water authorities and placing them with a government-appointed authority with a regional structure to monitor the whole water cycle. Two and a half years passed by before the Government came round to that view. They announced, in the autumn of 1987, the formation of a National Rivers Authority which would be responsible for the regulatory and environmental functions which are now familiar to us. The mills of God did indeed grind slow, but the interval may have given Ministers time to take account of the opinion I had offered two and a half years earlier.
I hope that this propitious precedent may dispose my noble friend the Minister to look favourably on two further improvements to the Bill which I shall suggest in the remainder of my speech. Even for water, the most improbable candidate for privatisation, I recognise that there are advantages, the most notable, of course, being the freedom for management to raise its capital in the money market—as already referred to several times by other noble Lords—without Treasury restraint, which is the inevitable penalty of nationalised industry finance.
However, for a successful privatisation of any kind, it is necessary to convince the nation that, as the consumer of the product, it will benefit. So far, that conviction has been notably lacking. Many noble Lords have already referred to that fact. Three out of four people in the MORI poll are against privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave us a figure of one out of every 11 people having objections to the legislation. I see four objections which my noble friend has to meet.
First, water is a complete monopoly—a fact already referred to—but there is no more prospect of choice for the supplier under a private company than there is under a public authority. Consumers are protected with a profit-making private company only when there is competition. Here, the comparison with the food market which has been referred to by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and others clearly shows how different this matter is. We are all inevitably tied to our present supplier.
Secondly, there is a general belief that water is a God-given commodity on which life itself depends and that there is an ethical objection to making a profit out of it. Any one of us has only to speak to almost anyone we know out in the country as a whole to receive that reaction. In 19th century Britain, when enterprise and profit were the watchwords of our economy, there were hundreds of statutory water companies all over the country. However, they were governed by the admirable quotation, which the

593
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave us, of the great Joseph Chamberlain. He said:
"Water should never be a source of profit; all profits should go in the reduction of the price of water".
That is still the general feeling today.
Thirdly, local authorities claim that the basis upon which they handed over the assets of the industry, following the 1973 Act, without compensation was that they got a majority of local authority members on each regional water authority board. However, the Government broke that agreement under the provisions of the Water Act 1983. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to that fact. The Act removed all local authority members from the regional water authorities. As noble Lords must know, many local authorities are preparing a legal challenge for compensation now that the Government are selling the industry to private shareholders.
Fourthly, there is the public belief that the sale of the regional water authorities to private shareholders will increase water charges. Mr. Stanley Hill, the leading water industry accountant, estimates an increase of 27 per cent. on charges as a direct result of privatisation. Regional water authorities, of course, do not pay dividends or corporation tax at present. Moreover, the additional costs of such matters—which are large—and other matters connected especially with the amounts which must be paid to the National Rivers Authority, all add up to something of the order of £843 million. That would be in addition to a figure for inflation for next year and one for the control of pollution. Therefore the average increase next year for water authorities is expected to be between 30 and 40 per cent.
That is an alarming prospect; and it is alarming people throughout the country. However, if my figures are not correct, I invite my noble friend, when he replies to the debate to tell us what are the correct figures. Those four objections make a formidable case.
My noble friend the Minister has told us that the Government's answer to consumer fears is provided by the appointment of the Director General of Water Services. He will set the level of charges for each water company according to a complicated formula which will ensure a reasonable dividend for the shareholder and, at the same time, a fair charge to the consumer—that is, if it is possible to reconcile those two objectives, and some noble Lords have doubted it. This complicated machinery fails to reassure consumers. In an industry which is virtually static in turnover there is a very limited scope for technological improvement.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt —who I am sorry to see is not now in his place—that there is no comparison with British Telecom. Everyone knew that there was immense scope for technological improvement and expansion in volume in that company. I am delighted to know that that privatised industry is beginning to achieve those aims. That gives benefit to the consumers and also benefit to the shareholders. However, the scope for such improvement in the water industry simply does not exist. The result is that the consumer, if he takes a look at the situation, can see perfectly well
594
that if there is to be any sort of increased dividend for the shareholder it will come out of an increase in the charges to the consumer. There is no other way to achieve that aim. Moreover, the changeover will set the consumer and the shareholder in permanent conflict. The shareholder will be given the equity of the industry. That has never happened before.
This financial structure is not objectionable to the consumer alone; I should say that it was also objectionable to the staff in the water industry. It is true that the chairman has spoken saying that the staff welcome the proposals. However, I know the staff throughout the industry pretty well. They do not care for having to serve two masters—namely, the consumer and the shareholder. They will find that situation most difficult.
I turn to the two amendments to the Bill which I believe will relieve those fears and make my noble friend's proposals for privatisation acceptable and will avoid the impending financial and electoral penalties. First, I ask my noble friend to recognise that there is substance in the claim by local authorities as to the value of the assets transferred in 1974, without compensation, in return for a majority on the RWAs. That agreement was washed out by the 1983 Act, which removed all local authority members. Hence the claim today. As other noble Lords have said, not only is there an equitable claim here but—my word! —there is also a necessity.
The new water companies will have immense bills to pay in the coming years for improving the plant in the industry, especially in regard to sewage disposal. Therefore a share of the proceeds of the sale would be a very great help to them and, I suggest, would not offend the taxpayer, because, after all, every household and every industry would benefit if there were some relief to the new companies. I may perhaps go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who suggested a development fund. I do not mind how it comes about so long as the sum goes back into the industry.
Secondly, I come to my old friends the statutory water companies. Here I should say to my noble friend the Minister that his reference to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was a little selective. The report was in regard to the Southern Water Authority's proposals to absorb a handful of companies in its area because it thought that would improve matters. There has never been a survey of all the 29 water companies. Most of them are extremely efficient. My noble friend was not fair in judging them by that small sample.
The Water Act 1945 has been in force for over 40 years. It codified the 19th century structure of the statutory water companies, so we have experienced them for about 140 years. We have found that the structure works well. The companies work on the principle that all dividends are limited by statute. In so far as a company trading produces a surplus, it must go to reducing the charges the following year. Audited accounts must be submitted annually to the Secretary of State for his approval. The third schedule to the 1945 Act specifically controls those conditions. The water companies' financial manage-

595
ment is under tight control. In effect, it is the consumer, not the shareholder, who owns the equity in the water company. That is what most people in the country want.
The amendment which I suggest would dispose of the new bureaucracy of the Director General of Water Services and his cohort of accountants and inspectors. It would save £3 million a year on the water charges. It is that the 29 existing water companies should continue as they are.
I say to my noble friend in all sincerity that if he would kindly give sympathetic consideration to those two amendments he would greatly improve his Bill and he would obtain the benefits of privatisation without the blemishes.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, at the outset of my speech I should declare an interest. It is only a minor one, but I am a member of the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee. Your Lordships should know that at the outset in view of what I have to say.
Never before has there been such public concern about water. The problems of polluted rivers and seas, which has been with us for some years and yet has only recently surfaced, is a major national concern. Without doubt, one factor has been the underfunding by water authorities and the lack of sufficient investment in tackling pollution. The second factor is the awareness of the European Community's directives on water quality and its drive to rid our coastal waters and beaches of the threat to our nation's health.
Thirdly, there is the enormous publicity given to this most controversial Water Bill. There has been a national awakening. Never before has the nation been so stirred by a privatisation measure. Since 1979, well over 20 major industries have been privatised—gas, steel, Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, and so on—creating much political friction and heated political debate. So has this measure, but this proposed privatisation measure moves into a more sensitive sector of our lives. For some it is the sacred sector, next to taking over the air that we breathe.
Apart from the natural attitude of the opposition against the measure, there exists this time a vast body of opinion which includes all the environmentalist groups—the Greens—all the angling organsations, the water sports enthusiasts, worried about the future of the environment and their sports, as well as all water consumers who are concerned and worried about the water that they drink, its quality, its content and its cleanliness. So this time it is not just a political squabble between political parties. Instead, the whole populace, for a variety of reasons, feels involved, and 85 per cent., according to one poll that I saw, are opposed. So far as concerns the privatisation of the 10 water authorities, so am I.
I believe that such a vital commodity, which concerns the health of our nation, should not be in private profiteering hands. However, another place has determined its course. We in this Chamber can only revise. So privatisation of our water, through
596
the establishment of 10 major private companies, is likely to go ahead.
The saving grace in the Bill is the proposed establishment of the National Rivers Authority. Some credit is due to the Government for that proposal. It will be a new national public body, with a national board of authority, backed by 10 regional units. The NRA will be accountable to Ministers and Parliament, and that means that water, its quality, its purity, the problems of pollution in our rivers, lakes and the seas around our shores, will be subject to NRA scrutiny. The NRA will accept national responsibility for every aspect of water activity, from the quality of tap water to polluted rivers, dirty seas, floods and related major accidents.
The NRA will not only be the only recognisable national body with national policies for river management and water quality; it will also be responsible for environmental quality and pollution control. It will have the national and statutory responsibility for land drainage, flood protection and catchment management; that is, the control of our water resources, especially on the issue of abstraction licences. It will cover fisheries, which should please the 3 million anglers who depend upon clean water for their sport, and who are among the foremost environmentalists; it will cover recreation, conservation and navigation. It will be publicly accountable in all those areas of water activity.
Given therefore an adequately funded send-off, the NRA could be a power of good for our country. The public will need to be satisfied that the NRA is properly and adequately funded. There will of course be some self-financing, but adequate borrowing powers must be available from the outset. I was pleased to note the statement made by the Secretary of State on 15th March that the NRA will have borrowing powers in relation to its flood defence functions to enable it to cope with unexpected expenditure, and that provision has been made for that in the Bill.
An adequate financial base for the NRA is essential. I hope that the Minister can give assurances on that point. It will give some comfort to those who are worried about the whole variety of pollution matters. I believe that the public will want to see the NRA as the guardian of the nation's water—its rivers, its lakes and its coastal seas. The Government and the NRA must not create unnecessary concern that pollution will be controlled only to the extent that cash is available.
The National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee has expressed concern about sewage treatment works discharges; and whether that affects the flotation of the new plcs or not, there is a major problem here and heavy investment will be needed. The water authorities have been, and still are, major polluters by their own works, and have been polluting and getting away with it for years, much to the detriment of the environment and their consumers, and with hardly any punishment.
Catching up will cost cash, and if the NRA is to start with any degree of national respect the Government must agree a system which is clearly established at the outset that treats all discharges,

597
sewage treatment works, industrial pollution, and so on, in the same way, clearly seen and understood, with a timetable of those many major cleansing operations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in February, in this House,
"The present system is disguising an unacceptable level of failure".
The Government may be embarrassed by this fact but it has been going on for some years and the NRA will have to make sure that it is cleaned up. The water authorities—the worst polluters—had no watchdog until Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and even that has been beset with internal trouble and friction with Her Majesty's Government. But all this is now in the open and—unfortunately at some consumer cost—pollution discharges will have to be brought under control.
I am the chairman of the Anglers Co-operative Association of this country, the foremost anti-pollution organisation in the land. The Anglers Co-operative Association was founded in 1948 to bring actions in the courts against polluters by using the common law. It has brought many hundreds of cases which have resulted in injunctions to prevent further pollution and in recovering damages for those whose waters had been destroyed. Since July 1985 it has been possible, because of implementation of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, for the association to highlight pollution problems from unsatisfactory sewage treatment works. That has been possible because the Act provided for the setting up of public registers of discharge analyses and for the disclosure of discharge consent conditions.
Three successful prosecutions have been brought, at great expense, by the association. Thames Water Authority pleaded guilty to pollutions from its works at Aylesbury and at Wargrave. The Anglian Water Authority pleaded guilty to pollution from its works at Mildenhall. It has pleaded guilty because it would have been a nonsense for it to maintain that the register which the authorities had prepared would be invalid as evidence because the samples were not taken formally. To take a formal sample, three samples must be taken at the same time. One of these is handed to the polluter so that he may make his own analysis. One is stored, the other is analysed and, if shown to be breaching consent conditions, may be used as evidence in a prosecution.
The association would like to use the register to bring into the open the pollution problems which are being caused by some fish farmers. There is a farm at Downton on the Hampshire Avon which has been shown to breach consent conditions on many occasions. The Wessex Water Authority, which has the power to prosecute the offender, has chosen not to bring an action, relying, it claims, upon the powers of persuasion and education. The ACA has been advised by legal experts that it cannot bring an action based upon the figures shown on the public register because the samples taken by the authority were taken for monitoring only and not in a formal manner. So the pollution continues.
598
The National Rivers Authority will be charged under Clause 113 with the duty of carrying out a sampling regime and maintaining public registers which will contain information about the samples taken. Clauses 143 and 144 give the NRA the necessary powers to sample in a systematic manner. The Government have confirmed that formal samples taken in accordance with Clause 144 will be recorded on the public register and can therefore be used by third parties, anglers or other members of the public in bringing prosecutions.
The Government have, however, also said that it would be inappropriate to deny the authority discretion as to whether samples should be taken formally or not. As chairman of the ACA, I naturally sympathise with the views of anglers and others. At the same time, as a member of the NRA advisory committee, I believe that the creation of the NRA should make it less necessary on the same scale of activity as before for the ACA and others to bring private prosecutions, as they have had to do in the past. The NRA will be an independent regulatory body with a duty to control water pollution, to enforce compliance and to prosecute whenever it judges that prosecution is best or is the only means of enforcement.
I am not happy about the discretion argument, but I am convinced that the NRA should start to take samples as soon as it begins to suspect that breaches are occurring. Taking formal samples is of course more expensive than taking single samples. It is essential that the NRA be given the necessary resources to carry out an adequate sampling regime and to take as many formal samples as it can. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to assure me that the NRA will be given all the necessary resources. I believe that the NRA and the ACA can and should work together to safeguard the wellbeing of our rivers and our estuaries.
This is an extremely important matter concerning all the anglers in the country and the cleanliness of our rivers. The ACA is the anglers' friend and champion and has been successful in taking many polluters of our fishing rivers to court. The ACA wishes to be assured that this will still be possible. I hope therefore that I can receive the assurances I need for the Anglers Co-operative Association. It needs to be encouraged to carry on its fight against the river polluters and its constant d rive to make the polluters pay.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am the person who runs that fish farm on the Hampshire Avon. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he realises that although I do breach and unfortunately have breached consent on various occasions, on a greater number of occasions the water coming into the fish farm has been dirtier than my discharge consent. On one notable occasion—the last time, I think, the farm was tested—I was deemed to have breached my consent on a fish farm through which no water whatsoever was passing.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased that my speech caused

599
that intervention. We have been most enlightened because of it and I hope that the education process works. If not, there may be a prosecution.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I must begin by saying that owing to an engagement from which it is impossible for me to extricate myself, I must apologise both to the House and to the Minister that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
When I received the Bill from the Printed Paper Office, I was reminded of what the Duke of Gloucester said to Edward Gibbon when the historian presented a copy of one of his volumes to His Royal Highness:
"Another damned thick square book, Mr. Gibbon. Always scribble, scribble, scribble, Mr. Gibbon, eh!"
In quoting that, I mean no reflection on the unfortunate parliamentary draftsmen.
I am in favour of privatisation of many industries and functions; but, as I said in an early debate on this subject in April 1985, not of water. However, since then a great many things have happened. The policy and principle seem to have been settled and in that respect we are already over the dam, although of course we hope to improve the Bill. I shall therefore leave the pros and cons of the principle and the policy to others and concentrate on one point only—the future of research and development in the industry.
In the changes of structure involved in the reorganisation of industries or academic institutions, it is research which tends to lose out. In 1982 I was in the chair of a sub-committee which produced for the Select Committee on Science and Technology a report on research in the water industry. We received a positive reply to our recommendations from the Government of the day, and the Select Committee regarded the resulting situation as satisfactory. In the subsequent reorganisation of the industry, the position of research mainly represented by the Water Research Centre was, I think, reasonably well safeguarded.
I can only find one reference to research in the Bill. Clause 39 imposes a duty on the NRA to make arrangements for the carrying out of research in respect of matters to which the functions of the authority relate. We shall no doubt find out in due course what that provision amounts to.
However, I am glad to see a slot for a chief scientist on the headquarters staff of the NRA. Presumably, if the Government are not satisfied with the level or quality of research, they can give directions to the authority under Clause 142. But how about the future of the water research centre? There, as some noble Lords may know, there has been a very interesting development. A few days ago it was announced that there had been a management and staff buy-out of the water research centre, which has now become a public limited company.
If my information is correct, the staff will hold 57 per cent. of the voting shares, the remainder being held by all the United Kingdom water utilities. These
600
utilities have entered into five year research agreements with the water research centre to ensure continuity of the national research and development programme. A foundation for water research will continue in existence, although I am not clear about its precise functions and its relationship to the new companies.
Some of your Lordships will know that tomorrow the water research centre is holding a reception which is to be addressed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. No doubt we shall hear more on that occasion about the arrangements for the future of the centre. However, I feel that at the end of this debate the House will want to have a statement from the Minister on the Government's point of view. With the power in the Bill, to which I have already referred, the future research in the industry, at least regarding the NRA and the WRC, seems to be reasonably well safeguarded for the next five years. But how about the privatised sector? What will happen if the arrangements for the future of the water research centre prove insufficient or unsatisfactory?
I remind your Lordships that in a debate on an earlier Water Bill in 1983, the Government accepted responsibility for ensuring the existence of a long-term research strategy for the water industry. That was in response to a recommendation in the report of the Select Committee for Science and Technology to which I referred earlier. Do the Government still accept this responsibility and, if they do, how will it be implemented under the new arrangements? Will the Director General of the National Rivers Authority have any supervision over the research effort in the private sector, or will that be the direct responsibility of the department? I am sure your Lordships would welcome a statement from the Minister on those points.
The escalating public demand for increased environmental protection could, under any regime, increase the costs of water to the consumer. That is all the more reason therefore that the measures taken should have the benefit of sound scientific research and advice.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, during the course of this debate we have heard a number of noble Lords complaining about the Bill. A number of noble Lords seemed to imply, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out, that somehow we have to stick with what we have got. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with a growing sense of astonishment. The noble Lord was apparently completely unable to recognise the very real difficulties which have confronted the water industry and those who have been responsible for it. He well deserved the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who described him as complacent.
In 1983 I inherited responsibility for this industry as Secretary of State for the Environment. I inherited the structure of 10 water authorities and 29 statutory water companies. I also inherited a huge backlog of investment need which had been greatly exacerbated

601
by the cutbacks of the 1970s, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred. It is a fact that when water investment has to compete with investment in hospitals, schools, roads and other much desired public provision, water and sewerage do not appear to take a high place in the queue. They lose out.
Conversely, I also inherited a rapidly rising pressure for higher standards of water, cleaner rivers, estuaries and beaches and a purer water supply. Investment in the industry has increased quite sharply. It is 50 per cent. up on 1979, and a further 20 per cent. increase is scheduled for this year. However, it is widely recognised that that is not enough, and that present programmes will not deal with the backlog. They will not produce the standard of environment that we need. I have heard a figure mentioned of a further £2.5 billion on top of the cost of present programmes. It is said that that will need to be spent over the next 10 years. I should say in parenthesis that I am glad to learn that Ministers are still considering whether some part of the proceeds of privatisation may go towards meeting some part of that investment cost.
I also inherited a very confused system of pollution control and water quality regulation. A number of noble Lords have made the point about poachers and gamekeepers. That is nothing new to me. I worked in the chemical industry for a number of years. That industry became very cynical about the determination of the water authorities and their predecessors to enforce high standards of discharge on industry, while allowing large numbers of their own sewerage works to continue to pollute the water. It is a fact that one in five of the sewerage works operated by the water industry breach their current discharge consents; 20 per cent. breach the discharge consents at some stage.
Much the most difficult thing that I inherited was the manifest reluctance of the Treasury to recognise that anything was wrong. The Treasury did not recognise the extent of the quality problem because to do so would have presented an unarguable case for more capital spending. That was not the first time I had that experience. When I was at the Department of Health and Social Security I had to write the foreword to the Lawther Committee Report on lead poisoning. I made an oblique reference to an ancestor of mine who had carried out all the early quantitative analysis on lead poisoning. I said that that showed, 150 years later, how much more remained to be done.
The Treasury tried to take that reference out because it considered it was a plea for more public expenditure. Happily, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone came to my rescue and said that I was entitled to my pride in my ancestry. That reference is there in the foreword to the Lawther Committee Report.
It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady White, to say that somebody must deal with the Treasury: the fact of the matter is the only way to deal with the Treasury is to take things out of its control. However, I started by doing three other things. First, I strengthened the controls by activating Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.The
602
noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, referred to that. As he rightly said, that legislation exposed to public view through the registers the extent of the breaches of the discharge consents.
Secondly, I set in train the strengthening of the pollution inspectorate. That eventually became known as HMIP—Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. That brought under one roof the various different inspectorates and so increased their authority and their clout. Thirdly, I bit on the bullet at some considerable political cost by allowing the water authorities to raise their charges so that they could raise more of the essential investment that they needed.
However, the thing that really convinced me that the system had to be changed was when a private construction company in Yorkshire came along to see me, with the Yorkshire Water Authority, to say that they had reached an agreement whereby that company would, at its own cost, build and operate a sewerage works for the water authority on the basis of a long-term operating contract with the authority. That of course required Treasury permission. The Treasury said no. It would have been much more expensive for the contractor to raise the money on the market than it would have been for the water authority, which had the benefit of gilt-edged borrowing, so they were not allowed to do it. It was a real Catch-22 situation. Happily now, with the second Dartford river crossing, wiser counsels seem to have prevailed. That had a powerful influence, and I came to the conclusion that something had to be done to change the whole system.
It was exactly the same problem that I had faced at the Department of Industry over British Telecom: confused regulation, inadequate investment, rising charges. My noble friend Lord Nugent may be right that one cannot take the parallel with British Telecom too far; but on those points the parallel was identical and the remedy was the same. The remedy was to take the operation out of the control of the Treasury and to move it into the private sector where it could look for its money from the market. That was what we did with British Telecom. I initiated that Bill before the 1983 election. It fell with the election. So we started again with water. We examined the problem in depth.
I frankly admit that I got it wrong. I started by saying—and, I may say, under some pressure from the water authorities—that we had to privatise the river catchment area authorities in one go. As others have said, particularly my noble friend Lord Nugent, that was not a very satisfactory basis. We recognised that there would have to be a Director General of Water Services, but I thought that perhaps HMIP would provide a sufficiently strong control over river quality. My successors recognised that that would not be appropriate, and that it was unrealistic to suppose that HMIP could exercise adequate control; it was unsatisfactory that plcs should regulate other operators in the market; and it was unlikely that the structure would commend itself to Parliament.
So my noble friends, very rightly, changed course. The Bill proposes the establishment of the National Rivers Authority while at the same time allowing

