Sitting of 20 April 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read a Third time on Thursday 27 April.
  HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 April.
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Tourism
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet received the report of the review team on tourism policy in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The team undertaking a review of tourism policy in Northern Ireland is due to make its report to me by the end of April. I will consider this report, and consult as necessary, before making an announcement on future strategy.
    Mr. Colvin: I note that reply, but will my hon. Friend assure the House that the review has taken into account the submission from the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade, Northern Ireland, especially with regard to accommodation grants? Does he agree that it would be better to give grants to, say, 100 pubs, each of which would provide three rooms, than to give a grant to one 300-room hotel? The grants should be spread around more evenly. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that that is especially important this year because all the indications are that forward bookings for holidays abroad are falling off and there is every chance that people will want to take holidays at home?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The Government have shown that they recognise the significance of the licensed trade in public houses by changing the situation that existed until last year, whereby public houses in Northern Ireland could not offer overnight accommodation, in legislation that was taken through the House by the Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). Pubs in Northern Ireland have now been brought into line with those in the United Kingdom and public houses can now take in guests, provided of course, that the accommodation meets the registration requirements of the Northern Ireland tourist board. I cannot anticipate the conclusion of the review, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.
    Mr. Kilfedder: In my view, despite terrorism Northern Ireland is the finest place in the entire world, with kindly, friendly and generous people. Does the Minister agree that money invested in tourism, with financial support from the Government, will help to counter the bad image presented by the media? If more foreigners come to Ulster they will see that it is a delightful place and that what I have said is true.
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Despite the magnificent recreational and sporting facilities in Northern Ireland, there has not been the number of tourists that we would like and who would enjoy a visit to Northern Ireland. A high proportion of visitors to Northern Ireland are visiting family and friends or are on business. We want to ensure that the assistance that is provided by the Government is properly focused on holiday visitors.
    Mr. William Ross: Given the tremendous interest that has been aroused by the recent expenditure on Giant's Causeway, is it not clear that investment in tourism is of great benefit to the community in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister and the Government therefore move away from the idea of promoting Belfast and Londonderry as the principle centre of tourism and look closely at the north coast, where the town of Portrush has many natural resources and great natural beauty and is the traditional and premium tourist resort of Northern Ireland? Will the Government consider giving more than five lines to Portrush in the tourist board's brochures? Surely the whole north coast is worth far more than that and should be actively promoted because that is where people will go to find the peace and beauty of the countryside?
    Mr. Viggers: It would not be fair if the hon. Gentleman were to submit that the Northern Ireland tourist board does not work very hard to promote the whole of Northern Ireland as a tourist location. I shall certainly bear in mind the points made by the 80 people who have made written representations and the 40 people who have given verbal evidence to the small team conducting the review. I shall also take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the whole coastline of the island of Ireland is a tourist delight? Does he agree that it would be far better if the tourist authorities in both the north and the south were to co-operate and thus eliminate overlap and wasteful expenditure? Does he welcome the call by the president of the Hoteliers and Caterers Association for a tourist council for all the island of Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: The two tourist boards do co-operate. They share some literature and they are studying ways in which they can co-operate further. I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Prison Sentences (Review)
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sentences of Northern Ireland prisoners have been reviewed over the past 12 months; and what is his policy towards indeterminate sentences.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): The cases of 170 prisoners serving life sentences and detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure have been reviewed in the past year. Our policy toward indeterminate sentences is to release a prisoner subject to such a sentence when a period commensurate with the gravity of the crime has been served, and when the risk of re-offending in a violent way is considered remote.
    Mr. Alton: While I thank the Minister for that reply and for his reply to my recent letter, and I am grateful to him for the developments, especially at Maghaberry prison, will he tell the House what weight is placed on a prisoner's decision to move from a segregated wing into an integrated situation such as in Maghaberry? Will he also tell the House how many reviews he expects to carry out next year?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a numerical answer to the second part of his question, but, if I can give him a reasonable indication in correspondence, I shall do so.