603
privatisation of the commercial operations of the water authorities to go ahead with the NRA providing a firm bastion over water quality and standards. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the structure now in the Bill is a great deal better than the earlier proposals for which I bore some responsibility. The separation of regulation from operation is the biggest single benefit of that reform.
Noble Lords will have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell when he said that it is essential that the operational part should not be under the control of the Government because of the inevitable cosy, incestuous relationship and the inevitable effect of Treasury pressure on the operation of the regulator.
There will in fact be four tiers of regulation. The Government will set the standards, and those will be EC standards where that is appropriate. The National Rivers Authority will have a duty to monitor and regulate. Over half of the Bill refers to those functions. There is the pollution inspectorate, which is the Government's expert watchdog which will give added protection, and under the Bill has been given responsibility for the so-called "red list" of particularly dangerous substances that might go into the rivers. Then there is the director general, who has the duty to safeguard the interests of consumers, particularly with regard to charges and standards of service.
The water companies can then get on with the operation of their businesses, raising their capital from the market and subject to all the disciplines of the market. Of course they will not be in competition with each other because, as has been rightly said, water is a natural monopoly. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not the case that the 1983 Water Act gave the water authorities the power to raise money in the private market? Was it not his government which refused to give the water authorities the authority to exercise that power which was given by legislation? Therefore, is not the difficulty of the noble Lord's own making?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I recognise the problem. However, perhaps I may say in one sentence, that if the borrowing has de facto a government guarantee, then it is inevitably part of the public sector borrowing requirement. There is no way round that. There used to be different mechanisms, but every single government has operated the same rule. I am sorry, but I think that I must be allowed to get on with my speech.
The only way in which one can allow an authority to borrow from the private sector is for that authority itself to become part of the private sector. As a public authority, it can go to the market to raise its money, but that counts as part of the public sector borrowing requirement. That has been an essential part of our financial control for a great many years.
There will be much debate about the detail of the Bill because it is a long and detailed one. But I have
604
no doubt whatever that there should be a general welcome for the new structure which it sets out. It is a great deal better than my initial proposal; but it is, even more, a great leap forward from the existing structure under which the Treasury controls investment, the water authorities police themselves and the consumer simply pays up whatever. I congratulate the Government on bringing in the Bill. I wish it well.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, started his fascinating speech by suggesting that the Opposition say that we have to stick with what we have, and that that is the only option open if one refuses this Bill. I cannot go along with that at all. It is perfectly possible to improve what we have without necessarily destroying it lock, stock and barrel.
As my noble friend Lady Stedman said in the course of her admirable speech, we in the SDP do not have preconceived ideas about nationalisation or privatisation. We are pragmatic, not dogmatic, on this matter. We attempt to look at the matter objectively and see which solution will give the best result for the country as a whole. There are certain aspects where privatisation is undoubtedly a good thing. There are others where nationalisation is essential. I think that even noble Lords opposite would agree that there are some industries which should properly remain nationalised.
In an attempt to reach a conclusion on this matter, I refreshed my memory by rereading Privatisation of the Water Authorities in England and Wales, the White Paper of February 1986 (reprinted in 1988). There, as your Lordships will remember, the reasons in favour of privatisation are given on the first page. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall go through those reasons briefly.
The first reasons is:
"the authorities will be free of government intervention in day-to-day management".
So they should be; but it is not necessary to privatise in order to free authorities in that way. That could be done by the Government themselves. The White Paper says they should be:
"protected from fluctuating political pressures".
Political pressures are bound to fluctuate. Surely it is part of the responsibility of the government to control, by one means or another, without day-to-day interference, the running of our vital industries, and in particular our vital services such as water.
The White Paper then says:
"the authorities will be released from the contraints on financing which public ownership imposes".
We have listened to the argument on both sides. I suggest most strongly to your Lordships that the Treasury is not the supreme dictator. The Treasury is the servant of the Government, the Government are the servant of Parliament. If the Government, with Parliament behind them, wish to change the public sector borrowing requirement or anything of that kind, it is no excuse to say that the Treasury will not allow it. What is meant is that the Government will not allow it. If the Government wish to do it, they can allow it.

605
The White Paper states:
"access to private capital markets will make it easier for the authorities to pursue effective investment strategies".
The same applies to that point. The White Paper goes on to state:
"the financial markets will be able to compare the performance of individual water authorities against each other and against other sectors of the economy. This will provide the financial spur to improved performance".
It is impossible to compare the performance of individual water authorities because of the widely varying conditions in different authority areas. That proposal is a non-starter.
The White Paper says:
"a system of economic regulation will be designed to ensure that the benefits of greater efficiency are systematically passed on to customers in the form of lower prices and better service than would otherwise have occurred".
What is that other than government interference, if not day to day, at least year by year? It is not complete autonomy of the market forces.
The White Paper states:
"measures will be introduced to provide a clearer strategic framework for the protection of the water environment".
Again, that is an example of government interference. I am glad that such measures will be introduced, but, for all that, it is government interference. The White Paper goes on to state:
"private water authorities will have greater incentive to ascertain the needs and preferences of customers, and to tailor their services and tariffs accordingly".
What are those greater incentives? Why should the private water authorities have greater incentives than the present water authorities? Do the latter not carry out their functions adequately?
The White Paper says:
"private authorities will be better able to compete in the provision of various commercial services, notably in consultancy abroad".
What stops the present water authorities doing that? Why do we need to privatise in order to achieve that end? The White Paper goes on to state:
"privatised authorities will be better able to attract high quality managers from other parts of the private sector".
Is that to suggest that managers at present are not of a sufficiently high quality? I shall deal with that point later in considering other parts of the White Paper.
The White Paper states:
"there will be the opportunity for wide ownership of shares both among employees and among local customers".
That is perfectly true, but is that a very great advantage? The White Paper continues:
"most employees will be more closely involved with their business through their ownership of shares, and motivated to ensure its success".
Surely it is the job of good management to ensure that all workers at all levels are properly motivated and involved in the success of the business.
Paragraph 6 of the White Paper asks:
"Who Will Benefit from Private Ownership?"
In response, the White Paper states:
"Customers, in particular, will benefit from charging policy designed to pass on efficiency savings and keep bills down, and the opportunity to hold shares in the undertaking".
606
But what about those shareholders? Surely they will have some share in the increased efficiency that is expected to result. Surely the benefit will not all go to the consumers. We are not told about that.
The White Paper states:
"The environment will benefit from a new system of Government approval".
Surely that could be done far more easily with nationalised industry. If it has not already been done, I believe that we are entitled to ask the Government why it has not yet been done. If they are dissastisfied with the environmental protection, why have they waited so long to do anything about it? A similar argument applies to quality. The White Paper states:
"By setting explicit objectives for drinking water quality, for river quality … the Government will protect the customer and the public".
But surely those measures are already sufficiently stringent. I hope that they are. If they are not, it does not need privatisation to bring that about.
Paragraph 13 of the White Paper states:
"To protect the interests of the customer, the Government will appoint a regulator to prevent the abuse of monopoly power".
But that is a long way from the market economy extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. It is a straightforward example of government interference.
The White Paper then deals with the current position of the water authorities. From what has already been said, one would expect them to be shown to be inefficient and badly managed. But Paragraph 18 states:
"As the water authorities control and regulate all the uses to which their rivers are put, they have generally been able to meet all requirements, even in conditions of extreme difficulty, and they have been able to plan for increasing demands at least cost and without detriment to existing users. During the drought of 1984, when rainfall in its region was less than half the average for the months of April to July, the South Weil. Water Authority, with one of its three strategic reservoirs still under construction, went to exceptional lengths to tap new resources".
In other words, the White Paper gives good marks to the water authorities for what they have done.
Paragraph 21 of the White Paper states:
"Until 1983, the authorities were run by large boards. The Water Act of 1983 set up the present boards, which are smaller and more business-like. All members are appointed by Ministers".
But, from what we have heard, it sounds as though the present members of the boards are not doing their job properly. That is apparently why we need new management, new systems and new methods. If that is so, it can only mean that the Government have appointed the wrong members. it do not believe that that is so. I believe that the present members are good and that, on those grounds, there is no need to change the present structure.
In paragraph 25, the White Paper states:
"The water authorities' ability to operate on the basis of integrated river-basin management and to plan and develop water resources regionally has enabled them to improve their services and to keep pace with rising demand".
In other words, they have done a good job, but, apparently, not sufficiently good.
Paragraph 34 of the White Paper relates to the number of staff employed by the authorities and states:

607
"Numbers rose between 1976 and 1979, but since 1979 there has been a saving of nearly one-fifth. At the same time, standards of service have been maintained and improved".
That is an impressive account of success. The White Paper also states:
"Investments will have increased from £340 million in 1981–82 to about £525 million in 1986–87—an increase of 38 per cent. in real terms".
That is not too bad. The White Paper goes on to say:
"The Government expects expenditure as at the present level or above to continue in the foreseeable future".
The White Paper then deals with the subject of planned investment. The Government have apparently prevented expenditure on schemes which the boards themselves, appointed by the Government, consider necessary. That is yet another example of government interference. We hope that that will not be the case in the future, but there is nothing to prevent it. The White Paper goes on to say:
"Once privatised, water authorities will be able to organise their financial and managerial affairs without reference to central Government and, in particular, will be free to focus on their primary responsibility—providing a service to their customers while safeguarding the environment".
Surely their primary responsibility, as a plc, will be to their shareholders. There is not always complete unanimity of interest between what the shareholders want in the form of higher dividends and what the consumers want in the form of better service and lower prices.
The White Paper goes on to say that:
"The price formula would, however, be subject to periodic review"
by the Government. There is only one more quotation with which I shall weary noble Lords. Paragraph 78 states:
"Profit is a more effective incentive than Government controls".
But we have not heard about profit; we have heard about service to the consumer. After all, what profit is there in more effective care of the environment? What profit is there in more effective pollution control? So, if they are to be guided solely by profit, it is a very poor lookout indeed for the environment and the control of pollution.
I have just one more point which has already been mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend, but it is of enormous importance; namely, the half million acres—435,000 acres—that the water authorities now own. What is to become of that? At all costs there must not be a repetition of the inordinate profits made by various organisations which quite openly and legally have bought concerns that the Government have privatised.
If those surplus lands—if indeed they are surplus —are to be disposed of, there must be something (as suggested by various noble Lords, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh was the first to mention it) as embodied in the original water Acts which will forbid profits made in that kind of way from being distributed to shareholders. It must enable those profits either to go toward reducing the price of the commodity—which in this case is water—or to be made available for new investment.
608
Alternatively that land could be excluded from the sale of the assets and vested in the National Rivers Authority with rights that will safeguard pollution control, cleanliness of the waters and access of water plcs wherever that is necessary.
But whatever is done—and obviously many amendments will be tabled to this Bill and it will bring about a great deal of informed discussion—we must ensure that these enormously potentially valuable assets (which are valuable in terms of cash, the environment, access to the general public and for the beauty of the countryside) will not be disposed of purely for the profit of those who have invested in the water plcs, but will be retained for the welfare of the community in its wider sense.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is rare indeed for a Bill to be so overwhelmingly unpopular as is this one, with only 15 per cent. of the population said to be in favour of it, according to public opinion polls, I understand the arguments of those who claim that water is so elemental that it should never be privatised without the express approval of the people, as determined by a referendum. If a referendum were held on this issue, privatisation would be totally rejected. And if the result of such a referendum were subsequently to be analysed, I am willing to bet that a majority of Conservative voters would have voted no; to say nothing of the majority of voters of other political persuasions. Rejection would have been partly on the grounds of cost. Whatever the theoretical, or indeed practical advantages of water meters as cited by my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, we are told that it would cost £3 billion to provide and install water meters in every household in the land. Rejection would also have been partly because of a natural distaste for replacing a public monopoly by a private one, and partly because most people believe that water is indeed special—the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, alluded to both those points.
Some sophisticated individuals sneer at what they consider to be the quasi-superstitious attitude of the British people in this regard; but the fact is that water is regarded as special by almost every race, religion and culture that one can bring to mind. In Islam, one of the attractions of Paradise is a profusion of fountains flowing with fresh, pure water. Buddhists who take their religion seriously—as most do—regard food as almost superfluous; water by contrast is sacred. What is the Christian message? "I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."
So the British, uninspired by any specific religious faith though most of them may be, are by no means alone in this world in regarding water as something special. The much less pleasant underside of the coin destined for privatisation is sewerage. Any odour that attaches to that is certainly not the odour of sanctity. Nevertheless, ever since mid-Victorian times, people have taken it as an article of faith that, apart from those rural areas where households will always have to depend on septic tanks by virtue of their isolation, sewerage is essentially the province of government, whether central or local government.

609
It has nothing to do with the convenience of individuals but everything to do with public health, which is by definition a governmental responsibility. The same considerations apply to those ancillary activities which are likely also to become the responsibility of the plcs.
Having said that, the Government are clearly in a phase when dogma will win out over caution, commonsense and conservatism with a small "c". Some will claim that it will also win out over Conservatism with a capital "C": it is not for me as an Independent to confirm or refute that allegation. So, given the fact that the Bill will go ahead, the question remains: how can it be made more palatable?
The Government have made great play of the wider share ownership that has resulted from successive privatisation issues, but a closer examination shows that wider share ownership is not all that it seems. In the first place, apart from the many astute individuals who have made a quick turn on partly-paid shares in the early stages of dealing when it is the habit of institutions to offer exceptionally low commission rates, most privatisation shareholders are locked into their shareholdings because of the vastly increased minimum commission rates which have come into force since the Big Bang. The Big Bang has been a disaster for small shareholders, whatever benefit it may have brought to the institutions.
Locked-in shareholders are not what capitalism and the market economy is supposed to be about. Locked-in shareholders cannot, by definition, participate in the ebb and flow of the market. Furthermore, and despite the scaling down of large applications, the richer one is the more one benefits from privatisation, given that shares are always floated at a discount to the true market value, partly to get the issue off to a good start, as the saying goes, and partly for political reasons. If an unsophisticated shareholder sees his shares fall below the issue price, possibly for reasons totally unforeseen at the time of flotation, he will automatically blame the Government that made privatisation possible. That will have the adverse electoral effects that are to be expected from such apportionment of blame. It is true that an entirely new breed of shareholder has come into being since privatisation started. This new breed of shareholder tends to consist of the more astute and quick witted—"streetwise" in the current jargon—members of what used to be called the working class. The equally worthy but slower, more cautious and more old-fashioned members of that class, who are reluctant to be tempted into what for them is a risky and untried venture, lose out—in the short term at any rate, although of course in the long term they may turn out to be the clever ones.
Before privatisation started no reputable stockbroker, accountant or bank manager would have advised a client with less than at least £10,000 of spare capital to invest in the ordinary shares of individual companies. Such non-fixed interest investments as they would have recommended would have been investment trusts or unit trusts. Even less would they have recommended buying ordinary shares in individual industrial companies
610
by instalment. They would have taken the view that anyone who was not able to shell out, say £300 in one go rather than in three equal instalments of £100, ought not to be investing at all in equities. I feel that most people who have any financial experience would agree with that view. That is leaving aside the near certainty that many inexperienced, and even some experienced, investors will mislay their allotment letters, or partly paid share certificates, or will forget to pay the second and subsequent instalments, thereby losing their entitlement to shares altogether. The Government have been inviting the unsophisticated to ignore traditional sound advice and to take risks, notwithstanding that these risks are slightly reduced by virtue of the underpricing of the shares being offered. It proves that whatever benefits there may or may not be—and economists differ on this—in terms of efficiency, privatisation is not all that it is cracked up to be from the point of view of the small shareholder.
There is a most important additional factor to be considered. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman, and Lady White, and possibly others, have pointed out, the land assets of water companies do not belong to the Government in any moral sense, whatever technical, legal loopholes the Government may be able to use in order to justify their action. It follows that the Treasury does not deserve the money. Nor does it need the money. As we never stop reading in the financial columns, the Treasury is awash with money at the present time.
One partial solution has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding; and I am pleased to see that it was given a partial endorsement by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is the ploughing back by the Treasury of some of the proceeds of sale in the form of environmental improvements. However, there exists another and more radical solution which would have the added merit of overcoming some of the disadvantages for the average citizen of modest means of conventional privatisation flotations.
I hasten to say that it is not my idea. It has been canvassed before by a number of other people including one eminent stockbroker who, unlike me, is a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party. This solution consists not of offering shares for sale, as in a conventional privatisation, but of allocating an equal number of shares without payment to every individual on the electoral register—to every adult citizen in the country, in other words. In this way water really would be returned to the people—all the people—while the benefits, in terms of efficiency, that are alleged by supporters of the Bill to flow from water privatisation would still be attainable.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, if I give a rather tepid welcome to this Bill I hope noble Lords will understand that it is not because of an excessive affection for the Water Act 1973, for which I was responsible. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that no society can make a perpetual law and that every law naturally expires at the end of 19 years. I do not

611
know why he chose 19 years. However, given the torrent of modern legislation, for an Act to have lasted—albeit amended in 1983—for 16 years is not a bad record.
Philosophically, I am entirely in favour of privatisation. In the eloquent and agreeable speech with which my noble friend Lord Caithness opened this debate, he quite rightly pointed out that one in four consumers already obtain their water quite satisfactorily from privately owned companies. I would prefer to see the functions of the water authorities based on the proven model of the statutory water companies, with profit and dividend limitation, where the surplus is applied for the benefit of consumers. To put the matter shortly, I entirely agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said to your Lordships this afternoon.
The case for the statutory water company was fully made out by my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Elliott of Morpeth, in the debate on the paving Bill in your Lordships' House on 26th February 1988. I believe that that debate and those speeches deserve re-reading, as does the more recent booklet on Water Privatisation and the Consumer published by the Selsdon Group—not notoriously Left wing—and written by Sir Frederick Corfield. If the statutory water model were adopted, the Bill we are now considering would not be so bulky or bureaucratic in content that it costs £19.30 for any member of the public who wishes to read it. It is the first Bill I know that has had to be published in two volumes and weighs two pounds unbound. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the volume of legislation today. Professor Hayek has said that parliaments as they presently exist cannot cope with the volume of legislation today. They have neither the time nor the right frame of mind to do so.
I can quite understand why the water authorities are keen on privatisation. It is not least because they want freedom from Treasury restraints that have held back essential capital investment. Equally, I understand why they naturally feel that the opportunity to borrow money from capital markets will enable them to achieve a better service and higher water quality standards. We ought also to recognise that making up that neglected investment, and meeting the higher standards of quality required by Community regulations, will mean that the cost of water services is bound to rise in any event, regardless of privatisation. There are, however, a number of questions that I should like to put to the Minister.
First, what will the Government do to mitigate the burden placed on consumers as a result of the neglect to invest for which they are responsible for the past 10 years, as were the Labour Government for the previous six? It was all right in 1973-74.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, my noble friend was not so easy about everything, if I may
612
say so. When he replies, the Minister could tell us something about the Government's plans in this regard. Are they prepared to give back to the water industry the proceeds of the privatisation issue? My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has spoken with affection of his 1983 Act. Some of us are in our anecdotage with regard to many of these matters.
I wish to go back to the 1983 Act because the amendment then changed the rules of the game, as has been pointed out. In 1973, I was able to persuade the local authorities that the change was one of form rather than substance, that we were creating a system whereby we could treat water as a national resource, but that they would still retain the ultimate control by having an absolute majority of members on the water authorities. That was taken away in the 1983 Act. There are those who say that it made smaller, more efficient boards. We hear that argument often. I have never believed that efficiency is the sole test of government. I have said on other occasions that I am not particularly impressed by the fact that Mussolini made trains run on time.
However, the importance about the change is this. By their action in 1983 the Government in effect seized the ownership and the control of the assets which previously belonged to the ratepayers and to the consumers. It can therefore be said that the Government are selling something which they did not own and for which they have never paid.
The Government can do what they like in the Bill, but when it comes to issuing their prospectus, the potential shareholders—to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson—will study it with care. The Government will have to spell out more clearly than they have done to date the charging increase figures which will underpin that prospectus. That charging increase, at present related to a complex formula which no ordinary member of the public or myself can clearly understand, will be disastrously high unless the Government pump back the money they raise from the privatisation into the new companies for the benefit of consumers.
Having dealt with that aspect of the Bill as shortly as I can, I should like the Government to spell out more precisely the safeguards that will ensure the amenity and recreational protection built into the 1973 Act. Having heard the Minister this afternoon, I know that the Government are fully seized of the importance of the environmental and recreational considerations; but there are still, as many noble Lords have pointed out, a number of anxieties remaining. Some of those have been expressed by the National Trust and some by the Ramblers Association. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to the anxieties about the 500,000 acres of land owned by the water authorities, much of which is of very high landscape quality.
These organisations and other amenity organisations feel that the Bill as drafted will substantially diminish the present protection. I think that that is something they will feel in spite of the assurances which the Government have so far given. Moreover, it would appear that financial considerations may be allowed to override present rights of access. I should therefore like respectfully to ask the Minister

613
whether he will make three things clear: that the present environmental and recreational duties will be re-enacted and that in particular present rights of access will be preserved; that no charge will be made for them and that they cannot be extinguished upon any disposal of land. If the Minister could give those three simple assurances, many of us would be much relieved.
Thirdly, I should like to the Minister to deal with the legitimate complaint, as I see it, of the National Consumer Council and others that there is a lack of independent local or national representation on any of the bodies that are to be set up. We debated the matter of nominated bodies on 22nd March and I think that it is relevant to our debate today, as it is relevant to many others. We spoke of the increasing number of nominated bodies which are regulated and serviced by government departments. Like the rest of your Lordships, I was much impressed by the splendid speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. As long as he is chairman of the National Rivers Authority, which we all welcome, we need have no fears. However, I do not believe that legislation should be drafted in order to give powers to good Ministers or good nominees. It should be drafted to prevent the power falling into the hands of bad Ministers or bad nominees.
In this Bill it is provided that all the members of the National Rivers Authority will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment. All the members of the regional advisory committees will in their turn be appointed by the authority. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell made the point that I should like to make; that they will be serviced and regulated by the department. The noble Lord looks for amendments in that regard. Equally, not only will the proposed director of water services be appointed by the Secretary of State, but the director may—not must—appoint up to 10 customer services committees, all the members of which will be chosen by him. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for whom I have a great regard and with whom I agree on many occasions, spoke of the market economy. He placed his trust in Milton Friedman. Sometimes, if I may say so with respect, the noble Lord does not always make the distinction between the market economy and the corporate state.
I should like to refer once again to Professor Hayek. I do so because I know of the high regard in which he is held by the noble Lord and his friends. He says in his book entitled Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3, at page 36:
"I trust there will come a time when people will look with the same horror at the idea of a body of men, even one authorised by the majority of its citizens, who possesses power to order whatever it likes, as we feel today about other forms of authoritarian government. It creates a barbarism, not because we have given barbarians power, but because we have released power from the restraint of rules, producing effects that are inevitable, whoever the people to whom such power is entrusted".
I increasingly deplore the powers which are being given to nominated bodies without proper representation by local people and local authorities. Indeed, I find it ironic that while a Socialist government in France are busy decentralising, a Conservative Administration in this country appear to be hell-bent
614
on establishing centralised arbitrary government from Whitehall. That danger has been growing apace. It is growing in relation to the local health service, the legal profession and the universities, and it is now rampant in this Bill.
I do not believe that this Bill as it stands adequately protects the general public interest or that of consumers. To quote a phrase used by the Attorney-General in relation to those infamous Green Papers, the best I can say of this Bill is that "it is not all bad". It could certainly be better.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, throughout the 19th century and early 20th century local authority water engineers gradually assumed greater responsibility for the water cycle. It was they who established the water supply and sewerage service that has for so long been taken for granted. There is continuing controversy over the Government's plans for water privatisation. That controversy is the growing argument that the Government do not even own the assets which they are planning to sell. The Bill brought forward by the Minister provides for the transfer of property, rights and assets of water authorities to successor water and sewerage companies. The key question asked by various noble Lords is: can they transfer those rights and assets if ownership is not theirs?
I should like to speak briefly about the water authority I know best—originally the Birmingham City Council Water Authority. It was taken over by and large by Severn Trent. Birmingham, as a corporation, decided in 1891 to make sure that clean water was coming to a vast expanding city. By 1904, four huge reservoirs had been constructed. Another was completed in 1950. The project included a 74-mile aquaduct from Wales, descending by gravity to the reservoir in the south of the city. It was an enterprise paid for by the ratepayers in Birmingham and by public borrowing.
I speak with experience as a member of Birmingham City Council for a great number of years. The water rate was always discussed at the full council annual meeting because it was important that the rate being levied by the water committee and by the city council should take into consideration the city rate that was also being levied. That rate was very high in the majority of cases, but the citizens of Birmingham accepted it on the basis that it gave them first-class water from Wales. I know that in the initial stages the Welsh did not like us going there. However, it is true to say that the Elan area is now being looked after by the Welsh water authority. That body is obviously a good custodian for what was started by the Birmingham corporation and paid for by the ratepayers.
Mr. John Humphries, a former member of the Thames Water Authority, analysed the 1973 and the 1983 Water Acts and concluded that neither transferred ownership from local authorities to the Government. Mr. David Widdicombe, QC, who is best known for having been appointed by the Prime Minister to report on alleged political abuses by local authorities, concluded in his opinion that,

615
"the Government clearly does not have the legal ownership of water authority assets nor in my opinion does it have any kind of beneficial or equitable ownership, the money for the creation of these assets not having come from the Government."
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said, on the face of it this Bill appears to be confiscation without compensation to local authorities. No doubt the noble Earl the Minister is aware of the disquiet felt at present by Birmingham City Council, which is seeking legal opinions. The city council is arguing that it has invested from the turn of the century until the late 1960s and the 1970s. It has costed the amount of money and the assets, the value of which is £507 million, and feels that that should come back to it and should not be squandered by the private companies which are taking over.
There is another aspect of the Bill I find worrying. During the latter part of 1987 and in 1988 the Government conceded that they had been insufficiently strict in their interpretation of the EC directives and the provisions limiting the maximum admissible concentration of nitrate in drinking water. The EC drinking water standards were agreed by all member states nine years ago. They laid down standards of cleanliness and safety that were to be put into operation by 1985. I should like to ask the Minister if we can look forward to conforming with EC standards for drinking water in the very near future. I am aware of disquiet that the European Court might bring proposals to prosecute the Government for failing to give such guarantees. It would be a terrible disgrace for the Government to be taken to the European Court on what might be termed safety standards of drinking water. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to assure the House that that will not happen because we shall be conforming.
It is important to monitor the water utility companies in their compliance with EC water directives. It is important that the local authorities have an input here. There is a need to check the companies' quality reports and for the local authorities to take their own samples for analysis. This is important for public health: when I say "public health" I mean the safety of public health. I think today we appreciate that the word "safety" means much more than it did in the past.
I am not sure that pollution is dealt with in the Bill as strictly as it should be. Inmy view, pollution and its causes need very stringent controls. We have heard this afternoon how those controls are not being conformed with, and MAFF itself could be accused of dragging its heels with regard to nitrate pollution. We say clearly to the government that the polluter must pay. It is unjust for the consumer to have to pay the bill for pollution. If the rules are kept there should be no pollution; if the rules are broken the penalites must be paid by those who break the law. That is common in respect of any law on the statute book. If you are driving at over 40 miles an hour in a 40-mile-an-hour zone you are called upon to pay the penalty. As with other laws, the transgressor—the polluter—must be the one who pays.
I was pleased to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. I enjoyed his speech exceedingly. I agree
616
about consumer protection not being adequate, and I hope that this may be further explored in Committee. Accountability to local people, not to persons nominated by the Secretary of State, is very important. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give some assurance about consumer representation. Will he also remember that there are able women who can sit on the committees? The contributions that they make should be recognised.
On the question of disconnections, I support all that has been said. The courts are the proper forums for the resolution of payment disputes. The courts can order disconnection when a customer is proved to have willingly refused to meet his or her obligations. We should leave that authority with the courts.
I shall not dwell upon recreational facilities. I recognise clearly all that has been said. We have to make sure that such facilities are free of charge so that people's ability to use them is safeguarded.
I am not too sure about one point, raised with me only last week, regarding the fire services. I recognise that the supply of water at adequate pressure for fire-fighting is safeguarded in the Bill. Perhaps, however, I may draw the Minister's attention to the fact that effective fire-fighting also requires appropriate training. Can the Minister ensure that the Bill makes it sufficiently clear that there will be no charge for water used for training exercises?
As other noble Lords have said, this is a most unpopular Bill. That is clearly shown by opinion polls. The Prime Minister believes that the Bill has not been clearly presented. It has been suggested that there has been a failure to put the message across. But do the Government really believe that commercial advertising, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, is really making the point very clearly?
I was on a train only last Friday when I saw a huge hoarding showing a picture of a man partly submerged in water. As the train passed, I saw that it was an advertisement by the water authorities. I read the words:
"It takes 300 pints of water to make a pair of men's trousers".
I thought how interesting and informative that was—something of which the general public should know. Then turning to the Guardian, I saw a full-page picture of a woman whose body was chopped into parts. I was informed that it takes only a pint and a half of water to make a pair of women's frilly panties. So if anyone is thinking of going into a business where they will use a lot of water they may make more profit out of making women's frilly panties than men's trousers. I do not know!
Then again, there is a marvellous TV commercial for water authorities. In it one suddenly sees the roads bursting open to reveal big black pipes. They are underground sewers. I feel so sorry for the lady who is walking along the pavement with her baby in a pram and trying to get over the pipes. I know that no mother would be so silly as to try to get a pram over a road covered with pipes. These advertisements are supposed to be selling the water authorities. Are the Government really convinced that they tell the general public what water privates-

617
ation is all about? I believe that the majority of people know that sewers are under ground. If they do not know, they will soon see so many holes in the road with water authority bollards around them that there will be no lack of knowledge.
I sat on the Front Bench when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, introduced the last Water Bill. I recall that he was quite emphatic in telling me that businessmen would run the authorities. It would not be local authorities or stick-in-the-mud councillors but enterprising businessmen. That was only a few years ago. If it is true that effective management depends upon privatisation it is a confession of the dereliction of duty on the part of water authority chairmen.
I understand that the Government wish to quicken the pace of reform. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, does not wish to go quite so fast. However, I should like to conclude by quoting from Caius Pretorius in the year A.D. 66. He said:
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
7.34 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baoness, Lady Fisher, for giving the information about the manufacture of the garments of the sexes. The debate has been going on for a long time and each speech has produced information of differing kinds. As is customary, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a water company and a vice-president of the Water Companies' Association. I was president of that association for 12 years.
In previous debates in your Lordships' House and in another place I have expressed my belief in the statutory water companies and in the philosophy which they embody. To my mind they are an excellent demonstration that private enterprise, properly controlled and regulated, can participate in providing a public utility service which is very much to the benefit of the public. The companies, with statutory limits on dividends, borrowings and transfers to reserves, have been able to use their private-sector status in the full interests of their customers.
We in the water companies are proud of our record of service. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for his kind comments about the companies. The noble Lord is highly regarded throughout the water industry and in some ways his knowledge is second to none. I should like to amend his tribute to the companies because he said that most of them are efficient. I should amend that statement to say that all the companies are efficient and most are very efficient. Nevertheless, we are proud of our record.
In June, I shall preside over the 144th Annual General Meeting of the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company. I believe that during its existence the company has given to its consumers a very good deal. As chairman, it is my earnest hope that our
618
consumers in the area shall continue to have a very good deal.
There are 28 statutory water companies in England and Wales. They supply a quarter of the water for the two countries. In two water authority areas the companies are responsible for over half the supply. In another area it is 49 per cent., while in the Thames area one gallon of water in three comes from the statutory companies.
The association of the companies has always supported the proposal to privatise the authorities. That is simply because we believe that as a result of transfer to the private sector the customers will benefit. However, since privatisation was first proposed the Water Companies' Association has resolutely held the view that river management and environmental protection should remain in the public sector. Consequently, we warmly welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement about the forming of the National Rivers Authority.
Perhaps it is not surprising that, with over 100 years' experience of serving local communities, the companies believe that their method of regulation can be satisfactorily adapted to meet the Government's objectives in providing an efficient and economic system in which the interests of customers and shareholders alike car be safeguarded in a completely privatised water industry. That is a view which I have upheld for some time. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for recalling a former speech I made on the subject in your Lordships' House.
I should like to return to that subject later, but suffice it to say that before the Bill was introduced in another place—in fact, since September of last year—the Water Companies' Association accepted the decision of the Government to privatise the authorities as plcs with a system of regulation based on controlling price increases. Since then, the whole effort of the Water Companies' Association has been to ensure that the interests of its members were properly safeguarded in the new arrangements.
As has been stated several times, the privatisation is probably unique because a large proportion of this monopoly business is already in the private sector. Care must be taken to ensure that in transferring the water authorities to the private sector the existing private sector is given a fair chance to compete with the new entry. The companies and their association are concerned about a number of matters in that connection. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I explain them briefly. Of course, I hope to return to them at the next stage of the Bill.
First, one has heard that the debt of the water authorities is likely to be written off either wholly or in part. Perhaps I may assure your Lordships that statutory water companies also have debt, some quite a lot. If the water authorities' debt is to be reduced in some general way, that must place the statutory companies at a commercial disadvantage; and that concerns us.
Secondly, and very much on the same lines, the terms of the flotation of the privatised authorities should not be such, as we see it, as artificially to encourage shareholders to invest in them rather than

619
in the statutory companies. If that happens, it will place the business of the statutory water companies in jeopardy; for example, the share price could well be reduced by existing shareholders being persuaded to sell in order to purchase shares in private authorities if they are offered at some kind of discount.
Thirdly, of late there has been a certain amount of comment—and quite a lot during this debate, and I took full note of the reference to the point by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—about what has become known as the dowry. It has been suggested previously and at least three times today that some of the proceeds of the sale of the privatised authorities should be given back to those authorities to assist them in meeting environmental and water quality standards. I ask that great care should be taken as to how that is done if it is to be done. A way must be found to ensure that customers of the statutory companies also receive the benefits of any dowry arrangements, not least because those customers are also customers of authorities for their sewerage services.
One very important point arises from the fact that water authorities and statutory companies have operated under very different schemes of financial regulation. That has produced a situation where authorities traditionally have low levels of borrowing and statutory companies have high levels of borrowing. In future, statutory water companies, even if they do not become plcs, will be judged by the City against the plc privatised authorities. The Government proposals give water companies the option to become plcs. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her emphasis during the course of her speech that the statutory companies are not yet plcs. She had quite a point when she said that much has been stated about the private companies, as we are called, suggesting that we are plcs, whereas we are nothing of the kind. The advice which the statutory water companies have received from a number of quarters indicates that, for most if not all companies, there is very little option but to become plcs. If we are to be viable in the new industry environment which the privatisation of the authorities will create, then we must, as we see it, convert the plc status. We appeal that there should be no impediment to statutory water companies becoming plcs at the same time as the water authorities do so.
As the provisions stand in the Bill at present, a minority of shareholders—and even non-voting shareholders—could frustrate or at least delay the conversion process by making application to the court for the decision by a majority of stockholders to be set aside. It would be much better for such shareholders not be able to hold up conversion, although they should of course have the right to seek compensation for any financial damage suffered.
My final point is most important. As the proposals presently stand, some water undertakers will have protection from takeover following flotation and some will not. The Government propose that the privatised authority should have a golden share for five years except in the case of Welsh water, which
620
will be protected, it would seem, in perpetuity. Furthermore—and this is very important to us—it is proposed that mergers between water undertakers with gross assets exceeding £on can be refused by the Monoplies and Mergers Commission solely on the grounds that such a merger would reduce the number of water undertakers. At present, no statutory water company has a golden share and, as regards the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, about half of the statutory water companies would not have that proposed protection.
The reason given for issuing the golden share is that the privatised authorities will have a period of instability and that they will need time because they will be fledgling businesses. However, the companies too will have to adjust to an altogether new situation. We are in the private sector, but it is wholly wrong to suggest that we are completely in the private sector or that the legislation proposed will not very substantially affect the way in which the companies operate. They will never again operate in quite the same way and they too will have to adjust. They will have to adjust to the existence of the National Water Authority. There will be a completely new system of regulation under the Director General of Water Services. They will probably have a new status as plcs and, finally and very importantly, they will have to move towards different rates of return on capital assets and debt equity ratios.
Clearly it is not possible and we realise this, for the Government to confer golden shares on statutory water companies: we are already in the private sector. Nevertheless, I ask my noble friend to accept that this is a considerable worry for the companies and is a jeopardy which I hope he will recognise.
The special procedure under the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been created, we are told, to ensure the continuation of comparative competition. Being a monopoly, as has been said so many times during the course of the debate today, makes it impossible for there to be direct competition. However, the Government believe—and so do I, as I stated in the last speech which I made on this subject in your Lordships' House—that it is possible to have competition by comparison. In that way the director general can use his powers based on a benchmark comparison to secure an improvement in efficiency right across the industry.
At present the Government are saying that it is not necessary for the purposes of comparative competition to secure the continuation in existence of undertakers of less than £30 million gross assets. With that, I profoundly disagree. Big is not necessarily beautiful. Greater efficiency does not go hand in hand with greater size and competition is not divisible according to asset values. The recent efficiency studies carried out by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells on behalf of the Department of the Environment, showed that many smaller companies proved to be more efficient than their bigger neighbours. I believe it is wholly wrong in principle and in logic for the Director General of Water Services to be deprived of the use of some of the smaller companies for the purposes of the all essential comparative competition.

621
Those are the particular concerns which the statutory companies have and I hope that the Government will accept that they are well founded and will do what they can to meet their concerns. Earlier I referred to my belief that the statutory water model should be used as a basis for regulating the new industry. I must say that my view was formed at a time when I did not have the benefit of seeing the full details of the regulatory framework as they have now appeared. I see this new framework as being very safe for the consumer. It is very extensive: indeed, as a member of the water industry, I assure your Lordships that it is so extensive as to be almost awesome.
I recognise the intent and the integrity of the Government in seeking to protect customers. Increases will be limited by an independent person —the Director General of Water Services. There is to be a system of monitoring standards of service. Coupled with that will be regulations on water quality, voluntary codes of practice and a scheme of guaranteed standards. On top of all that, the Government are proposing a system of capital expenditure appraisal and review which is probably unprecedented. As a result of that appraisal system, it has become apparent that a considerable amount of further capital expenditure is required throughout the whole water industry. That has been fully recognised during the course of the debate. Charge increases are not popular, but the charges are being increased and it is very necessary that they should be in order that water quality, apart from anything else, may be improved.
I conclude by saying that, having been involved in the water industry, I have had the benefit of being able to study the proposed system of customer protection extremely closely. I am now persuaded of its merits. Furthermore, I have genuine doubts whether this level of control in the interests of consumers would be possible in a profit-controlled regime. The amount of protection for customers can only be tolerable for shareholders if there is no structural fetter on their profit expectations.
I should like to say once again that the 28 statutory companies have a long history of service—a history of which they are very proud. I was very pleased, as I am sure we all were, to hear my noble friend Lord Crickhowell say that he had been able to recruit people of the highest calibre to serve in the body of which he is now to become the head. We are pleased about that. The National Rivers Authority should have the very best people. The water companies already employ people of the highest professional quality. I know that to be so because I know them all. They recognise the challenges facing them under the proposals embodied in the Bill. They will meet them. The proposals are certainly robust and are certainly challenging, but I believe they are sound. I support the Bill.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, at the ouset of this debate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, implored the Minister to keep an open mind on this Bill. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I, speaking from this Bench, keep a very open mind on this extremely long and complicated Bill.
622
I confine my remarks this evening to the somewhat narrow aspect of recreational boating interests and to reflect the views of the Inland Waterways Association, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industries Federation which, between them, represent all recreational boat users—other than canoeists and water skiers—hire-boat interests, marina operators and boat builders who could be affected by the Bill.
Approximately 80 water authority reservoirs supporting pleasure craft activities are to be vested in the successor water supply plcs; and control of three major river navigations—namely, the Upper Medway, the Thames and Anglian—plus one harbour (Rye) are to be given over to the NRA. A large number of boating clubs and many thousands of individuals are dependent for the whole of their boating activities on these water authority facilities. The Minister rightly stressed the importance of both conservation and recreation. However, on scrutinising the Bill in detail it would appear that its effect upon recreational boating activities is intended to be broadly neutral. No new or enhanced recreational duties or functions are proposed, but with major organisational changes proposed in the Bill and the concentration in policy terms on competition and environmental considerations the effects upon existing recreational boating activities are in some danger of being overlooked.
This gives rise to a number of concerns. First, there is inadequate provision for representation of recreational interests through advisory committees. At present the 10 water authorities of England and Wales are advised by regional recreational and conservation consultative committees which are comprised of individuals nominated by interested organisations, including the Inland Waterways Association, the RYA and the BMIF. That arrangement works extemely well. The boating interests are fearful, however, that the proposal to set up multi-purpose regional rivers advisory committees to advise the NRA will have the effect of reducing the influence of both conservation and recreational interests, notwithstanding the general duties imposed on the NRA by Clause 8. They would like to see provision for the establishment in each region of a separate environmental and recreational committee.
I turn now to the general environmental and recreational duties contained in Clause 8. It would appear that these generally reflect existing water authority duties contained in the Water Act 1973. However, there appears to be some diminution of recreational duties. The boating interests would very much like to see this clause re-enacted without qualification and made applicable to all the relevant authorities, including the Secretary of State, and also made applicable in relation to land which may be disposed of by the new plcs.
The code of practice contained in the Bill is generally welcomed by the boating interests. They are, however, concerned that this draft code is seriously deficient in regard to provision for recreation. First and foremost, it says very little about recreation. It appears to be addressed almost entirely to what are admittedly important environ-

623
mental considerations. In addition, there seems to be a failure in the code to address the need for consultation with recreational interests, the factors relevant to the pricing of recreational facilities, the legitimate expectations of existing users of recreational facilities and the impact on them of new facilities and, finally, the need when considering environmental measures to have regard to their impact on existing recreational activities. Now is not the time or the hour to go into the whys and the wherefores of the Sandford principle. Suffice to say that amendments will be proposed in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and consultation.
A further point of concern shared by anglers and conservationists is the adverse effects of high levels of abstraction and the absence of any provision requiring minimal acceptable flows to be established for all inland waters. There is a belief that this clause should be amended accordingly.
Finally, I turn to the provision under Clause 153 for the water plcs to make by-laws in respect of waterways and navigation. This clause reflects powers available to the water authorities under the Countryside Act 1968. However, there is a new subsection (2) which would enable the NRA to make by-laws in relation to any inland waters which are not otherwise controlled. However, the definition of "inland waters" contained in the schedule includes,
"any channel, creek, bay, estuary or arm of the sea".
Thus, the NRA would be given unprecedented by-law and registration powers to control navigation in tidal waters. There seems no basis for such wide-ranging powers, particularly given that tidal waters do not contribute to water supply. Moreover, at least in relation to estuaries and creeks, the proposals would seem unintentional for, with the exception of Rye Harbour which is controlled by Southern Water, the NRA will have no immediate experience of, or interest in, regulating boating or sailing in coastal waters. It would also necessarily involve diversion of the NRA's limited funds and resources.
The boating interests are not happy with this new subsection. They were not consulted in advance and they will seek either to exclude this subsection or at least amend it so that coastal waters are excluded. I and other noble Lords will be rehearsing these arguments in greater detail at subsequent stages of the Bill.
8 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, many features of this Bill are a very necessary advance and much to be welcomed. For example, I think of the measures for dealing with pollution and the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. As an incidental consequence of that, there is the appointment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who made a powerful speech this afternoon. His enthusiasm will be a great asset so long as he is there. Despite the undoubted advances, I am one of those who would have preferred that this Bill had not come forward in its present form.
My principal reason is that water is a resource of such a particular character that concepts such as
624
profit motive and competition are simply unsuited to its supply. As has been said many times, self-evidently it is a monopoly resource and one where public health considerations are paramount. Most people do not regard water as a suitable commodity for other people to make money from. That was a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, with his life-long experience in the industry. Our existing water companies are not money-making organisations. There is no more enthusiastic supporter of the concept of privatisation than me. Nationalisation was the apotheosis of socialism, and socialism is now seen everywhere as an unsuccessful and outdated method of trying to organise our national affairs.
It took a long time for this truth to become widely apparent to the electorate, but at last it has been possible to make massive transfers from the public to the private sector, and, I believe, on a permanent basis. I do not want to see this process of privatisation checked or damaged in any way. I want to see it continuing to enjoy a massive public support. But there is a danger that if a particular privatisation measure was thought by the electorate to be unsatisfactory in practice or to people's disadvantage, privatisation itself could become unpopular or unwelcome, which is the worst thing that could happen.
It seems to me that there is a risk that this Bill may produce a result that dims the electorate's enthusiasm for privatisation. That is why, from the very inception of the Bill in the last Parliament, I warned of the political danger and hoped that second thoughts would prevail. They have, but only to a limited extent. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is not a bridge too far; it is a bridge that is unsafe. That is a consideration that does not apply to any previous privatisation measure nor to a number that are in prospect for the future.
This Bill is now going to pass through Parliament and therefore our task is to do what we can to make it a workable, acceptable and successful Act. I believe that this can be achieved if two particular changes are made. I confess that both points have been made already, and more than once. The first concerns the proceeds of sale, to which my noble friend Lord Rippon referred. Since the inception of the Bill it has emerged in a way that was not apparent to the public before that the quality and standard of much of our water is below what it should be and that substantial expenditure will be needed to correct that. Everybody agrees that there have been years of neglect, especially as regards sewers and other areas. The time has now arrived when the backlog has to be tackled. In his opening speech in this debate my noble friend the Minister admitted that.
It will be an expensive business. For the Government to sell off the water industry, to gobble up the money and then to turn to the users and require them to pay the very high cost of making good the years of neglect will feel totally unfair to many people. That is quite apart from the fact that it is at least arguable that the Government are not the owners of the assets anyway. Certainly they have not paid for them. In view of the scale of the work required to attain the necessary standards, the

625
Government should make over the proceeds of sale to all the privatised undertakings as a contribution to the upgrading and investment to which they will be committed.
Clearly the Government believe that they own the assets; otherwise they would not be putting them on sale. That being so, it seems only right that they should meet part of the cost of what they themselves neglected to do. If they do that, one of the unfortunate consequences of this Bill—namely, the high charges that are bound to come along and which the public will tend to think are due to privatisation—will be avoided. The second major change I should like to see concerns the nature and structure of the proposed privatised water undertakings.
Listening to the rhetoric of the Government during the past year or two, one can be forgiven for thinking that the 25 per cent. of our water now supplied by the statutory companies was in the hands of plcs run by a collection of innovative and professional entrepreneurs with highly profitable results. They are held out by the Government as the model of successful private enterprise. This Bill is presented as the vehicle that will transfer the supply of the other 75 per cent. of our water from its present wholly unsatisfactory basis, as the Government imply, to the private sector with all its benefits of competition, market forces, profits, and the rest.
However, the comparison is not like that at all. In the first place, those companies always had their freedom of action precisely constrained, especially in terms of dividends and profits, but in other ways too. Their freedom of action is limited. However that may be, they have been very successful on that basis and have served their customers extremely well for a century and more. It would seem logical to take this long experience of customer satisfaction in the controlled private sector as the model for the whole industry. It will also have the advantage of conserving the huge land assets of all water undertakings for the benefit of water consumers, and that means everyone.
The fact that the Government are going to bring forward new amendments on this aspect of the Bill at this comparatively late stage indicates that the anxieties people feel here are justified. As this Bill now stands, it does not put the new undertakings on the same basis as the statutory companies. It goes in the opposite direction and alters, albeit on an optional basis, the character and constitution of the existing statutory water companies. That is a retrograde step. I hope that your Lordships will think it right to amend this Bill in a way that builds on the proven success of our statutory companies. After all, the Government themselves frequently applaud these companies and hold them out as models to be emulated, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and others have said today. One would think it sensible to build on their success. I support very much what my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth said.
I believe that these two changes—they are not fundamental in principle but they are pretty major —would go a long way to allay public anxiety over this Bill. They would certainly take the danger out of the privatisation process which exists at present. They would provide a better basis for the long-term
626
future of this very important industry and for the British people it supplies.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in considering the privatisation of water we are surely considering a more fundamental privatisation than any that has gone before, for the simple reason that drinkable water is as important to life as breathable oxygen. Possibly it should be thought of in something like the same light. The first consideration of any government when dealing with water is the fact that we should have a clean and ready supply of it because it is so important to the health of the nation. Many noble Lords have reminded us of Joseph Chamberlain and his work in cleaning up the water supply of Birmingham. We can look at other historical figures such as Chadwick in London. Those two men probably made a greater contribution to the health of the nation than any doctor or combination of doctors. If one stops such a major source of infection as dirty water, one effectively takes on the nation's health at first hand and prevents a deterioration through further major infection.
I am certainly not the best qualified Member of your Lordships' House to lecture on the ethics and practicalities of privatising such a natural monopoly as water. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ezra who said that any funds raised from the privatisation should be ploughed back into the water industry. The Government should take more responsibility for funding the water industry. They have told us for a considerable time that they enjoy a large budget surplus. Surely some of those funds, if invested correctly, could find a useful home in the water industry.
The one part of the Bill that has received almost universal approval is the creation of the National Rivers Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made an impressive speech in which he stated that, providing the authority is independent and has sufficient resources, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be a great boon to the environment and to society as a whole. The National Rivers Authority could be a torch bearer for enlightened progress and the preservation of the environment. On the other hand, it could be a bureaucratic dead duck if it does not have the necessary tools to do the job.
The National Rivers Authority faces a huge problem. In 1985 a river quality survey found that 903 kilometers of our waterways faced a net deterioration in standards. More than 23,000 pollution incidents were recorded in 1987. The National Rivers Authority will have 450 pollution control officers out of a staff of 6,500. Each one will have to patrol more than 100 kilometres of waterway. Each 100 kilometres will have somewhere between 45 and 65 effluent discharges. I hope that there will be sufficient resources. I somehow doubt it.
If the National Rivers Authority is not to be hopelessly under-funded and under-resourced to carry out this vital job, the best organisation in the world will be required. I welcome the idea of a regional structure for the National Rivers Authority because the problems of water pollution are of a

627
regional nature. I hail from East Anglia. In that part of the world we are primarily concerned with nitrate and pesticide pollution and seepage into ground water which will cause pollution in years to come. I hope that the authority in East Anglia will be differently organised in structure and in the training of staff from the authority in the North-West of the country. There it will be dealing with the industrial heartlands of the nation and the problems caused to the River Mersey, which has long been a chemical dustbin. The difference in the types of pollution should be given careful consideration. I refer in particular to the growth in the amount of farm pollution. The exact figure for the number of pollution incidents in 1987 is 23,253. Of those, 19 per cent. are thought to be agricultural. These usually involve the aforementioned pesticides and nitrates, but also include slurry, which manages to get into the water supply through spreading. If we are to deal with these problems, we must have correctly trained staff.
After more than five hours of debate and 20 speakers, virtually everything that I wanted to say has already been covered. I should like to conclude on one thought. If we are to have an effective guard against pollution damage as distinct from other problems, the Government should not hesitate to provide new resources for the National Rivers Authority and also for the new companies even after privatisation. It is clear that this problem affects not only those who deal with balance sheets and the bank balances of companies, but the nation as a whole.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, for the past couple of years I have been a non-executive board member of the Anglian Water Authority. I was appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and have special responsibilities for environmental issues. As such, since the beginning of this year I have been a member of the NRA working group of that authority. I have lately transferred. I am now a member of the plc working group and, if the Bill becomes law, I have expectations of being appointed with the same remit to the board of the plc.
As long ago as 1984 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had already recognised in its 10th report that the availability of funds, rather than statutory powers, is the key to environmental improvements. My experience on the water authority has shown me personally all too clearly the constraining effect of Treasury control with a Government who are determined above all to limit public expenditure. I cannot altogether swallow the ethical argument that sees water somehow ordained as a public sector good. I note en passant that those who hold this view hold it with regard to the provision of a treated supply of pure water but do not apparently hold it in the same sense with regard to the equally important function of the present water authorities, which is the treatment of foul water and the conversion of it back into a clean and tolerable form in which it can be restored to the environment.
628
I see the advantages of separated functions. I see the merits of a system which provides a public regulator and a private service industry for the supply of clean water and the treatment of dirty water. To that extent, I favour the Bill in principle. From the practical point of view, however, I recognise points that require revision. I shall first mention one which has been a personal preoccupation of mine and which I have raised with my colleagues on the water authority from the beginning, though I have hesitated to air it publicly. I refer to the name of the National Rivers Authority. The acronym NRA is beginning to slip off our tongues as if we had been saying it for years, although I noticed that just now the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, called it the National Water Authority when he spelt out the letters in full. Therefore we are not entirely used to it. It is not a national body; it applies only to England and Wales. It is not exclusively a rivers authority; it has equally important functions regarding flood defence; it is also required to protect the coastal and marine environments.
I know that this issue also interests the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and I do not wish altogether to sail into his wind. I heard him raise this issue at a presentation when a full bench of Ministers from the Department of the Environment, headed by the Secretary of State, sat in the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre across the road. I heard the Secretary of State's reply, that he did not care too much about the name. He said that anything else would do just as well if it was snappy. I feel that a public body of this importance should have a name that conveys to the public what it is about and what its functions are. If I am asked what I propose, I begin to get into deep water. I have tried out various things. I tried out the "Natural Waters Authority". I tried out various other ideas. At the moment I favour the "Water Environment Protection Authority". I offer that to my noble friend as a personal gesture.
I now come to other issues which are important from the point of view of the management of the existing water authorities and of their successors. I shall call the successors the NRA and the plcs. First, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, it is intended under the provisions of the Bill that the NRA should have the status of a non-departmental public body. As the noble Lord said, that means that it will be second guessed by officials. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will take note of what the noble Lord said; that they will reconsider the issue; and that they will take the opportunity to amend the legislation.
At present, under Schedule 1 paragraph 3, the NRA cannot increase the number of staff it requires without the approval of the Secretary of State. Again, under the same paragraph, the NRA requires the Secretary of State's approval to pay pensions or allowances to its employees. Under Clause 140, it requires the Secretary of State's consent before its skills or expertise can be marketed abroad. Surely those are issues upon which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and his successors should be given freedom. If he chooses to put forward such amendments, I shall certainly support them.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive my interruption, but does he agree that the consent of the Treasury is also required for almost all the matters to which he referred?
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, from what I have heard this afternoon, I assume that the Treasury is breathing hard down the back of any Secretary of State all the time.
There are other loopholes in the legislation which must be filled. First, there are certain environmental polluters for whom the legislation allows dispensation. In Clause 104, pollution from a vessel is excepted from control. Under Clause 105, polluting discharges are permitted from a waste tip, let us say, if the person responsible holds a disposal licence. I remind noble Lords that a disposal licence is issued by a local authority and not by a water authority. That is a constant cause of concern to the water authorities. Dispensation is also given—and this is also a major cause of concern—if the discharge is from a highway or a highway drain. Those are important points which need to be picked up in the legislation.
My next point is that much pollution is chronic. It is important that the NRA should have the necessary powers to control chronic pollution when it has occurred once or twice and is likely to occur again. What is needed is the power of injunction; it is simply not sufficient to wait again and again for a polluting incident and then take the offender to court. I have been advised that the power to issue—if that is the right word—or demand an injunction was available to the river authorities by virtue of Section 3 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, but that it was removed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Therefore what I am asking for in this case is simply that the Government should restore to their proposed regulatory authority the capacity which existed in one of its rather remote predecessors.
From the point of view of the future plcs, there are other issues which are important and which will require debate. One of those is the development contribution. Is it fair that existing customers should subsidise the cost of providing services to new properties? There is a big issue on the costs of providing water and taking sewage from new housing developments. The question of where those costs should appropriately fall needs to be considered. Existing customers should not subsidise new customers. That is an important issue. In another place, the Minister for Water and Planning indicated that he was considering the matter. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will bring forward amendments in that respect.
It has been suggested to me that there is a maze of superimposed provisions in the legislation and that it requires consolidation. This would be helpful, even if the Bill is made even bigger, even longer and even weightier; but it should provide clearer drafting. It would be helpful if the opportunity was taken to consolidate all the existing legislation which will apply to water and sewerage undertakers and the NRA. At present the Bill contains only a series of essential amendments to existing legislation. So, in
630
many cases, the new Bill places a further layer on top of existing legislation.
The Bill is also confused as regards the provisions which apply to both the NRA and the plc. In the future those bodies will be two completely separate organisations. It seems highly likely that, whatever the lifetime of this Bill may be—16 or 19 years' expectation of existence, as we heard just now from the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—the powers, for example, to lay pipes or take similar actions will need amending during the life of the Act. It will become an even more confusing document if certain sections are amended with regard to the plc and others are amended with regard to the NRA. I believe that the Bill will be much clearer and much better presented, and will remain a much more workable document in the future if these matters are already separated—although it would appear to be a repetitious procedure—and if the powers of the NRA and those of the future plc are separately laid out in a clearer fashion.
Finally I come to a point which has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Recreational users of water, environmental NGOs, local authorities, consumers, and doubtless many others, seek representation on the advisory or consultative committees which are to be set up. 1n our water authority I have experience of sitting in with the Regional Recreation and Conservation Consultative Committee. Here we have representatives of those various interests. It is a very big committee and it simply does not work; in other words, it does not get together. Each of those little groups has separate interests and feels that it is there to represent and to fight for its corner. Therefore we have an extremely cumbersome committee. We have long meetings where first one interest is discussed, then another, and so on. Each group attacks the points with which it is concerned. I am convinced that if we are to set up such committees we should have relatively small bodies which are the actual advisory and consultative committee. Those committees should have the power to set up specialist advisory or working groups which would report to them and which would deal with specialist interests and special topics.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to confine my few remarks this evening to environmental matters, some of which have already been touched upon. In company with almost every other speaker, I think that the formation of the NRA—which is what we must call it at present, despite the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—is a useful development in pollution control. But, despite all the arguments which have been made this afternoon, I still believe that it could have been created without privatisation of the whole water industry. Its function could have been part of a much needed environmental protection agency to strengthen and co-ordinate all aspects of environmental protection. As it is, we are offered a body with strategic responsibilities for water polluton control, but with no strategic responsibilities for ensuring that the land

631
resources of the water utility plcs are properly managed for conservation and amenity. It seems to me that those functions could well have been brought together in the NRA.
The Government claim that the establishment of the NRA will end the present situation where water authorities monitor their own water pollution activities. We agree that this would be a welcome development. Indeed, the matter has already been raised this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and by the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Jenkin, among others. Obviously it is greatly to be desired. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the NRA contracting the monitoring function back to the water utility plcs, which would make the present unsatisfactory situation even worse.
It has even been suggested to me that the need for a slim efficient NRA precludes the duplication of effort which would be required if that function was not contracted back. Therefore I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will reassure us on that point, because it would indeed make a mockery of the whole exercise if that were to happen.
The water utility plcs will, in any case, enjoy powers over other private companies in an unprecedented way. The CBI opposes the concept that the regulatory functions of the present water authorities should be vested in private companies. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, seemed to think that that provision has been got rid of; so far as I can see, it is still in the Bill.
The water authorities own about 1 million acres of land throughout England and Wales, as we have heard many times today. There is widespread anxiety about the consequences of the transfer of that land from public to private ownership. A large number of bodies have lobbied us all. I am sure that your Lordships will have heard of most of them. The Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Ramblers' Association, the National Trust, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Council for British Architects, several of the local authority organisations and many more bodies have expressed their unease about the implications of this dramatic change in land ownership.
Much of the land has conservation and wildlife importance, with many sites of special scientific interest. Much of it has landscape value and is enjoyed for recreational purposes. There are many sites of historical and archaeological interest. Archaeology and the man-made heritage are a relevant issue. The water authority activities which will be transferred to the NRA and the water utility plcs have wide implications for the heritage. That is something that has not yet been discussed this afternoon. The activities to be transferred include structural developments, drainage schemes, dredging and flood control measures.
632
The Bill fails to define adequately the archaeological and historic interests. The Government rely upon a code of practice to ensure high conservation standards, but the draft code does not even match the standards of environmental assessment and integration of conservation policies set by the Government's own Conservation Guidelines for Drainage Authorities issued only 14 months ago.
Too little is being done to enforce high standards of conservation of the heritage and to ensure that these duties are maintained by any subsidiary companies or any body to whom land is sold or leased.
There is uncertainty about the future of access, a point that has been mentioned by a number of people this afternoon, including the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. With regard to land owned by the new private water undertakers, they are required merely to "have regard to the desirability of preserving access". We wish to see a much more positive requirement and one which will endure even if the land is managed by a subsidiary company or by any other landowner to whom it may be transferred or sold.
We recognise the need for water utility plcs to charge for recreation where they have provided facilities, but we must be assured that the right of access to the simple pleasure of walking, which has been freely enjoyed for so long, should continue as now.
The role of the water authorities in the planning process has been important and in some cases crucial. Their advice was often a determining factor in whether or not development took place. That was acceptable when water authorities were publicly owned and their advice could be expected to be impartial.
The situation will be radically changed after privatisation, with the possibility that developers could become major shareholders in the water utility plcs and could distort the planning system. How do the Government propose to guard against this possible abuse? Would it not be sensible to adopt the suggestion of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that the NRA should become a statutory consultee in the planning process? The CPRE suggests that without that safeguard there is nothing to prevent water undertakers from engaging in speculative infrastructure provision to enhance land held by shareholder companies, or to show reluctance to supply water and sewerage for land owned by competitors. That is a real danger, and I hope that the Government will take it seriously, to see whether there is some way that they can guard against it.
Why is it necessary in any case to transfer the freeholds of all those lands to the water utility plcs? It has already been suggested this afternoon that that is not necessary. There are large areas where any kind of development would be unthinkable. I am thinking especially of areas of the Lake District. Would it not be more acceptable in the long-term interests of conservation for the water utility plcs to be given rights of access and abstraction and to vest the freeholds in the NRA—the noble Lord, Lord

633
Ezra, made that point earlier—or in established conservation bodies if suitable financial arrangements can be made with them?
There are many more possible environmental improvements which will be explored at the next stage of the Bill. The greatest danger still remains—the exposure of an essential life support system to the perils of a private monopoly whose ultimate sole aim is to make profits for its shareholders, and against whom many ordinary consumers and conservation interests have no sanctions. There is no way that we can turn off the tap, and to talk about comparative competition in terms of the ordinary consumer is nonsense. They have little protection and only the most complicated and obscure redress. We hope to make improvements in the provisions for redress at a later stage.
This is a bad Bill, produced for the wrong reasons. I am confident that the Government will ultimately regret it.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I believe that all the arguments on the main issues have been heard. I shall confine what I have to say to one or two conservation points. I am prompted to do that by having served for the past three years on the Nature Conservancy Council. I dare say that it will not be totally unexpected if I refer to parts of the Bill that worry farmers.
I welcome the general environmental duties which Clause 8 lays upon the Secretary of State, the director and the NRA to promote conservation. It is right that the Nature Conservancy Council should have to be consulted on the matters set out in the Bill. I believe, however, that there is a case for the NCC to be made a statutory consultee on water quality objectives. As I read the Bill, it seems merely to provide for a body such as the NCC to make representations under Clause 102 after the Secretary of State has established water quality objectives. That is too late in the proceedings because the NCC is the Government's scientific advisory body on the environment. It should be brought in at a much earlier stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, reminded us, most amusingly, of how difficult it is to strike the right balance where different interests are in conflict, especially where one of those interests is an environmental one. I see all kinds of problems arising where the water companies' duties towards conservation are in conflict with their duties to promote recreation. From the letters that I have received—I am sure that many others of your Lordships have also received them—it seems that the bodies representing each of those interests would like to see their own requirements receive priority and so be written into the Bill.
I do not see how one can legislate for the resolution of such problems as will arise but where the circumstances in every case will be different. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would give an assurance that the duty on the Secretary of State or the director under Clause 7 to promote economy and efficiency will not prevent
634
him from making an order under Clause 20 to enforce compliance where a plc is in breach of its environmental duties.
It is not wholly clear to me whether the conservation duties laid upon the water companies and the director extend to all bodies such as navigation authorities and to local authorities acting as sewerage agencies or undertaking land drainage. I feel that must be the case in regard to the latter. but I am not so sure about the navigation authorities.
Lastly on conservation matters, there is the problem of low flow in rivers which can affect their ability to cope with pollution. The Bill gives a discretionary power to the NRA to apply to the Secretary of State for an order prescribing minimum flow. Clause 123, however, seems to me to be rather weakly drafted and I should like to refer to this at a later stage. I believe that the NRA should have additional powers to review abstraction licences.
The criticism of Clause 147 that it gives the privatised companies the power of public authorities to acquire land compulsorily at existing value has in my view considerable justification. It seems to me to be unjust and unacceptable that private companies should not be made to operate like other bodies in the private sector as regards land values. The private companies are encouraged—rightly, I think—to engage in a very wide range of commercial activities over and above the supplying of water. They will be looking for profit. They will be very happy to buy up land cheaply and go in with other commercial firms to provide recreational facilities, for instance. There are examples now where land acquired for a reservoir is being developed both above and below the shoreline for all kinds of commercial purposes.
My noble friend the Minister is, I am sure, aware of the disquiet that is felt on the matter. From his own professional experience he will also be aware of the present system which applies to the entry onto land by oil companies and by British Gas and the scales for compensation available when it comes to pipe laying.
My noble friend will also be aware that there is a wide gap between the performance, of those undertakers and that of the water authorities. It stems from the statutory instrument of 1974 which amended the Water Act 1945 where it gave powers to water undertakers to lay pipes. As a result, the water authorities can enter onto land without prior agreement and the compensation paid—usually very late—is assessed at a much lower rate than that offered by the other bodies which I have mentioned.
The Bill proposes that these current powers should be transferred to the water companies, and in my view that is not right. The water authorities got on very well up to 1974, laying pipelines under the old conditions. I believe that the 1945 Act formula should be reintroduced so that the companies are required to negotiate entry with back-up powers available in case of special urgency.
There are matters relating to private water supplies in rural areas that are best dealt with at a later stage. There is, however, an anxiety about Clause 75 which I believe is justified. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady, Stedman, That clause provides for

635
the introduction of a scheme of charges which under subsection 3(a) may,
"make different provision … in relation to different circumstances or localities".
The fear is that ordinary domestic consumers in rural communities may face higher charges because of the higher cost of providing water or sewerage in remote areas. In my view, this would be just as wrong as making it more expensive to post letters in the more remote areas.
One of the many briefing letters on this Bill which I have seen is from the Water Authorities Association. It contains this short sentence:
"It is better for operational matters to be in the private sector, subject to public regulation, rather than being in the public sector subject to political regulation".
That, I think, goes to the heart of the matter and it is why I support the broad thrust of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, this Bill is a vast improvement on the Government's original proposals. On that the present Secretary of State for the Environment, and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, should be congratulated. The National Rivers Authority is an admirable concept. I think that the Government have got it 97 per cent. right. The appointment of a former Secretary of State as its chairman shows the importance that the Government attach to it, and we listened with great attention to the important and generally encouraging speech he made this afternoon.
The advisory committee also comprises people like the noble Lord, Lord Mason, Mr. Kinnersley and Professor Edwards, who command the confidence of all who are concerned with our rivers. We need, however, to be certain that the NRA will have the autonomy and the resources that it ought to have. I am therefore glad that Mr. Ridley should have said on 4th April that it needed to be,
"not only independent, but strong and effective too".
But we should bear in mind the unfortunate precedent of the Crown Prosecution Service. This, too, was an imaginative concept which, if properly worked out, could have been a major step forward. But those responsible allowed the Treasury to impose fatally damaging conditions. As a result, most of the best lawyers departed for jobs in the City and the new Director of Public Prosecutions is left to pick up the bits. We must ensure that the NRA is not similarly hamstrung.
I view the privatisation of the water authorities with misgiving. Though there may be more efficient management in the private sector, economists and businessmen know that the only thing worse than a public monopoly is a private monopoly. I am therefore attracted by the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. In Wales we are happily to have a 15 per cent. limit on single shareholdings, but in England the golden share will provide only five years' temporary protection. If a quarter of BP has to be saved from the foreigner, what about our water companies? Nor do I much want to see such
636
companies belonging to some of our present day tycoons.
What does surprise me is that the Government should have embarked on a measure about which their own supporters are so unhappy. I have talked to a lot of people, many of them Conservatives. I have yet to meet one private person who is actually in favour of privatising water. I also fail to understand why the employees of the water authorities who transfer to the plcs should be offered free shares while, for obvious reasons, those who transfer to the NRA will not. I think that the plcs should not be allowed to impose higher charges on rural customers. Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I also agree with him that as private companies they should not be allowed to purchase land compulsorily and therefore cheaply.
However, since the sale is likely to take place, I support the suggestion put forward by several noble Lords that the proceeds should be used to pay for the massive clean-up that everyone agrees is now necessary—the modernisation of sewage plants, the ending of major industrial and agricultural pollution and the restoration of clean beaches. Since we know that the Exchequer is not short of money, it would surely be sensible to finance the clean-up in this way so that water costs to the consumers would not have to rise so much. Rightly or wrongly, large price rises will be blamed on the Government, so doing this would blunt much of the criticism the Government must otherwise face.
NRA funding will be crucial. I think it is very important that it should stand on its own feet financially and be independent of the government of the day. It ought not to be subject to close and detailed Treasury control on day-to-day matters. I hope that the Government will respond to the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on 1st February for a greater degree of self-financing and may still be prepared to introduce the river management precept he spoke about. I hope, too, that they will pay close attention to what he said today. Meanwhile, I welcome the proposals for the NRA to recover pollution control costs from dischargers. Then surely the NRA ought to have borrowing powers for all its functions, not just for flood protection, or to be allowed to build up reserves.
As regards fisheries, I speak here as one who has the honour to be president of the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association and a member of the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee for Wales. The enforcement of legislation, specifically the measures against illegal fishing required by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 and the Salmon Act 1986 ought, like the enforcement of any other criminal legislation, to be paid for by the public at large, as a matter of principle. But 40 years' experience of the public service has left me with an ineradicable distrust of the Treasury, so I would not like to see enforcement simply paid for by Exchequer grants, which could all too easily be cut. The cost ought, I believe, to come largely out of a successor to the existing environmental service charge. That is justifiable because everyone is concerned with the environment.

637
Anglers will be contributing substantially, through licences and through the levies on riparian owners which will replace fishery rates, following the changes in the Local Government Finance Act with which I had something to do. But the first call on these monies ought to be the maintenance, improvement and development of fisheries—a responsibility which the NRA will inherit from the water authorities—scientific research, fisheries management, fish passes, counters and hatcheries.
There is, I think, at present nothing in the Bill to require the monies collected from anglers and riparian owners to be spent on fisheries. They could be clawed back by the Treasury, which would be wrong. We must surely have something in the Bill to require these monies to be spent on fisheries. For the rivers themselves, the first essential is the maintenance of a reasonable quantity of water. The problem is abstraction, legal and illegal, for water supply, spray irrigation—that is all lost and not returned to the river—or industrial purposes. The fears of the 1960s about constantly rising abstractions proved groundless, but we may now be becoming too complacent. On some rivers, particularly on chalk streams, there has been excessive abstraction or pumping of ground water.
When I was a boy I fished the Upper Kennet at Manton. It was then a splendid chalk stream, full of large trout. Today, if I stop on Manton Bridge to look at the Kennet, I see a river that is a shadow of what it once was. In the 1976 drought the River Lugg in Herefordshire in its upper reaches was pumped dry to supply water for gravel washing. On the Wye under normal dry weather conditions, spray irrigation takes out 5 per cent. of the flow at Hereford.
The NRA should be able to keep under review and control all abstractions from rivers, so that it can, where necessary, maintain and enforce adequate minimum flows. Powers to revoke or vary abstraction licences are in the 1963 Water Act, but have hardly ever been used. In my view they should be. We should restore rivers like the Upper Kennet. There should be no exemptions, and no unreviewable licences of right for existing abstractors. This is also the view of the Nature Conservancy Council which rightly points out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that low flow also affects the ability of rivers to cope with pollution. I hope the Minister will agree that the Bill should confer these powers on the NRA.
I turn now to the all-important question of water quality. I think that the Secretary of State's decisions ought to be subject to negative resolution in Parliament and, consequently, out in the open. I hope the NRA will press steadily for an improvement in water quality in rivers below the Class 1 standard. I ask whether river standards will in future be set on biological as well as chemical criteria, and whether they will take account of the needs of nature conservation.
Our rivers were, until recently, steadily improving in quality and are in much better shape than most of those in Europe, but the quality has slipped back recently; 10 per cent. of them are still Class III or IV. That represents a 3 per cent. increase since
638
1980. We must look to the NRA to ensure that the improvement is resumed and maintained. But in this area the main battle must be the fight against pollution. Everyone agrees that the present situation is unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, pointed out, one-fifth of our sewerage works are operating illegally. There is, in places, gross and uncontrolled industrial pollution. That was vividly described in the Sunday Times article of 19th February and in a series of articles in the Yorkshire Post. There is also the growing problem of farm pollution, with a record number of 4,141 incidents last year. We need to know in detail how the NRA means to tackle all these problems.
I welcome the action being taken by the water authorities to bring their sewerage treatment works into compliance with existing consents, although these are themselves often inadequate to secure good river quality. However, that action has not been taken before time. I am a little concerned about the relaxing of standards for so many of our sewerage works to enable them to keep within the law. Will this situation be strictly temporary? How, if persuasion fails, can the NRA prosecute industrialists and farmers in the next three years when the plcs are being protected? A maximum fine of £2,000 in magistrates' courts for polluting rivers is clearly derisory. It makes it far cheaper for a big firm to pay the fine than to put matters right.
I see that the Government are urging the future NRA to prosecute flagrant offenders in Crown Courts, where unlimited fines can be imposed and really obstinate offenders sent to prison; but it is magistrates who decide which court hears the case. Can the Government assure us that the polluter will in future really pay everything—the cost of the clean-up, the cost of the prosecution, the cost of restocking with fish and other matters? We need deterrent measures which really do deter and which compel boards of companies and farmers to take effective measures, in their own interests, to prevent pollution.
The Friday edition of The Times reported that an American securities firm was having to pay 1 billion dollars for breaches of security laws. Grossly polluting our rivers seems to me a more serious offence. Can we do something urgently about discharges from abandoned mines? Mr. Moynihan has admitted that that problem is serious and intractable. Can we take much more effective measures to check the mass planting of conifers on poor upland land which increases the acidification of upland rivers and the release of toxic aluminium?
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said about sampling and private rights of prosecution which have been exercised so effectively in the past by the Anglers Co-operative Association. We must ensure that that association continues its invaluable work.
We are, I think, almost five years past the dates of compliance with the Community directives on drinking water and beaches. We are still only proposing to comply with them as soon as is reasonably practicable. What do we propose to do about the new Community draft directive on nitrates in water, which requires compulsory restrictions on

639
chemical fertilisers and on animal manure in vulnerable zones? Are we being vigilant enough about contamination of our drinking water supplies by pesticides, lead and aluminium? I ask also, how will the NRA's responsibilities fit in with those of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, which is to be responsible for authorising discharges of red list substances to water, but cannot charge for effluent consents? It looks as though the present division of roles is a recipe for confusion.
I have pointed out that the nation's 3 million anglers will be substantial contributors to the NRA, and rightly so. But all the angling organisations think that anglers ought to be given more say. The present proposal is that there should be one fisheries man on the NRA appointed by MAFF and purely advisory regional fisheries committees. All the angling organisations regard this as inadequate. I see the difficulties about making the regional fisheries committees fully executive. Their chairman will, I think, sit on the small regional management boards which will take decisions. But the NRA ought to keep this under review and see whether, as time goes on, anglers representatives cannot take a more direct part in determining fisheries policies and priorities.
On a different matter, given the restricted scope for growth of the plcs, I am, like many noble Lords, worried about the possible sale of land for profit by the plcs for thoroughly undesirable developments. I welcome the Government's intention to ensure that previous Acts, like the Birmingham Corporation Act which protects the Elan Valley, cannot be extinguished. But there are areas that are not so protected and the present planning system, with its presumption in favour of the developer, offers little real protection, as anyone with recent personal experience knows. It would be horrifying to see some of the most splendid landscapes in Britain ruined by leisure centres, caravans or whatever. Can we not ensure in the Bill that, if land needs to be sold off, the National Trust, for example, can be given first refusal of the best areas and helped with the necessary funding? Something on those lines would be widely welcomed.
Mr. Ridley, in his speech of 4th April, said that the NRA needed:
"freedom to hold the ring between the many sometimes competing interests that want to enjoy our lakes, rivers and estuaries".
In December 1987, the Government said, too, that the NRA's responsibilities would:
"involve controls over all who use rivers and other natural waters".
I am glad that the NRA will do this. In this House in January 1988, I argued that the NRA ought to be given powers to control all forms of recreation on inland waters. That is still my view. Anglers are strictly controlled, being liable to prosecution if they break the relevant by-laws. However, canoeists, for example, are not controlled at all and pay no licence fees or rates. They are indeed given some £200,000 a year of taxpayers' money by the Sports Council. I think we should get away from the obsolete concept of navigation and concentrate on the urgent problem of regulating all forms of recreation, with the NRA
640
regulating clashes of interest on all—I repeat all—affected waters. I hope that we can clarify these points and make those and other improvements at Committee stage. Then the NRA can do the really effective job which I believe the whole country wants it to do.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like to support the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on explaining it so clearly. At the same time I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as I always do, trying to convince me that the whole idea was a misconception. The noble Lord quoted Joseph Chamberlain. I think that he was a bad person to quote. As the noble Lord said, he wanted to keep water in the public sector. My goodness, perhaps it was cheap; but what happened to it? It was used cheaply. People made a great deal of money out of it while at the same time polluting many of our rivers. We might now at last be able to start putting matters right. It was from that period—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, mentioned 1875—that the damage was done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl has a curious view of 19th century history and of the history of the water industry long before the 19th century. It was those in the public sector, notably the big cities, who were in the forefront of improving water quality throughout the 19th century. They had to take over from the private sector in order to do so.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, all I can say is that they did not succeed.
I believe that the Bill will provide a tremendous improvement. I criticise what has happened in the past for a very simple reason: the system has not been working. The water authorities have been run by very able people, with very good staff and modern machinery. They have delivered water to us through our taps; they have mended our pipes when these have broken. I have been to the headquarters of one water authority. They are splendidly modern. The authority obviously does a very good job. However, a number of noble Lords have mentioned why the system does not work.
The water authorities have never succeeded in getting sufficient money out of government to deal with foul water and to put matters right at that end of the equation. If the past repeats itself, and I see no reason why it should not, I believe that there is no prospect that that will ever be put right. It will not be put right until such time as the water authorities, in the form of plcs, are able to use all the means of raising money—which I agree will almost inevitably include increased charges—so that our environment is not progressively destroyed. The picture in that area is definitely not a good one.
So far as concerns charges, the Director General of Water Services will monitor and control matters. I hope that he will be given the funds to do so successfully. With regard to our river systems, coastal waters, ground waters and other environmen-

641
tal areas, the NRA will be responsible. I must emphasise that I believe that it is very important that the NRA has proper funding and does not have to take all its funds from extraction licences. That would be wrong and unfair on a number of businesses, particularly in the country.
The system is not working. It needs more money. Money never comes from the Government in adequate amounts in such circumstances. We must look elsewhere; hence privatisation.
This is not the right time to go into detals but I believe that one or two should be mentioned. I apologise to noble Lords. I had intended at the outset to declare an interest as a fish farmer—a fact that has already emerged in the debate—who irrigates his land, and also as a consumer of an enormous amount of water, because I am a teetotaller. My father always told me that it rusted an iron constitution and one should avoid it like the plague. I believe that abstraction licences and the cost thereof must be considered in Committee. There is serious concern in the fish farming industry that the industry could be crippled if charges are raised much higher than the cost of administering them. That is one matter which will have to be considered closely.
Another issue of vital importance, included, I believe, in the Bill because of the EC, is water protection zones. That section of the Bill is very widely worded. A long time ago in your Lordships' Chamber I queried at Question Time the wisdom of accepting levels of 50 milligrams of nitrate per litre. I believe that water protection zones must be directed at nitrates. If those standards were applied, not only in England but all over Europe, there would be enormous disruption. That would be particularly so in the eastern counties of this country. There would have to be tremendous changes in farming methods. The Bill mentions compensation. But how complicated it would be to work out! The Bill does not explain it.
To follow the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, the question of compulsory purchase is another subject on which I have spoken previously. How can compulsory purchase in favour of a company which in turn will make money be achieved fairly? Some of your Lordships will remember that I raised the subject in relation to the Channel Tunnel. I thought it inequitable but I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that this was what happened in respect of service stations on motorways. I thought that inequitable too. It is another area that should be looked at closely.
The advisory bodies have been noted and referred to. Obviously, they must be formed from a broad spectrum and make sense. However, I notice that the advisory bodies are allowed to include people from the bodies that they advise. That seems completely wrong; it is something that I should like to change. It seems reminiscent in a small way of the Mad Hatter's tea party. Perhaps it is a misprint.
Following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who is no longer in his place, I must say that the Bill gives the impression that our coastal waters are, at the end of the day, ignored. There is a great deal about rivers and ground water. I am sure
642
that it is a difficult matter, but I note that ships are exonerated. They are pushed outside the scope of the legislation. I believe that "vessels" is the word used. We must think what constitutes a vessel. Perhaps I may return to a type of fish farming which I do not practise. Cage farming in Scotland is now an immensely important industry which should perhaps be thought of in terms of control or pollution. I sincerely hope that control will not inhibit an industry that is so important to the west coast of Scotland where, I believe, its gross product in terms of money is now greater than that for the whole of the Scotch beef industry.
I believe that I have probably spoken for a sufficient length of time, but there are two broad questions that I should like to raise. The first is a very broad matter; namely, the business mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, of taking water from the chalk aquaffers or, for ease and great cheapness, from the head rivers of river systems, instead of spending a great deal more money and going towards the mouth of a river when the water has to be purified, pumped and so on. There is absolutely no doubt that in the South of England, rivers are becoming smaller. Certainly, they have shrunk considerably since my childhood. As yet people do not know exactly what happens behind those enormous soft rock formations. I believe that if a little money were spent on drawing water further downstream, it would pay dividends to those who come after us.
The final question that I should like to raise, which is well worth discussion, concerns the issue of minimum flows in rivers. Again, from the fish farmer's point of view, it is extraordinarily hard to be told that there is to be a minimum flow if one is already geared up to something rather larger. I do not understand exactly how that can be decided upon. I do not understand how it will affect everyone. However, I believe that, on occasion, it could be very damaging to commercial interests, particularly in the countryside. To return to my opening remarks, I simply say that I support the Bill and wish it well.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may first point out to the Minister and to the House that I have seriously underestimated the length of the debate. I am sorry to say that I may riot be able to stay until the end, but I shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow morning.
Having listened with great admiration to the many noble Lords who have spoken with expertise and great knowledge of the subject, I should like to make a few brief comments about how the Bill will affect the consumer. First, perhaps I may reiterate what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said what seems to be a very long time ago; namely, that we cannot stress sufficiently the fact that water is our country's largest monopoly. It is our most fundamental resource on which our health and well-being depend.
We on this side of the House are convinced that this natural resource and the water industry's assets

643
should be publicly owned and controlled and managed efficiently and openly in the public interest. The industry should be democratically accountable at regional and national level. We feel fairly secure in our thinking because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, a large majority of the public agree with our views on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that my noble friend had a misconception about the Bill. I can only say that a great many members of the public seem to have the same misconception.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned a consumer association that had undertaken two surveys, one in November and the other in February, and pointed out that for every one positive answer 11 negative responses had been received. It is interesting that the survey that took place in February, after a massive publicity and advertisement campaign on this Bill by the Government, showed precisely the same results as the one in November. So quite clearly the public understand the Bill but have grave misgivings about it.
So what are people worried about? There are many reasons for anxiety. Let me take three: first, the lack of competition; secondly, rising prices; and, thirdly, the inadequate representation for the consumer. On the first point, there is little doubt, as has been said before, that the Bill sets out to confer the most far-reaching private monopoly powers ever conceived by government. People will have no choice whatsoever about where they buy their water. The public are quite right about competition. There is no competition.
As regards the second point, it is impossible to understand how privatisation can possibly avoid causing heavy price rises to consumers since it is they who will have to pay for profits, dividends, corporation tax, higher salaries and installation of the meters that will undoubtedly follow. It stands to reason that there can be no possible attraction for an investor to buy shares in the plcs other than the expectation of a higher return on his investment than that obtainable by simply lending his money or investing in fixed interest securities. Consequently these companies will have to obtain from their customers substantially more revenue than is currently necessary, which makes a rise in prices unavoidable.
So when the meters arrive what will happen to the huge numbers of people on very low incomes who need more water than most? What will happen to low paid industrial workers who need to use a lot of water at home as they carry out much dirtier jobs than most? What about those who before April would have had an automatic benefit increase when water rates were increased? What about the 50,000 sick and disabled who receive extra money for laundry and bath costs because of their individual problems? What about the many one-parent families who previously received assistance? And what about those pensioners who before April also received additional benefit?
There is no doubt at all that it is the least fortunate people who will suffer most from higher charges and
644
the introduction of metering. The escalating number of disconnections for non-payment of water rates—over 1,400 last year—is well documented by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. What is there in this Bill to prevent those numbers increasing further? As your Lordships will remember, disconnections of gas heaters doubled in the first year after privatisation of the gas industry and are still very high indeed in spite of all the efforts of British Gas.
My third point concerns the arrangements in this Bill for consumer representation. As many speakers have already explained, the Bill provides for a Director General of Water Services. It has also been pointed out that he has been given a role to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of the water and sewerage companies, their shareholders and consumers. The National Consumer Council and other consumer bodies are extremely concerned that the Bill makes the director's responsibility for ensuring the financial viability of individual companies take precedence over his responsibility for consumer protection. After all, it is only after the director general is satisfied that the company is obtaining a reasonable return on its capital that he turns his attention to the consumer.
The director general is to be required to appoint not more than 10 consumer service committees to represent consumer interests. He will be responsible for the appointment of their chairmen and staff. He will also control the activities of those committees, including the reports that they publish. Surely that in no way gives the consumer interest a strong enough representation. As I have said, the director general is also reponsible for balancing the interests of the industry, shareholders and consumers; and the consumers of a monopoly supplier have no economic power because they are unable to take their business elsewhere.
In order to redress that weakness it is vital that the consumers' view should be strongly represented to the companies, the director and other appropriate organisations. Consumer bodies should be independent, adequately funded and capable of dealing with universal issues of consumer concern at a national level. They should also include members with a clear consumer brief. This is also an area in which consumer bodies are very worried. They would like to see in the Bill a requirement on the CSCs to establish sub-committees, each covering much smaller geographical areas than at present proposed.
Lastly, despite a welcome amendment to ensure representation of people with disabilities on the CSCs, the only other criterion for membership continues to be industry expertise. Although the importance of technical knowledge on committees is understandable, the consumer interest must be at least as important and worthy of statutory recognition as experience and understanding of the industry. These are issues that at Committee stage I hope we shall be able to change and improve with regard to the representation of the consumer.
Finally, what form of redress will the water consumer have? The arrangements for regulating and enforcing water and sewerage quality standards

645
are extraordinarily abstruse. They are backed up by even more complicated matters of redress and compensation. For example, the consumer will be able to sue for failure to connect his house to a mains sewer. There is automatic compensation if a company does not deal with a written complaint promptly. He may sue for damages if a company breaches an enforcement order, presumably following an extensive period of breaching a condition of enforceable requirement. However, the Government have said that they are not prepared to introduce compensation for foul water flooding. There are no provisions for statutory compensation for breaches of water quality standards, unless the company is in breach of an enforcement order. Consumers will have to continue to rely on common law and the Consumer Protection Act for redress. That of course is only if they can afford the services of a solicitor.
Given these facts, it is hardly surprising that the opinion polls reflect such a high and entirely justifiable level of mistrust in this Bill. People find privatisation of water ill-conceived and unjust. In particular, they find it unnecessary. At the risk of lowering the intellectual level of this debate, and because water provides so many excellent opportunities to make puns, perhaps I may end by saying that in attaining the Water Bill the Government run a grave risk of meeting their own Waterloo!
9.22 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have no views on whether or not water should be privatised. However, it might help my noble friend if I listed some of the points that concern me or that I feel need clarification during the passage of the Bill.
First, I am not happy that the NRA has been given enough tools to do its job, in particular money. We have polluted for centuries. Therefore the cost should surely be met by a large injection of capital to try to improve the system. This applies in particular to compensation for water protection zones, if they are set up. In common with most noble Lords, I believe that water is a service which is essential to all society. I am therefore most concerned that the phrase, "no undue discrimination against any class of persons" has been omitted from this Bill. It was central to the Water Act 1973. I ask my noble friend whether there will be a higher charge for remote areas to the detriment of those already impoverished areas.
In this context, I am very concerned that the first priority of the Director General of Water Services is the plcs' profitability and not the consumer. Like my noble friends, Lord Middleton and Lord Radnor, I am not happy with plcs having power under the Land Compensation Act 1961 compulsorily to purchase land at existing use value and then to sell either that land or, perhaps more deviously, developed land that has become redundant because of the purchase of a greenfield site. I believe that that is unhealthy for a number of reasons. The Government's written reply of 7th March does not satisfy me.
646
Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I am concerned about farmers' rights to extract water and whether existing rights granted under the 1973 Act will remain. I am also concerned that the new plcs will have to raise charges to the user to uneconomic levels. I am anxious too about sewage sea outfalls. I am very doubtful whether shredding is the answer in areas like the Menai Straits, and in dealing with detergents which are now a major constituent of such discharges.
I hope that the Government will see their way to providing a better service to advise on pollution, in particular on farm effluent. I hope that the NRA will be very much involved in this service. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, regarding the need to update sampling techniques and research. Prevention must be better than cure, although I certainly do not defend any farmer who wilfully pollutes.
Wearing another hat—or should I say cap?—I hope that the Government will look carefully at the future position of the recreational users of water, particularly sailors, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.
I have no doubt that I shall be concerned about other matters as noble Lords bring them to the attention of the House, but I hope that these few points will keep my noble friend on the Front Bench happy for a while. I hope also that the patience of my noble kinsman the Chief Whip will survive the oncoming onslaught.
9.27 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, you will be pleased to hear that I do no intend to detain you long this evening in view of the many speakers in this debate and the late hour. I shall therefore not debate the relative merits of the privatisation of the water industry or its non-privatisation. That topic has already been covered by many speakers and from every conceivable aspect.
I intend to address myself to some of the provisions in the Bill relating to industry. We must remember that the prosperity of our national economy depends upon our industry. However much we might like to jump on the presently popular and attractive "greenomania" bandwagon and go overboard on environmental restrictions, we must observe a sense of fair dealing, especially with regard to a customer who at the last count provided the water industry with almost 45 per cent. of its total income. That, by any standard, is some customer. I am not suggesting that industry should have a totaly free hand to do what it likes. I am suggesting that we should allow it to continue to operate in a fair and reasonable manner, making realistic payments for the services which it enjoys and without undue and unnecessary restriction.
Industry is operating under the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937. It is that position under that Act which is being eroded under this Bill as drafted. I suggest that we should not allow that to happen without being fully aware of what we are changing and without being convinced of the necessity of doing so.

647
Under the 1937 Act, business has a right to have its effluent disposed of by the sewerage undertaker. This fundamental obligation by the undertaker, who will be in a monopoly position, must be preserved. Such reasonable effluent disposal must be by contractual arrangement between the discharger and the undertaker, with liability to civil action for any transgressions. It is totally wrong that one limited company should have the right to take criminal proceedings against another. This could lead to a temptation to use such proceedings for commercial advantage. Such a right of criminal prosecution should only be vested in the Director General of Water Services.
I understand that the Government have said that regulation should be kept separate from production. Here we have them beautifully muddled. To make a discharger to a sewerage works criminally accountable would discourage businesses from connecting to sewers, although in many, especially urban, areas it would be difficult if not impossible to make other discharge, and if it were it might even increase the likelihood of pollution as the effluent would be deprived of the benefit of dilution and treatment at the sewerage works. The discharge of unconsented and uncontracted effluent would in all probability start to damage the sewage works but would immediately be identified and diverted for further treatment at that stage and before a water course became polluted. Of course, the discharger would be fully liable for the cost of remedy by civil action.
The water supply plcs must be under an obligation to accept trade effluents even if they are difficult to treat, for which they must be paid the appropriate charge. They must not be allowed merely to choose to accept those which they regard as most profitable for them and their shareholders. They will be in a monopoly position and must not be allowed to abuse it.
On the subject of consents as to what may be discharged, we have another erosion of the 1937 Act which allowed appeal to the Secretary of State in disagreement over such matters. I suggest that that should remain as most appeals will relate to issues of a predominantly technical nature.
Again on the subject of consents, I suggest the new provision for the publication of those is a severe breach of confidence. Identifying the individual constituents of an effluent can disclose the industrial process. What gives us any right to do that? The offence, if any, to the public is at the point of discharge from the sewage works, not at the input stage to the sewage works. The details of that input are, or should be, confidental between the discharger and the sewerage contractor, with the general public not concerned until the point of discharge from the sewage works.
With the possible exception of dangerous or red list substances, the publication of consents would seriously undermine business confidence in this legislation and probably lead to unnecessary vexatious actions by all and sundry and any green busybody with time on his hands.
648
In conclusion, perhaps I may summarise those points. The water supply plcs should not have the right to bring criminal charges against their customers. Such regulatory functions should be exercised by the Director General of Water Services. The relationship between the discharger and the sewerage undertaker must be commercially contractual and not regulatory. The water supply plcs must have an obligation to accept trade effluent realistically charged for and not use their monopoly position to pick and choose what they feel to be the most profitable.
An ultimate appeal on matters of consents, charges and discharge must remain to the Secretary of State and not to the director general of the regulatory body. Apart from the possibility of dangerous substances and the public need for that information to be proved and not assumed, the contractual arrangements between the discharger and the sewerage undertaker should remain confidential. I look forward to hearing that we be putting those matters right at the next stage of the Bill.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, at this stage of the proceedings there is not much to say: all that one can do is to try to say it in another way. I should like to pay a general tribute to the Government. They have said that they will listen to us. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has been sitting in the House for six hours listening to us speak and deny. The fact that he is present appeals to me enormously.
I was surprised by the fact that no one has declared an interest. All noble Lords have said that water is important to us but none has said that we use tap water and rely on people to take away sewage. That appears to be a declaration of interest and I should like to make that declaration.
What I wished to say has already been said by many noble Lords. The points have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ezra. I am particularly concerned about access. It was difficult for me to work out the way in which I could deliver an "access" speech until I listened to a local radio station this morning. Mr. Alan Mattingly of the Ramblers' Association focused my mind on the subject.
It has already been said this evening that approximately half a million acres of land will be affected by the Bill. If we go on the privatisation and profit route they may be shut off from the likes of me, the routine user. I shall not repeat what has already been said about where those acres are in the Lakes, the Peaks or the Brecon Beacons. But I am concerned that we should retain the right of public access as given to us under former legislation.
I welcome the noble Earl's comments about the undertakers. They are liable to come before us with an enhancement of the right of access. However, Government Front Bench speeches and reality do not necessarily reconcile with each other. Therefore, I should like a little more from the noble Earl to persuade me that I shall retain my right of access to

649
those patches of land. When referring to half a million acres perhaps to use the word "patch" is to use the wrong description.
The undertakers shall have a right through this, that and the other. In his opening remarks the noble Earl said that the interests of bystanders such as myself will be looked after by means of a code of practice or amendments. But if the owners decide to transfer the land to a subsidairy company or to a third party (a private enterprise company) I shall lose my right of access. I shall remain convinced of that unless the noble Earl reassures me. Although we may have the code of practice or the amendments which the noble Earl may introduce later in the proceedings, the subsidiary companies or third parties are not bound by those. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to assure me that I shall retain my rights of access.
There is another problem which is close to my heart, namely the EC standard for beaches, because I live within 200 yards of a cliff between Southampton and Bournemouth. We are not together on these. However, I am indebted to the noble Earl in a totally different context. He pointed out that neither are the Norwegians or the Germans—some of the people who shout most loudly. They are window dressing, posing and going to their local press. However, we do have a problem of which I know, living in Christchurch Bay. I should like to know from where the funding is coming which will make Christchurch Bay a place where I can take my godchildren, nephews and so on swimming, as a former Lord Chancellor used to say. Therefore, when the noble Earl winds up, will he assure me on that?—or perhaps he will merely say that it will be the beneficiaries who buy shares under privatisation who will pay for it. Beyond that I have not much to say. One could spiel away for 20 minutes, but that would be totally unfair to noble Lords who follow me.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, well over 15 years ago we formed the Riparian Owners' Association for our local river, the Torridge. At that time we were concerned at the considerable drop in fish caught both by the rods and, to some extent, by the netsmen. That prompted us to see what could be done. Looking back I now think how naive we were in our ideas of how the problem could be solved. The reduction of netting, controlling poaching, water flows and, above all, better management of the river system were all considered and acted upon. However, it was some time before pollution came to our attention and we realised how very important it was for the river system to be clean.
Four years ago or so, when it was considered that privatisation of the water authority might take place, we set up the South West Riparian Owners' Association which has representatives from all the rivers under the control of the South West Water Authority, which will be privatised. It was that and the apparent difficulty in persuading the river authority as to the extent to which the rivers had deteriorated which convinced us that something had
650
to be done. I now know that resources were not available for the work which had to be done, and I suspect that lack of funds was the reason for the delays and the unwillingness to agree with us at that time.
I welcome this Bill for only one main reason and that is the setting up of the NRA, which will protect the management of the rivers and other waters, and I especially welcome Chapter I, "Control of Pollution" at Clauses 96 to 98. I hope that we can persuade the Government to implement those measures and to act with sufficient expertise, staff, funds and, above all, with determination to put the rivers of England back in working order and clean for the future. In saying that I also include Wales. However, I believe that many of us would have preferred to see the NRA set up first and the controls set in hand and put into place before privatisation, so that standards could be set at an early stage.
I have some concern for the ability of the NRA to carry out its work if there is nobody to audit its performance. I should like to know what position Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will have in the future. It seems important that an independent body should watch the performance not only of the water industry but of the NRA. was greatly encouraged by the speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, and I very much support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. believe that he said it all.
My concern is also that there will be, as there has been in the past, relaxation on river quality objectives. In the South West, particularly in 1979 and again in 1982 and recently, relaxations were given to sewage treatment works on discharge consent conditions to avoid prosecutions. We are currently faced with a programme of sewage treatment works relaxations to facilitate privatisation, yet at the same time we are denied access to the details and cannot satisfy ourselves that they are temporary and reasonable. That is due to the document clearing group. This is not the best way of going about it and I feel that it is essential to have co-operation between the NRA, the riperian owners and those who are fishing, as well as the local conservation and fishing interests.
One of my concerns with past routine monitoring of the water quality is that it has taken place only in office hours, not at weekends. It seems essential that this monitoring should be done over 24 hours, day and night, throughout the week. It is essential that there is co-operation between all those involved, and if we are to control increased pollution continual monitoring must take place.
Absent from the Bill, so far as I can see, is the need for any recommendation on research and development. I very much hope that this will take place in the future and that there will be provision in the Bill for RD with responsibility for it within the NRA, as there is much more work to be done on that subject.
I said that I welcome the Bill, especially the setting up of the NRA—a title on which one stutters at certain times, but I hope it will not be changed as I have become used to it. However, we have a Water

651
Bill with neither a clear nor costed timescale for the improvements, as I see it. There is not even a mandatory duty on the Minister to set up a river water quality classification system. Let us hope that that can be changed. The Bill seems to say, so often, that the Minister "may" rather than "shall". The problem is enormous and I hope that it can be overcome. I hope it will be possible during the course of the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House to put into place an organisation that will deal with the vast problems of our rivers, so that we will be able to look back at the turn of the century to rivers free of pollution.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have expressed concern about the contents of this Bill. It is a concern which reflects not only their own feelings but also the general concern that has been expressed throughout the country by individuals and a wide range of organisations.
My own concern is directed to three points: first, the basic concern about disposal of a public asset which must be a monopoly providing an essential service to the public; secondly, the effect of the Bill on charges; and, thirdly, the effect on access to the countryside. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, my opposition to the Bill is not based on a universal support for the status quo. On the contrary, there are certain aspects which need to be put right and a body such as the proposed National Rivers Authority, or an even stronger body, would be welcome in any proposed structure.
There are also other problems that we have to face. For example, in the Yorkshire region we have severe problems with the sewerage network and with the quality of the rivers, many of which have been degraded in recent years. In that context, surprisingly, I agree with something said by Nicholas Ridley when he recently opened a new sewage waste incinerator at Bradford. He remarked:
"the Yorkshire area has been … a bit ropey in the past. But that's because I haven't allowed them the money".
He was right. I entirely support what he said: though again, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, it might be Nicholas Ridley himself or it might be the Treasury which refused the money. Whatever the position, the fact remains that there has been under-investment in this national asset. Mr. Ridley then went on to say that the results of privatisation would open a glorious new dawn for the industry. When he was asked if the investment would not mean higher prices, he said:
"Yes, indeed. If you want cleaner rivers, you must pay higher charges. But let's face it, water rates are not the biggest part of anyone's expenditure".
I agree with the first point. Having reached the present situation through past neglect, we shall have to pay more for a better service. I believe that consumers will be prepared to pay a reasonable price for this essential service if the charges are levied in an equitable way. As regards Mr. Ridley's second
652
point that water rates are not the biggest part of one's expenditure, that depends on the extent of your income in the first place.
It is not individuals alone who are concerned about the possibility of rising prices. For example, the Confederation of British Wool Textiles is very concerned about water privatisation not only for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, explained but also because of the possible consequent increase in prices that would make the industry uncompetitive with our competitors abroad. For individual consumers the burden of water charges can vary according to their level of income. Other noble Lords today have drawn attention to the very complicated process of assessing the basic charges for our future water supplies. I do not want to elaborate further on that.
It has been widely assumed and the view has been encouraged by the Government that water metering will replace the present water rate system. However, at a recent meeting of the Yorkshire Water Authority, the authority said quite categorically that, on the ground of cost, it had no intention of introducing wholesale metering in the Yorkshire region. Nevertheless, a pilot scheme is under way. A report from the Wakefield District Council as regards metering trials raises very serious concern. It underlines a belief that larger families will suffer.
For example, the report states:
"Large families who use large amounts of water for basic hygiene needs rather than outdoor or luxury activities will be penalised by high prices. This is particularly marked in the low rateable value property where large families on low income will find their water bills increasing as much as seven-fold".
That will be a very serious burden if metering becomes more or less universal. As regards the effect in terms of hygiene of economising in the use of water, the results can be quite serious. As one noble Lord said, it is not just a question of reducing the number of baths that one might take; it is much more serious than that. It is generally recognised now that the incidence of food poisoning is attributed to a considerable extent to poor hygiene practices in kitchens. Therefore, if there is any economising either by the domestic consumer or by the catering consumer—which is also a possibility—then a reduction in hygiene standards could lead to quite serious problems. It is a point with which we should concern ourselves at a later stage in the Bill's progress.
The cost factor is not limited to water standards and supplies. As noble Lords have indicated, it extends to the environmental and conservation sphere. The opening in recent years of access to land around our water catchment areas has greatly enhanced leisure opportunities. These opportunities range from simple access for walkers wanting to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside to more sophisticated facilities for the car and boat owner. We must ensure that a balance is kept between the two extremes. We must also ensure that future development either for private profit or for the use of a limited number of individuals does not despoil the environment.

653
There is a feeling in areas such as the Yorkshire Dales National Park that formal development for leisure purposes has gone far enough and that further such development on a large scale would completely destroy the environment that the national park has sought to preserve. Land adjoining the reservoirs both in the national park area and in some of the areas surrounding it—for example, the Washburn area and Niddersdale in Yorkshire, which are not part of the national park but nevertheless adjoin it—are a likely target for development. Such
654
development could provide lucrative income and return on investment. We must ensure that it is kept well under control.
I look forward to seeing the amendments to which the noble Earl has already referred. We shall examine them carefully to ensure that access for the walker who wants to enjoy the beauty and quietness of the countryside is preserved and that the general environment and wildlife are not endangered by development for profit purposes.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, in a Bill which together with its schedules comprises some 90,000 words, I should like to speak solely to the belief held by many of us that the proposal to sell off the water industry poses serious dangers to the environment, an area pithily dealt with some six hours ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The environment to which I refer is the 430,000 acres of land holdings belonging to the 10 existing water authorities. In a report at the end of last year entitled Liquid Assets, published by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the authors—from Leeds University—expressed deep concern that existing planning controls will not be able to contain the pressures on the newly formed water companies to exploit these 430,000 acres for non-water service purposes. I should like to devote the remainder of my brief contribution to an example with which I am concerned.
Before doing so I should in fairness turn to the Bill to see what is says about land conversion and disposal. Although there is much on existing activities, such as flood defence and the functions of the authority in relation to salmon, freshwater fisheries and so on, the only reference I can find to land disposal is in Clause 141, under the general powers of the authority. The Bill reads:
"The Authority … without prejudice to the generality of that power, shall have power, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of those functions, to institute criminal proceedings, to acquire and dispose of land and other property and to carry out such engineering or building operations at such places as the Authority considers appropriate".
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat the crucial words,
"to acquire and dispose of land and other property … as the Authority considers appropriate"
I can find no reference to guidelines, let alone more emphatic advice, in the Bill which will assist me or, more to the point, which will direct the authority in any disposals. I am sure that with the new authority there will be a requirement for adequate capitalisation and the paying of dividends to shareholders and consequent pressure to sell and/or develop for residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. As the CPRE report says:
"It is not clear that the Government itself has fully examined the full environmental implications of its water privatisation policy".
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply whether he thinks that the Government have done so. With an environmentally minded Prime Minister and an environmentally conscious Government one would expect that to be the case. Alas, the only words I can find about disposal of land, in the clause I quoted earlier, do not speak of any guidance or restrictions. They add up to 86 words in a Bill containing approximately 90,000 words, or 0.00096 of the total. I view the Bill as being as much about the use of land as of water. And the fraction I have quoted seems remote from fifty-fifty.
I should like to quote the example of the New River as an awful warning. The New River is a man-made but now naturalised channel built by Sir
656
Hugh Myddleton in 1610 to bring London its first regular supply of fresh water from springs in Amwell in Hertfordshire some 40 miles to a New River Head—as it is called—at Amwell in Islington. A company was set up by Royal Charter. James I lent some of the capital and, at the gala opening, distinguished himself by falling in. This river, with associated reservoirs and other works, still does the same job some 380 years later. But a new underground tunnel will totally replace it in 1990 and the Thames Water Authority will have no water supply use for those works. The principal features are the New River Head in Islington—which contains the base of the windmill first used for power—the reservoir and filter beds in Stoke Newington, and the river itself which has been described as a greenway out of London, alive with birds, fish and plants.
In her pertinent speech in the debate on the Adjournment in another place on 24th February last, the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, at col. 1351 of Hansard:
"In the 29-acre Stoke Newington reservoir and filter beds site in my constituency we have what one might call a secret garden. My constituency is one of the poorest areas of the country and is one of the most built up parts of the inner city. Yet right in the middle of it we have a site the size of Regent's Park, which is an oasis—a green lung—for hundreds of thousands of people in Hackney, Haringey and Islington".
She went on to say:
"That green space is unique—in its size, in the wildlife for which it provides a home, and in the service and pleasure that it provides for thousands of council tenants".
Some two years ago, in anticipation of the redundancy of the whole New River set-up, Thames Water put forward a plan to develop the site by filling in the reservoirs and filter beds at Stoke Newington and building 1,100 luxury houses and flats—quite inappropriate to the area—together with supermarkets, shops and the like. More than one plan has been submitted only to be withdrawn and another in the same vein replace it.
Thames Water's public relations officers have issued statements which conflict with management activities. Despite the fact that the river has been flowing for close on 380 years, no level of flow required to keep the New River active has yet come from the authority which, I heard this morning, is now inclined towards stopping it flowing. Thus all is confusion and one cannot help feeling that this is deliberate in order to keep the public guessing and confused—a case of white man speak with forked tongue.
Over the years I have been not a little involved in the matter. As long as 15 years ago I showed the New River Head to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she was our Minister here responsible for the environment, together with the then local MP. However, the future of the head itself is still unresolved. Last summer the New River Action Group—a group consisting of members of the public and councillors from the six local authorities through which the river flows—held a televised meeting which I chaired jointly with the Member for Islington South. We filled the Sadler's Wells Theatre.

657
Moreover, the issue was sufficiently persuasive that we were able to get Dr. Bellamy, the international naturalist, as our guest speaker.
As president of the Islington Society, I have been involved in probing correspondence with Mr. Roy Watts who runs Thames Water. But there it is—this awful plan for water authority land disposal. However, the Minister in another place, replying to the debate from which I have already quoted, said at col. 1358:
"On conservation, the Bill provides that after privatisation the companies will continue to be under a duty of further conservation in the performance of their functions. Indeed, in our Water Bill the duties are strengthened by enforcement powers given to the Secretary of State, and by the code of practice which we published in draft recently.
On recreation, the Bill provides that both the private companies and the NRA will inherit the duty of the water authorities to put the water and lands to best use for recreation. That will be particularly important in relation to the companies which will inherit most of the reservoirs and land assets".
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply: what is the present status of that draft code of practice? Who has reviewed it? And, most important, how mandatory and binding is it? Would it not be better to embody it into the Bill by government amendment and make it statutory? Naturally, I do not expect the Minister to be familiar with the somewhat parochial goings on that I have mentioned in connection with the New River; but surely he appreciates the general principles which are at stake. I offered, slightly impertinently, a parochial example only in the belief that it would be a microcosm of many similar situations which must be taking place all over the country. That, in a sense, makes it a national situation rather than a parochial one.
If that code of practice is already around, why is our largest water authority today pressing ahead with plans which must surely be in defiance of the principles of the code? It can surely only be because it does not see itself bound by it. Without real teeth, a code of practice will be nothing more than a paper tiger or, to use a simile more appropriate to a Water Bill, a drop in the ocean.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, at this stage I shall confine my speech to three important aspects of water privatisation: access, recreation and conservation in the countryside. Will the Bill protect them? The existing water authorities are the guardians of a substantial area of our country, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge. To put that into perspective, it is an area slightly larger than Warwickshire. It includes some of Britain's most spectacular landscape, a haven for flora and fauna and accessible to some of our most popular recreations, pursued by millions of people every year.
The proposed Water Bill pays lip service only to protecting and maintaining those priceless natural amenities following privatisation. If we allow the Bill to pass in its present form, we may have to accept a future in which neither access nor recreational use of our countryside is guaranteed.
658
The only conservation and recreation concerns in the Bill are not opposed. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment went so far recently as to say that he saw absolutely no conflict between conservation and countryside recreation. The Bill contains measures to protect the environment and recreation. That is an attractive feature of the legislation and is to be welcomed. However, the Government must recognise that there is widespread agreement among conservation and recreation experts that the measures, although well intentioned, do not go far enough. It would be irresponsible to ignore the professional view of the outdoor pursuits and water recreation divisions of the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR). Together they represent no fewer than 53 nationally recognised sport and recreation bodies in recreations such as walking, camping, boating, and angling, which alone enjoys the participation of 3.5 million people. They all depend on access to the countryside and to water.
The Bill imposes duties on the National Rivers Authority and the water undertakers to protect access and to promote recreation. As far as they go, these duties are to be welcomed. In particular, the Government's amendments in another place ensure that all existing arrangements will be covered, and undoubtedly this represents a step forward.
However, the CCPR is—and I think rightly—concerned that the duties are weak. Neither access nor existing recreational use is guaranteed. The Secretary of State for the Environment has said that the new water companies will be under clear duties to put their water and land to the best use for recreation. But I am afraid that the Bill simply does not live up to this claim. The companies need only have regard to the desirability of preserving access, and they need only promote the use of water for recreation to such an extent as they consider desirable. As businessmen, their bottom line could differ considerably from that of those of us who care about the countryside.
What is needed is a cast-iron guarantee that existing rights of access and recreational use of water authority land and water will be preserved. What we get is a series of promises that the matters will be looked at by private commercial concerns. The same applies to the conservation duties.
While I welcome the provision in the Bill for a code of practice to back up the conservation and recreation duties, I am concerned that the code cannot be enforced. In fact, to all intents and purposes the code is voluntary. Ultimately the Secretary of State will have to use an enforcement procedure which is surely only a reserve power to make a water company comply with its conservation and recreation duties. It is hard to conceive that the Secretary of State will put a water undertaker's licence at risk over a detail of its recreation policy. The result will be a code of practice which will have no teeth. That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said, speaking before me.
The custody of our natural conservation and recreational facilities must be taken more seriously.

659
I have said that the conservation and recreation duties in the Bill are welcome, but that they need to go further. Surely a fundamental principle of such duties is that they should apply to all the water and land owned by the water authorities. I regret to have to tell your Lordships that I believe this principle is being dangerously undermined. As many noble Lords have said, private water companies will be allowed to sell off or transfer land which they do not use for functional or operational purposes. As a consequence, this land will fall outside the net of the conservation and recreation measures in the Bill.
So far as I am aware, no one can tell us how much land is operational. We must be aware that it is quite possible that privatisation will positively encourage private water companies to sell off land. Let me give noble Lords an example. Let us say that there is a private water company owning 500 acres of upland catchment area surplus to business requirements and yet adjacent to a beautiful lake, already attracting many visitors. The water company might well come to a lucrative arrangement with a development company which sees the potential for, say, a theme park in an area close to an already established tourist atttraction. Under the present conditions in the Bill, the development company would not be bound by the same planning restrictions and controls as a private water company and could legitimately apply for a change of use. I may be painting a very extreme picture, but we must be prepared for extremes where such loopholes exist.
The Government claim that the planning system is adequate to protect the environment in these cases. If that is so, what is the need for special duties in the Bill in the first place? The simple point is this: much water authority land is especially important for its amenity use. That is why it requires special measures in the privatisation legislation to protect that amenity use. That is why the measures must apply to all existing water authority land.
I welcome the Government's amendments requiring consultation with the National Parks Authority, but I find it somewhat disturbing that the code does not mention the voluntary sector. Yet extensive conservation work programmes are carried out by non-governmental organisations. As president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, I can tell your Lordships that we work with many water authorities. As an example, I should say that BTCV's annual programme with the North West Water Authority is 6,000 workdays. The BTCV carries out tree planting, drystone walling, fencing, path and access work, boardwalks and conservation and moorland management on those workdays. That is why it is so vital to establish good working relationships with the National Rivers Authority and private water companies. This is an omission in the code which must be put right.
These issues are too important to be left to the whim of commercially-orientated companies. It is excellent that measures in the Bill implicitly accept the need for public protection of conservation and recreation. But that protection is pointless unless it actually works and can be enforced.
660
The Secretary of State for the Environment tells us that he has,
"set out to provide in the Bill a secure framework for the protection, enhancement and enjoyment of water and its environ.
Let us listen to the experts in the recreation field, and let us listen to the experts in the conservation field. They are all telling this House that the framework is not secure.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the part of the Bill which I wish to address—I shall do so briefly at this stage in the proceedings—concerns the transference of responsibility for flood defence from the present water authorities to the proposed National Rivers Authority. This matter is covered in Part III, Chapter III of the Bill. It is not by any means the most controversial part of the Bill, and it is understandable that most of the attention in our debate today has concentrated on the broader aspects of privatisation. However, I think the part of the Bill which I now address will be important in laying down long-term arrangements for future defence against flood. I should like to suggest that in some areas the Bill leaves me with the feeling that some further clarification and improvement are desirable.
I shall deal first with the title of the proposed National Rivers Authority and then with some of the financial aspects of flood defence. As regards the title "National Rivers Authority", I should make it plain that I have no objection at all to the concept of the NRA, which seems to me to be an excellent one. However, I follow the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in thinking that the present title is misleading for precisely the reasons that the noble Earl gave. It is not a national body; it is confined to England and Wales. It does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland.
We are not in the habit of describing a significant public body in this country as national unless it covers the whole of the territory of the United Kingdom. I think that is a sound practice and I do not think it would be wise to alter that practice. I think the reasons against doing so are both constitutional and political. If one has any doubt about that, one should ask the nearest Scotsman or inhabitant of Northern Ireland for his views.
As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, also pointed out, the single word "rivers" is not a fully accurate description of the main field of activities of the authority. Indeed, I am informed that perhaps more than 50 per cent. of its resources will be devoted to flood prevention and drainage. Neither of those functions is evident in its title. These considerations lead me to suggest that a broader title would be better. Possible titles may occur to your Lordships, but titles such as the Waters Authority, or perhaps the Rivers and Coastal Authority, would give a clearer idea of the functions of this significant new body.
I suggest this is not just a matter of pedantic definition. The name of every public authority needs to convey to the citizen what it is that the body is intended to do. In my opinion the title "National Rivers Authority" does not do that.

661
I turn next to questions of finance. As I understand the scheme of the Bill, it is intended that the present system of financing flood defence will, in broad terms, be transferred as it stands from the water authorities to the new NRA, and the NRA will be funded directly by the Treasury.
The questions that we need to consider are, first, the total amount of the annual grant and whether it will be adequate to finance the necessary flood control work; secondly, the borrowing powers of the NRA to finance capital works; thirdly, the system of economic analysis used to appraise and justify those works; and, finally, the contribution to be made by the local authorities. I shall deal very briefly with each of those questions in turn.
The first point concerns the total amount of the annual grant. I may be wrong, but I have not read anywhere an indication of the approximate amount of the annual grant in aid which it is intended to provide to fund the necessary flood defence work. It has to be said that the amount spent on this work in the past decade has not been generous in relation to growing needs. Recently Her Majesty's Government announced that an extra £50 million was to be made available over the next few years to fund these flood protection works. That sum is derived from savings from the common agricultural policy. That decision is naturally welcome, but I think that we need an assurance from the Government, while the Bill is going through this House, that generous grant in aid will be provided annually. There is a very large backlog of work to be undertaken and the future prospects are, frankly, daunting. If the scheme provided in the Bill is to work properly the scale of the funding needs to be made clear at the outset.
The proposed borrowing powers of the NRA are obviously important in this connection. The Government's decision, announced earlier this month in another place, to permit the authority to borrow up to £160 million is certainly a helpful improvement. However, it is not entirely clear whether the NRA—or whatever it may be called—will be permitted to engage in long-term borrowing to finance capital works. This, as we all know, is the sensible way to finance them. I certainly hope that that will be the case.
Unfortunately, I was not in the House when the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, addressed this subject earlier this afternoon. I have heard that he said that that sum of money was to be made available for emergency works. It is a characteristic of floods that they have to be dealt with in an emergency, but there have to be funds for long-term improvements. Possibly there is some room for hope that the necessary long-term finance will be made available to the new authority. It would also be helpful if the upper borrowing limit could be varied by statutory instrument at some future date instead of by recourse to further primary legislation, as I believe would be the effect of the Bill at the moment.
Next, I should particularly like to draw attention to the system of cost-benefit analysis now employed to appraise flood works. That system has been worked out, with money provided by the Minister of Agriculture, by the Flood Hazard Research Centre
662
of Middlesex Polytechnic. The effect of the system —I do not know what its intension was—is to determine which parts of our coastline should be defended and which not. The system employs methods of discounting the value of property likely to be damaged by flood which I can only describe as rather extraordinary. The effectiveness of the system is reduced by the fact that urban property is given more favourable protection than property in rural areas.
I personally regard that as a mistaken approach, because I cannot accept that a system based on the partial defence of our coastline is a valid one for the government of an island to adopt. One might unkindly compare it to the Maginot Line concept where one defends only a part of one's frontier. I do not think that that system should be continued and I greatly hope that the Ministers responsible for that important area of our policy will take a critical look at the guidelines produced by the Middlesex Polytechnic.
On consideration of this matter, I do not believe that the Government are addressing the right question. I believe that, in those cases, the Government need to know which stretches of our coastline positively need urgent protection and which can safely be left for another few years within the financial resources available. if a cost-benefit analysis is employed, it needs to compare directly the costs of work done now with the losses of property and the cost of restitution in the case of flood. The Middlesex Polytechnic system does not do that.
Finally, there is the question of the local authority contribution. That now looks like a very heavy burden, particularly since the Government decreased their own contribution a few years ago from 85 per cent. to 65 per cent. Since that time, the full vulnerability of our coastline has become more apparent. I learnt that there is also some apprehension that drainage precepts, which have hitherto been immune from ratecapping, will not be so in future under the new system. Given the unpredictable nature of flood defence works and its uneven incidence between one year and another, that would seem to be regrettable.
I have become aware of the importance of the subject in the last two years, facing a particular danger from the sea in East Anglia. Happily, after lengthy examination, the Government decided that the work required in that case should be done. But my involvement in the operation of the system leads me to believe that all is not well in that area. The need for investment is substantial and growing. It is perhaps understandable that this aspect of the Bill has not so far attracted much attention, but I suggest that a review of the arrangements now in place is desirable. If they are simply to be transferred to the new authority, there should be a fresh look at them as soon as is convenient. For the purposes of the Bill, a change in the proposed title of the authority to reflect the importance of flood defence would be a good way to begin.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to examine sympathetically the specific points that I have mentioned and will give the House a positive

663
indication on them in the course of further proceedings on the Bill.
10.28 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have been involved with water for many years because most of my estate is on a private supply coming from a good quality spring. The total length of the pipes is about 3.5 miles, half being of a good quality cast iron and the remainder of lead. Two-thirds of the lead pipes have been replaced and I plan to replace the rest next year, taking advantage of the government grant.
I have studied the Water Bill and concluded that it is a good Bill. The 10 regional authorities of England and Wales were set up under the Water Act 1973 and took over the functions of about 1,600 local undertakers. They supply three-quarters of the country, the remainder being supplied, as I understand it, by 29 private water companies, although I have heard the figure of 28 quoted twice today. By 1980–81, the capital expenditure was £692 million, of which 41 per cent. was financed by borrowing. By 1987–88, the capital expenditure had risen to £1,186 million, but by then only 4 per cent. was financed by borrowing. That is quite an achievement.
In 1979, those water authorities employed just over 63,000 people. They now currently employ 48,500 people, which is again a good achievement. After the transfer date, the 10 regional authorities will be taken over by the Crown (that is provided for in Chapter V of Part II). They will then be responsible for water and sewerage only. All their other functions will be taken over by the National Rivers Authority. The NRA will take on about 6,500 water authority employees, thereby reducing to about 42,000 people the manpower of the old authorities. But I am glad to see that there is a provision for those authorities, while under the Crown, to borrow £1,400 million should they so need it (that appears in Clause 89 of the Bill).
I am confident that the water and sewerage undertakers should be managed economically and efficiently by public liability companies—or perhaps I should correct that and say private companies. But I ask my noble friend to treat the larger and smaller companies in such a way that there is no discrimination before then, as my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth has very adequately illustrated. Whatever kind of companies they are, they will be under the strict control of the Director General of Water Services, who, along with the NRA, has special responsibilities for the control of environmental and recreational facilities.
The new plcs or companies—depending on the type of body they become—fall completely within all the requirements of local government planning regulations, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the fair trading and competition Acts.
I believe that today I can definitely say that every industry has learnt in the past 10 years that, if it does not improve and invest, time will leave it behind. I can equally say, as a landowner, that there is not a landowner or fanner in the country who has
664
not at some time in the present or the past borrowed money on the security of the land that he owns but he never sells land unless he has to do so in order to meet death duties and the like. I believe that the worry about water undertakers disposing of land is unfounded. I am sure that they will hang on to every piece that they have.
Equally, if they do get into financial difficulties, the High Court with the Secretary of State and the director can bring in a special administration procedure, thereby ensuring that water continues to flow out of our taps and sewage is properly dealt with. It is clearly laid down in this well drafted legislation that the Secretary of State and the director have full powers to examine the books and records and have access to a wide range of information on any water or sewerage undertaker.
Chapter II of Part II covers the quality and quantity of water fit for domestic purposes, with the environmental health department of any local authority having full powers of investigation. Detailed regulations cover fire hydrants, repairs and maintenance of water mains and service pipes. Chapter III deals in a similar way with sewage.
Although the limits on charging and metering are under the Secretary of State's sole control (Chapter IV), the main regulations on payment and meters come under the director with any complaints being dealt with either by the appeals procedure or a customer service committee (that is provided for in Clause 27).
Part III and most of the remaining clauses of the Bill deal with that huge quango the National Rivers Authority. The authority will have control over pollution, water quality objectives, controlled waters, with licensing arrangements for all discharges, coastal defence, drought, flood defence, regional flood defence committees, salmon and freshwater fisheries, harbours, navigation conservancy and compulsory purchase. "Controlled waters" are the coastal waters around England and Wales up to three miles seaward, every river and water course, the water in every dock and harbour, lake, pond or reservoir, and underground waters. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell will have many functions to carry out. The Secretary of State lays down the standards, including the EC regulations. The director is responsible for water resources and sewerage.
I may have repeated a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said. However, I have the distinct impression that he said that the functions of the NRA covered internal drainage boards. As I understand it, internal drainage boards and areas remain exactly the same. That is covered by Clause 136.
When this Bill was first printed, I was concerned that the National Rivers Authority would not have sufficient government funds or borrowing powers to meet its many obligations. However, the NRA can borrow up to £100 million, in respect of mostly coastal defence. These provisions appear in Part II of Schedule 1. It can receive grants of about 32 per cent. of its expenditure for its many functions, some coming from the Secretary of State and some from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

665
I have read this Bill with great care, and, except for a few minor points, the drafting has met nearly all my doubts. I am completely satisfied that, with the separation in the Bill of ownership from regulation, the general public is fairly well protected. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook suggested that the Bill be extended to consolidate all the related legislation. However, I have been informed by others that consolidation requires a completely different procedure and therefore his suggestion cannot be followed.
Subject to the Government giving enough support to the NRA, in a few years' time all our beaches and rivers will be clean and safe to bathe in. This Bill deserves the wholehearted support of your Lordships.
10.38 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, speaking at so late an hour, I shall be as brief as I can. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer an apology, valid for the next five weeks, to the noble Earl and other Front Bench speakers for being unable to be here for their speeches. I am for the time being a prisoner of the committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which sits from 10.15 in the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon and precludes my listening to early speeches.
Therefore I shall not comment on what has been said other than to say that from 10.15 this morning until now I have been concerned solely and absolutely with water. It has been "Water, water everywhere"—and if I had been brought up on the principles of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, it would have been nothing other than a case of never a drop to drink. Mercifully, I was indoctrinated into the familiarity where the only liquor nobler than water is available for a consideration within a few yards from here. All I can say is that my heart bleeds for the noble Lord who is the chairman of the NRA, listening to all the claims made on his suppositious wisdom of Solomon. Whereas I have only a five-week stint in this job, he is in it, I am afraid—and good luck to him—for many years.
I now come to my conclusion. First, it is always useless to look backwards and ask whose fault it is that we are in the situation in which we find ourselves. It is probably everybody's fault, if we knew the whole truth in every matter. What matters is to live in the present. The present requires that we make a very large investment in the here and now and for some time to come in the water industry, which for one reason or another has been relatively neglected in years gone by.
In finding the capital funds for this privatisation it would be quite wrong to force the consumer to be an involuntary investor in his source of supply. It is right that the consumer should pay for the capital services on that source of supply as part of the cost of the water he consumes. It would be right to endow the water industry with the capital receipts from privatisation so that it has an endowment of capital in order to start work on what is so urgently necessary. It would be wrong to leave this major manipulation under Treasury control.
666
I now pass to what I might call an appreciation and critique of the Treasury. It is a worthy body of men, the only one dedicated to the proposition that Her Majesty's Government should spend less. Everybody else wants Her Majesty's Government to spend more, provided that it is on their pet hobby or interest, or whatever it may be. If it was left to them on a basis of "You scratch my back and I scratch yours", we would all be bankrupt but for the discipline imposed upon us by the Treasury.
I now come to my critique. The Treasury does not care what you do not spend money on as long as you do not spend it. This can lead to a certain shortness of vision. If this very large investment is to be made efficiently, it is much better that it should be done by privatisation. That is my belief. However, when it comes to the form of doing so, I have doubts about the provisions of this Bill. Twenty-five per cent. of our water supplies are currently financed by statutory water companies which borrow money at fixed interest rates by one means or another, either as local loans or as preference shares, or whatever it may be. I cannot see why that should not be the pattern for the future water industry. To introduce equity capital into this matter is a wrong concept. It is right that water should not be the subject of speculators who wish to reinsure themselves against depreciation by holding equity capital.
I now come to a feature of the Bill which seems to me to be very important and absolutely essential: the separation of direction and management from inspection and quality control. I have a particular view of mankind, of whom I am one, being uniformly sluts left to their own devices. The reason is very simple. If one goes back to the palaeolithic age, for 100,000 years we were hunters, wandering after the game that we hunted. We would never spend tonight where we spent last night or where we were going to spend tomorrow night. We were wanderers on the face of the earth who left our personal refuse, droppings and food waste (I do not need to go into the detail) for nature to clean up under aerobic conditions. The dung beetles, the ants and the vultures got it all nice and clean and tidy again by the time our ancestors returned on their wanderings, following the game to the point where they had started two or three weeks or perhaps two or three months before.
Cleanliness and tidiness is a cultural acquisition. It is not a genetic endowment. Left to our own devices, we would live in a sluts' paradise. It is only houseproud women who train their children to become houseproud mothers in their turn. That being the case, I think that polluters should pay by one means or another. I am not going to argue the toss with my noble friend Lord Shannon about the means.
I want to remind your Lordships that when I was young, which is beginning to be a fair time ago, Pittsburg was known as "hell with the lid off" because of the amount of smoke there. The city fathers decided that they would install smoke meters in all the chimneys of all the polluters and make them pay a penal rate for their pollution. Within five years Pittsburg was a clean air city. That is the way I should like matters to proceed.

667
I should also like to commend to the Government for consideration that we ought to have a scientific advisory council for the national authority. I imagine one of the members of that board, which should be a commercial board concerned with commercial considerations, should be the head of their technical advisory department; but such departments can easily suffer from in-breeding, and to have an advisory council chaired, if you like, by the technical director of the authority, to sit in judgment on the advice he was being given by his own subordinates would be a very good insurance policy against the organisation as a whole suffering from hardening of the arteries as time wore on and initial enthusiasms became eroded.
Those are the conclusions I have come to in the time available for me to study this Bill, and I recommend them to your Lordships.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it has been a long debate and practically everything that can be said about this measure has been said and repeated on numerous occasions. However there remains the fact that only a few speeches have expressed total support for the Bill in its present form, and I suggest that they have come from the sources that one would normally expect.
I do not intend to keep the Minister from his bed for much longer, though at least he has a chauffeur-driven car to take him home. I am half asleep myself, but perhaps I may comment that I find it typical of post-war politics in Britain that in 1978, at the time of the Lib-Lab pact, I happened to play a crucial role in preventing the 29 water companies—there are actually 29, 28 of which are quite large and one which I think is in Wiltshire is very small—from being nationalised. I was entertained to lunch by Lord Elliott of Morpeth and his colleagues every time thereafter when I was sitting in the other place. I think I was the only non-Conservative person present, but nevertheless that was the case. They were clever enough to spot that at that time I was a spokesman on the environment for the Liberal Party, and my colleagues and I felt that those private water companies were providing a perfectly good service based on sensible charging and were best left alone.
I only wish that I could play that role today, because I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the establishment of the ten regional water authorities in 1974 was one of the few really good things to come out of the local government reorganisation at that time. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for the part he played in it, for on the whole the country has benefited to a great extent by the actions of those authorities since that time. Obviously there is a lot more still to be done, but I agree with the chairman of the Wessex authority who pointed this out recently in a speech. I had a sort of feeling that there has been so much condemnation of those authorities that we have had some of the Government's propaganda put over to us today.
Perhaps I could just indicate from my own knowledge—one has to talk from one's own
668
knowledge—what has been spent in my part of the world by the Southern Water Authority in recent years.
Over £14 million have been spent in the Isle of Wight. Following the drought in 1976, when we suffered badly and our own local supplies ran out and we had to bring water across from the mainland, a pipline was laid under the Solent. There were 76 raw sewage outlets in Cowes alone until about three years ago. They have all been picked up, capped and taken to an inland plant. Sewer outlets have been extended at Ryde, Sandown and Yarmouth, and new mains have been laid. It is true that, despite all that work, several of our beaches are not up to EC standards, but I expect that to change very soon as a result of that work.
I should like to put on record that I believe the regional water authorities, despite their lack of money—the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, quoted some statistics about how they have cut the number of employees and cut their coat according to their cloth—have played a very good part. No doubt they would have liked to do more, as we all should have wished, but they have been a success. I have no doubt that similar examples can be given for different parts of the coutnry. The Thames Barrier is another example of substantial expenditure by at least two regional water authorities.
In 1974 the situation was bad, but there has been a substantial improvement since that time. As many noble Lords have pointed out, because our Victorian sewers and water mains are breaking up an enormous amount of money must be spent. My party's favourite speech during the last two General Elections never failed to draw attention to the need for more public money to be spent in these areas not only to put them in order but also to cut unemployment. That was not done but it could and should have been. I suggest that during the past few years the Government have had adequate funds to do that work with a £14 billion surplus in the public sector; nevertheless, all the regional water authorities are perfectly capable of doing what is necessary. They have worked well and, in my view, they should be left to get on with the job. They certainly have the expertise.
Having defended the private water companies, I share the view that has been expressed in many quarters. My colleagues and I would not object to the privatisation taking place on the format of the 28 private water companies. That would meet the general consensus and I would go along with that. I am not against privatisation as such but I am totally opposed to it being done by a flotation on the Stock Exchange.
The water authorities' environmental record is good. That of the Southern Water Authority is very good. It has published a document on conservation matters—Issue No. 7—and it has been extremely good at saving kingfishers and even getting a fox out of a sewage plant. The authorities have done a great deal to provide sailing facilities on reservoirs, and have looked after bird life and so forth. There is much to be commended, and on the whole they have done a good job. That will now be put at risk.

669
Despite initial opposition from those authorities, the NRA is welcome. However, if local government had been given a chance it could have played the part equally well, but this Government apparently do not believe in local democracy. In 1983 they even cut out our local representation on the Southern Water Authority. That had been valuable because we had two representatives who sat on the authority and reported to the county council and the boroughs about what was happening. They were able to exert a little pressure. Those representatives were removed and a lady from Andover took over, but she knew nothing about the Isle of Wight.
One will no longer be able to put pressure on one's local MP. Water authorities reported annually to MPs in the Committee Room in another place. When an issue was upsetting constituents in an area covered by, say, the Southern Water Authority, Members would attend in large numbers and put the chairman through the hoop. If they were satisfied about what was happening, the chairman got away with it very easily. However, that was a way in which such matters could be drawn to attention and undertakings obtained.
We are looking to the NRA to do a great deal about pollution. We are saying that it must put its own house in order and that the polluter must pay. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, we are a filthy nation—probably the most filthy in Western Europe, if not in the Western world. Quite rightly, the Government are drawing attention to that fact but I hope that they will put some money into it. One needs only to travel on the train outside London and look at the stuff which is thrown over the backs of gardens. When travelling into Shrewsbury the sight is disgraceful. It is going into streams and finally entering rivers, and some of it is pretty polluting.
That fact must be taken on board. It need not be the job of the NRA or the water authorities but there must be a general clean-up. The sooner we tackle it the better. I suppose that we should begin by tackling the problem in the schools and persuading children to impress upon their parents that we no longer do such things. We might then get somewhere, but we must start soon because the situation is disgusting.
If it was not for municipal enterprise in days gone by, we should be in an even sorrier mess today. I hope that our major cities, for example, Birmingham and others, will demand proper compensation for the loss of their major assets. If that holds up the flotation, so much the better.
I do not believe that the various chairmen, with one notable exception, really thought that privatisation was such a good idea initially. However, there is no doubt that they will all gain financially, and probably substantially, so they are all now safely on board. But at what cost to our nation. The few concessions made in the other place are minimal. Even the consultation with the National Parks Authority is a Trojan horse, as the Open Spaces Society was quick to point out.
I suppose that amendments will be tabled from all sides of the House and we shall try to gain some crumbs of comfort for bodies like the CPRE and the
670
National Trust, archaeologists, ramblers, the sailing fraternity and so on, who have appreciated how the 450,000 acres are now at risk. They have been preserved by the water authorities and before that by the municipal authorities for our enjoyment. However, now the caravan site operators and the park home builders are casting their eagle eyes over that land. Some of the French companies which are taking over the private water companies are in the construction industry. I ask the Government to take note of that fact.
However, I believe that politically time is on our side. I do not believe that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment fully appreciate exactly what sort of backlash from the general public is likely to descend upon them in the years immediately ahead. Water charges are increasing substantially. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who knows his stuff, predicted that they will rise by at least 30 per cent. Metering is in a mess. The Isle of Wight is a trial area; I can assure the Minister that metering is in a mess. There are all sorts of problems particularly in flats and multi-occupation premises. The housing associations are trying to sort out who to charge for what. I shall make sure that meters are not put into my place until I am certain that everyone is to be metered separately.
The poll tax, rising commercial rates, rent increases, ever-increasing interest rates, the higher cost of petrol which is going up by 20p per gallon, fares and electricity charges are all coming on top of each other. We know that 14,000 people had their water cut off last year. Some very angry people will not be able to live with these demands. They will respond in the only way they know how, that is, through the ballot box. And the sooner the better.
10.58 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we should remind ourselves, although it is self-evident from the debate, that the present structure of the water industry in England and Wales stems entirely from the legislative endeavours of Conservative governments. So what is being changed has nothing to do with the Labour Party; it is entirely to do with the present Government. Indeed, before coming to the debate this afternoon I took the liberty of reading the Second Reading speeches by the respective Secretaries of State in 1973 and 1983. In contrasting their hopes and aspirations with the speech of the noble Earl today, on which I congratulate him, one is led to consider what a strange game politics still can be.
Water and sewerage—the heart of the concerns expressed throughout the day—are true, natural monopolies. In that respect, they are rot like energy, transport or even telecommunications where a choice of sorts is available to consumers. Consequently, any fundamental change in arrangements for water and sewerage are bound to be looked at fairly closely by consumers. I believe that that is at the heart of the widespread concern expressed about the Government's intentions embracing a wide assortment of interests which I shall not detail as they have already been discussed to a very considerable extent.

671
We welcome, as have so many speakers, the proposal to establish a National Rivers Authority. This was not in the 1986 proposals and represents a concession by the Government to public pressure. We should like to see the NRA with more powers than presently proposed. Certainly we should like to feel that adequate funding will be available to it, because without that it will not be able to fulfil the high hopes which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, expressed for it in his memorable speech.
The Bill grants much freedom to plcs and yet in some sense is restrictive in regard to the NRA. In legislative terms we find that imbalance somewhat difficult to understand. The demise—for that is what it is—of the statutory water companies is a tragedy because they represent a form of organisation which would have been acceptable to the nation at large in preference to plcs for the 10 regional water authorities now existing. Any idea that, quite apart from what the Bill proposes for them, they could continue as they have done in the past has already been shattered by what one can fairly describe as the French connection.
I have before me an extract from my local newspaper, the Kent Messenger, for 7th April in which the Member of Parliament for Tonbridge and Malling, Sir John Stanley, expresses serious concern, serious doubt and serious misgivings about an increase this year of 42 per cent. by the West Kent statutory undertaking in its supply charge structure. Although Sir John wanted a reference of this imposition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Minister for Water and Planning, also a Member of Parliament for a Kent constituency, refused it and said that the most to be hoped for is that the following year—that is, next year—companies which have done this (West Kent is only one) will be restricted to minimal or no increases.
The report states that a factor in the increase has undoubtedly been the influence of the SAUR French organisation which acquired shares in the West Kent undertaking. The same could be said of Eastbourne. Therefore, the character of the statutory water undertakings has been irretrievably altered. Indeed, on conversion to plcs, as the Bill authorises, they will certainly need to be closely watched; in some ways even more closely than the present regional water authorities which will form the 10 new plcs and which will, as I said, be the subject from the outset of a separate issue of shares and therefore to some extent under the watchful eye of the Director General of Water Services.
It has already been pointed out that the regional water authorities are land-asset rich—some 450,000 acres. Those of us who contributed solemnly to the rating demands of the old Metropolitan Water Board must look particularly enviously at the Thames Water Authority, because one is reminded of the phrase, "a half acre in Middlesex is worth two acres in Heaven". However, Clause 83 allows the Secretary of State to write off loans which the new plcs will have unless such action is taken. Clauses 95, 96 and 97 cover the conversion of the statutory water
672
companies into plcs. This I find particularly regrettable because they have served the consumer well.
As I said, we welcome the National Rivers Authority. Its flood defence role is covered in Clauses 132 to 136. In a sense, that is satisfactory. However, we need to ask what will happen if the NRA decides that it needs wider powers than the Bill currently gives it. The same query arises on the responsibilities which the Bill imposes on the NRA in respect of salmon conservancy and navigation.
Clause 147 on compulsory land purchase by the new plcs and the NRA allows authority for this if the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture give compulsory purchase their blessing. This raises at once the logical query as to what happens if and when land which has been compulsorily acquired by the plcs is subsequently disposed of. We on this side believe that we should at least raise with the Government at the due time whether or not such disposals of land compulsorily purchased by water plcs should not first be offered to the National Rivers Authority.
In Clause 158 and subsequent clauses, the powers of plcs in relation to local authorities are defined. We ask: where the plc decides to terminate the use of local authority services, will there be any provision for an appeal by local authorities to either the National Rivers Authority or the Director General of Water Services? In this connection we ask ourselves, bearing in mind the state of relations between the Department of the Environment and local authorities in England and Wales, whether the department wishes to see a lesser role for local authorities in the water industry than the important role that they currrently discharge.
As regards financial effects, there is stringent Treasury control spelt out in the Bill concerning the National Rivers Authority. Again, the matter has been raised by other speakers, but we are entitled to ask again whether the National Rivers Authority will be a victim of cutbacks by the Treasury without regard to its capital commitments and its undoubted need for forward planning concerning its extensive activities. Will the Treasury treat the National Rivers Authority as just another instrument of economic policy? These situations are not unknown.
The customer services committees are of considerable importance to us. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has dealt with this question at some length. We believe that placing these important bodies under the wing, so to speak, of the Director General of Water Services is excessively harsh. We believe that they are entitled to greater freedom bearing in mind the extent to which the Director General of Water Services has to balance functions. He may not consider the role of the consumer quite as important in that balance as the customer services committees undoubtedly will.
For example, we believe that these customer services committees in the areas of the 10 water plcs should have the right of access to the board of any plc for the region and other water plcs in that region. The customer services committees should have the right to report directly, and not initially to the

673
Director General of Water Services. The chairpersons of these committees should be able to meet together at least twice a year for the discussion of matters of common interest, and to draw on the experience of each other.
Finally, I turn to the question of bills. We welcome the fact that before disconnections are made a court order will be required. We are wondering what will happen when the community charge machinery is in force as regards people who rent their properties; for example, council house tenants. It is our understanding that when that happens council house tenants will no longer pay their water and sewerage rates as part and parcel of their weekly rent and that they will be billed separately for these services. That seems to us to introduce a very new and novel element into the lives of people who have never been accustomed to paying bills of that kind in that fashion. Unless some special provision is made for them, initially at least there may be some fairly serious situations in which water and sewage bills are unpaid.
For example, if one considers the Southern Water Authority as it now is, it has 4 million sewage customers but only 2 million water users. That means half of the people in the region are paying their bills either with their rent, if they are rented tenants, or directly if they are owner occupiers. If the water bill is paid to one authority and the sewage bill is paid to another, these rented tenants will be paying two bills whereas, as I said previously, they paid no bill at all. That is a matter calling for a very great deal of education or a very great deal of sympathetic handling by the authorities. If disconnection takes place on a court order one can readily see how that will occur if it is merely a water disconnection. But if it is also a sewage disconnection then there are problems of public health involved which seem to us to be of very considerable moment and which need to be thought about. It is a role in which the customer services committee should play a major role in making the public well aware of the change of circumstances affecting a very important aspect of their lives, where the paying of bills carries with it certain privileges, and where failure to pay them will undoubtedly result in some fairly painful experiences for people who may not be as well used to managing their affairs as perhaps they should be.
These are some of the queries that legitimately arise from the debate today. We welcome the sympathetic way in which the Minister introduced the Bill, and in particular the remark he made that he would be prepared to consider in Committee, and possibly also on Report, amendments of a reasonable kind. We can assure him that the amendments from this side of the House will be of that character. We hope that he will carry through his promise of sympathy when we get down to the nitty-gritty of detailed amendments.
My final point concerns a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He suggested that the Minister had indicated to the House that some part of the sale proceeds would be available for investment by plcs. It was not within our recollection
674
that the Minister made such a promise. I should like to be clear in my own mind, so that I sleep well tonight, whether the noble Lord was right or whether my hearing of the Minister was perhaps more accurate.
Those are the main points we wish to raise. We cannot say that we support the Bill, but at any rate we shall attempt to amend it constructively.
11.11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with such an important measure, it has come as no surprise to me that so many noble Lords should choose to speak in the debate. I am encouraged by this interest; it shows that we shall be giving the Bill proper examination. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part and especially grateful to those who have stayed. From these Benches we shall be listening carefully to the debates over the next couple of months. Building on what we have heard today, I believe that we shall enjoy some stimulating arguments. We have heard some exceptional speeches, I refer in particular to those of my noble friends, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Jenkin of Roding, with their vast experience of this matter.
This is a complex Bill. At 388 pages it is one of the longest ever. The explanatory notes that are available in the Printed Paper Office run to 550 pages. So it is perhaps not surprising that there are some details of it which your Lordships have not yet fully digested. There will be time enough for that. But it is vitally important to be clew- what it is we are not doing. For a start—I must point this out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, even though he is not here—it is not the water we are privatising, but the water and sewerage businesses. We are seeking to transfer a nationalised industry to the private sector. The water itself is provided by the Almighty, sometimes rather more often than we would like. But it is not open to most of us to go to some babbling brook and remove just what we need. We want it to flow from our taps in whatever quantity we want for bathing and drinking, for washing our cars and for watering our gardens. What is more, we require it all to be treated to such standards as makes it safe to drink—even that which we pour on our gardens.
Once we have used the water we expect it to disappear down the drains, taking away whatever we choose to put into it, out of sight and out of mind. But behind this simple set of demands lies a complex network of pipes, plants, treatment works, reservoirs, sewers and sewage works. There are chemists, engineers, plumbers, scientists and managers. This is an enormous production industry. And it is that industry we intend to privatise, because all the evidence is that privatisation leads to more efficient operation from which customers and shareholders will benefit.
It is right that production industries such as this should be in the private sector but subject of course to proper health, environmental and economic regulation. Freed from the public sector, the industry will be able to achieve the standards we all want to see that much quicker and with the efficiency only

675
the private sector can provide. It will be free, for example, to get out and show the world how expert and competitive the British water industry is.
Inevitably, we have had a wide-ranging discussion on public ownership against private ownership. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was supported in what he said by a number of noble Lords. He said that his party would nationalise the water industry. The new-look Labour Party is an even more terrifying prospect than the great nationalising governments of the past. But at least they did not nationalise the 25 per cent. which remained in private hands for many years.
What the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said really worried me because of its effect on standards, consumers and the environment. Public ownership and regulation have not been totally satisfactory in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord admitted that point. In a recent article he wrote:
"I saw political control and officer manipulation at its worst".
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already complained about excessive government control on the proposed NRA. However, none of the noble Lords advocating state control has shown any reason why the situation would not be much worse under a much more comprehensive, bureaucratic system such as the one which they propose.
The great sadness and mischief is that the Labour Party believes that public interest equates to public ownership. I prefer what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, proposed; namely, that the public interest is best protected by strict regulation of a private enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted from Joseph Chamberlain. However, it was a Scotsman, Adam Smith, who first noticed the benefits of transferring enterprises from the Crown to the people As he said,
"the attention of the Sovereign can be at best a very general and vague consideration of what is likely to contribute to the better cultivation of the greater part of his dominions".
Put simply, public ownership does not mean public service, because a nationalised industry cannot be made accountable to the people who really own it; namely, the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister seriously claiming that what is proposed is to transfer the water industry from the Crown to the people? Surely, in practice, it is transferring the water industry from all of the people to a very few people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is putting it back to the public where it belongs and where it can really be managed in the best way for everyone. If the noble Lord had listened to the second part of what I said, that fact would have been clear to him.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and Lord Walston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, thought that the consumer and the environment could only benefit under political control, as regards both the regulation and the operation of the industry. I must remind the parties opposite that during their years of control between 1975 and 1979 they achieved a unique treble: they massively increased the prices which consumers had
676
to pay; they massively increased the staff and, at the same time, they massively cut investment in this industry—all with enormously detrimental results. Thankfully, the situation has now changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, accepted. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, we need to look forward and move on to obtain better standards and a better environment.
It is rewarding that so many of your Lordships have welcomed the proposal to establish the National Rivers Authority. However, some noble Lords have expressed concern about the resources which will be available to the NRA. I should like to reassure your Lordships that the Government are fully committed to providing the authority with the resources which it needs. We fully accept the need for a strong and independent NRA. I am sure that all your Lordships who heard the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will agree that he will provide the NRA with the strong, independent leadership which it needs to become the important and respected environmental body required to fulfil those important functions.
We have demonstrated our commitment to giving the NRA all the powers it needs by the amendment introduced in another place. That amendment will allow the authority long-term borrowing powers for its flood defence functions. I note the concern expressed by my noble friend that such powers are intended only for emergencies. The reason for this is that we believe with proper planning it should be possible for the regional flood defence committees to plan their expenditure so that borrowing is not required.
I should also like to emphasise that we attach great importance to the NRA maximising income from its customers so as to reduce its dependence on the Exchequer. That point was emphasised in the policy statement on the NRA made in December 1987. Even so, some of the activities of the NRA are for the benefit of the community as a whole and it is therefore only right that they should be paid for by grant from the Exchequer. We shall, of course, take full note of the concerns expressed by your Lordships about the powers and resources of the NRA. However, I can assure your Lordships that we are absolutely committed to giving the authority all the powers and resources which it needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned his work with the NRA. He also mentioned his concern for the fishermen. I agree with him that fishermen are among the best environmentalists; indeed, fish are among the best environmentalists because they notice when the river quality changes. However, I must say to the noble Lord that I disagree with him on one point which he made. I believe that the best answer is for the industry to be put into private hands in order to achieve the necessary high standards.
Before completing my comments on the NRA, I should like to refer the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who asked about the grant in aid for the NRA, to the financial memorandum to the Bill on page xiii, which makes it clear that grant in aid for the NRA will be about £71 million in its first full year of operation.

677
Several of your Lordships mentioned conservation and recreation, especially in relation to the land not used by the water and sewerage undertakers. I say to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham that the Bill re-enacts the existing conservation and recreation duties. In some respects it strengthens them. It is true that the duties in the Bill attach to the carrying out of water functions and not to the land itself. It is not the purpose of the Bill to control uses of land no longer required for water functions: that is the purpose of the planning system, which is especially strong in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who mentioned that point, would have reminded the House that most of the land in those areas is already in private ownership. There is no evidence that that inhibits public enjoyment of it or leads to undesirable development. Considering her experience, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, did not explain why the planning system would not work in future when she acknowledged, by implication, that it had worked in the past. I urge the noble Baroness to look again at the proposed enforcement regime. It is nowhere near as weak as she suggested. The Bill in no way changes the present legislative position with regard to charging for access and recreation.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, raised some anxieties and wished to strengthen the interest of those concerned with boating. I know that he accepts that a balance has to be struck between all the interests involved in recreation and conservation.
When one discusses such matters one is bound to have conflict. There are those, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, who want access to all places at all times; and yet my noble friend Lord Middleton will know what a disastrous effect that can have on Schedule 1 birds. In certain areas of the national parks some of the most beautiful countryside is suffering damage from erosion to such an extent that access may have to be restricted. The angler, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, will want his interests fully protected; while the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, wants access by others to the same waters, although it may be those selfsame waters that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will want to protect for conservation reasons. My noble friend Lord Clinton looks for a minimum flow in rivers, whereas my noble friend Lord Radnor introduces a further conflict because he wants that as well as the right to extract from them. My noble friend Lord Norrie wants good access for recreation and at the same time full conservation, with all the in-built conflict that that entails. I therefore tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that it will require more than the wisdom of Solomon to solve all those difficulties, some of which he will have to deal with.
My noble friends Lord Middleton, Lord Radnor and Lord Stanley of Alderley mentioned the water industry's compulsory purchase powers, which enable it to acquire the land that it needs to fulfil its statutory obligations. The successor companies will need the same powers for the same purpose. It is
678
worth reminding the House that the compulsory purchase powers will be available only with the Secretary of State's approval and only for the land needed to carry out the water and sewerage functions. There is no question of the powers being available for other purposes, or to the enterprise subsidiaries. The Secretary of State's consent will be required for disposal of any land compulsorily acquired that becomes surplus to requirements; for example, after the completion of works. The general rule will require the land to be offered first to the former owners, at the current market value.
The compulsory works powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general and to the mandatory codes of practice. Payments will have to be made to complainants who show that failure to comply with the code has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced. These penalty payments are an innovation and are in addition to the provision for full and fair compensation when the land value is depreciated or loss or damage caused by the exercise of the powers.
I mentioned the statutory water company model in my opening speech, but in response to my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Pym, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. perhaps I may quote, for the sake of clarity, from the 1986 report that I mentioned. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission said:
"While we do not regard the issue of privatising the water industry as within our remit, the foregoing analysis leads us to offer one observation which may be relevant to it. This is that the existing private statutory companies are not in our view a useful model to follow. Where private concerns have monopoly power over essential services, the need is to combine adequate safeguards for the consumer with some appropriate means of providing a profit incentive to management to reduce costs and increase efficiency. The form of regulation, is by limiting profits and dividends, applied to the statutory companies conspicuously fails to meet this need".
There could hardly be a more damning indictment of the statutory water company model. But the message was brought home with some force earlier this year—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Would he be good enough to tell the House what this report was concerned with? It was concerned with the proposal by the Southern Water Authority to absorb the half-dozen water companies in its region because it wished to cover the whole area itself. The report ended by recommending that it should not do it, so it does not seem to be quite so damning as the noble Earl indicated.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained, the report was not looking at the privatised water industry because, as the commission said, that was not within its remit. But it commented on the model, and I think that was a fairly damning condemnation.
The message was brought home with some force earlier this year when the companies started to increase prices by amounts quite unjustified in some cases. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who raised the problem, and doubtless he will welcome the proposals in the Bill which will prevent

679
that in future. It is a matter we cannot control at the moment. Such increases will of course be taken into account when the Secretary of State sets the initial price controls for future years.
My noble friend Lord Elliott gave a very constructive and fair-minded summary of points which had been made to the department by the water companies and which are being carefully evaluated. I was most interested in what he had to say on the relationship between the framework for consumer protection and the need to leave a profit incentive with the companies. That, I agree, is a balance which has to be struck.
Another point which was raised by many of your Lordships was whether the water authorities could be properly sold. It is for Parliament to decide on the form and ownership of the water industry. In 1973, no doubt based on appropriate analysis at the time, Parliament created the water authorities as public corporations largely under local government control. Not only the assets but also the debts of the local authorities were transferred. In 1983, again no doubt based on appropriate analysis at the time, Parliament decided to reduce the very large board memberships which confused executive responsibility with representation of various interests. I cannot find out exactly what my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham said in 1973, but I discovered that he voted at Second Reading in favour of the Bill in which the water authorities became less like local authorities and more like boards of private sector companies and nationalised industries.
The motivating factor was the need for greater efficiency. This Bill continues the trend; it introduces a yet superior framework for the industry. But the point is that the changes in 1973 and 1983 were for Parliament to decide. Each step in the reconstitution of the industry, including not only the transfer of assets but also—I must stress this—its associated debts, has been proper and lawful. Now it is again for Parliament to decide.
Some of your Lordships raised questions about the proceeds of the flotation. That point was raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. The terms on which the industry is sold will reflect the need for future capital and investment on programmes to improve drinking water quality and sewage treatment. I have listened carefully to what has been said in this House today, not least by my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and I appreciate the sentiments that they have expressed. However, for now I shall say no more than that we shall ensure that the industry is in a position fully to meet its obligations. I listened with interest to what your Lordships had to say about a dowry. I know that my right honourable friend and honourable friend will also take careful note of what has been said.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford linked price rises to privatisation. But in fact there is no doubt that prices would rise without privatisation, and those rises might be of even greater amounts, given that we would not have the efficiency gains
680
that the private sector should deliver under the watchful eye of the Director General of Water Services. The charges will increase because of the need to spend more to achieve the high standards we all want to see.
I would say to my noble friend that it is true that new companies will make provision for dividends. However, dividends and tax liability will not be additional to the current financing costs, but will be substituted for them. The industry's current financial targets were expressed as a rate of return on the current cost value of the assets. The Treasury will not require that of the industry after privatisation.
I listened carefully to the sound arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. However, I can assure him and the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Ross of Newport, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who made the similar mistake of associating metering with privatisation, that it is totally independent of the privatisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked whether the quality of service under a privatised industry could be guaranteed. In fact we are putting a whole range of mechanisms into place to encourage and discipline higher standards. On the one hand is the strong but fair regulation, backed up by the formal enforcement powers held by the Secretary of State and the director general; on the other are such innovatory incentives as the £5 cash payment scheme. That sum will be payable for each day that certain standards are not met. This will encourage the industry to keep appointments, to answer complaints on time, and not to delay restoring water to those cut off for maintenance reasons.
I have to say it is a complete misunderstanding for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and for my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to see the director as being biased in favour of the industry against the interests of the consumer. The Bill makes it a primary duty of the Secretary of State and the director to ensure that companies carry out their duties properly. If that is not for the benefit of the consumer, what is?
I know that some of your Lordships raised the question of customer services committees. Doubtless that and other points I have not been able to reply to tonight will be discussed in Committee. I am sorry that I do not have time to answer all of the points that I wished to answer. There will doubtless be opportunities to deal with them at a later date.
Several of your Lordships touched on the unpopular reputation that this measure is said to enjoy. As for popularity, at comparable stages in the run up to previous privatisations, opinion polls showed less than wholehearted enthusiasm. But those privatisations were, nevertheless, very successful. I am sure that as we debate the Bill and the flotation comes nearer, more and more people will come to see the benefits of our policy. For we know that people care deeply about their water. We know they want to benefit from the highest possible standards. Standards are high now, for instance 90 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality in

681
comparison with 75 per cent. in Europe, but there is room for improvement.
With the best will in the world, the evidence before us shows that annual discussions with the Treasury for that part of the water industry that is not already privately owned have not achieved the standards nor the control of water pollution we demand.
Investment is now running at more than £1.2 billion a year. But the Government will always have to take a broader view of public sector finance than the needs of a single industry. This Bill offers a new way forward to achieve the standards we all want and demand. It does so by separating the water and sewerage businesses from the strict regulatory control which should and will be the job of independent public bodies. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION
  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION
  NISSAN CARS: IMPORTS FROM UK TO FRANCE
  NISSAN CARS: IMPORTS FROM UK TO FRANCE
  WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREATER LONDON AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNTIES: REPORT
  WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREATER LONDON AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNTIES: REPORT
  WORLD BANK REPORT
  WORLD BANK REPORT