    The moving of prisoners to integrated conditions, such as in Maghaberry is certainly taken into account as a positive step, but that must be considered against all the other circumstances of each particular case.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell the House why ex-members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are serving prison sentences, have served very long stretches without being favourably considered for review, while members of paramilitary forces—including the IRA—who have been imprisoned for similar acts of terrorism or murder, have been released before serving as long as those RUC prisoners?
    Is the Minister aware that certain evidence has now come to the surface concerning the imprisonment of certain UDR men in the Craigavon area? Is the Minister prepared to look at the evidence and consider whether those men should have another trial?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has raised two entirely separate points. If further evidence is forthcoming, existing sentences are reconsidered under certain circumstances. In such cases, however, the evidence must be genuinely new.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that, regardless of background, religion or occupation, everyone who is reviewed by the life sentence review board has his case considered according to the consistent principles which I gave in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
    Ms. Short: The Minister must be aware that the system of review for indeterminate sentences causes great unease in both communities in Northern Ireland. Are not people required to give undertakings about their political views before they can be released? Is that not completely subjective and does that not mean that some people, who are currently in prison, will stay there for the rest of their lives unless we change the system?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know how the hon. Lady gets that idea. It is important that one of the criteria for release should be that the risk of re-offending, especially in a violent way, is considered to be low, but not on the basis on which the hon. Lady has put it. A whole range of factors is taken into account under that heading.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is it not the case that the present rate of recidivism after committing terrorist offences is already very high? Would not the best way of deterring terrorism be to institute a sentence of imprisonment for the duration of the emergency?
    Mr. Stewart: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he is not right about those released from indeterminate sentences. The rate of reoffending after determinate sentences is high and that is one reason why we introduced new measures regarding reactivation of remitted sentences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that some prisoners released on parole have been under threat from

    445
    paramilitary organisations? Is it possible for suitable arrangements to be made for them to work out their sentences in Great Britain?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would fundamentally cut across the normal arrangements for pre-release schemes. If there are individual cases where persons may be under a particular threat that matter can be considered.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on inward investment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: The attraction of overseas companies to Northern Ireland, and their development, is given a high priority by the Industrial Development Board since it recognises that such investment brings new products and technologies as well as fresh management skills.
    I am very pleased to say that 1988–89 was a record year for IDB, which promoted seven overseas projects with a job content of 1,856.
    Mr. Smith: Is that not good news for the Northern Ireland economy and employment in the Province? Is it not clear that inward investment is making a major contribution to economic recovery? Therefore, will the IDB redouble its efforts, given the fierce competition from other parts of the United Kingdom and from the rest of the Community?
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Northern Ireland has been successful in attracting inward investment. It is worth noting that, of the projects that have come to Northern Ireland, two have been from Great Britain, one from France, one from South Korea, one from the United States, one from Germany and one from the Republic of Ireland. I look forward to entertaining some visiting Japanese business men this evening.
    Mr. Maginnis: Can the Minister assure us that decisions on inward investment do not reflect only short-term benefits? I refer the Minister to the recent disturbing debates in the Irish Dail concerning one prospective inward investor whose attempts to monopolise the beef industry would be to the long-term disadvantage of the producers and could tie Northern Ireland to general allegations of swindles relating to the Irish beef industry and EEC payments.
    Mr. Viggers: I noted the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The purpose of the IDB, when promoting inward investment, is to ensure that the jobs that are promoted are long term and viable.
    Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend has been successful in attracting inward investment from the French motor industry. If he meets the Italians will he ask them to join the French in being more co-operative by allowing the free entry of cars made in the United Kingdom, whatever brand?
    Mr. Viggers: I suspect that my hon. Friend's comments may lie in an area slightly outside my terms of responsibility. I assure my hon. Friend that we are assiduous in courting all prospective inward investments.
    446
    I am delighted to say that, last year, investment in home industry in Northern Ireland totalled £280 million, supported by IDB assistance of £90 million.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed in his recent meeting at Stormont under the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Michael McNair-WilsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, held on 5 April.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): The meeting on 5 April discussed cross-border security co-operation, particularly in the light of the murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan; the review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference under article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; the progress through Parliament of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill and took note of further work on policy aspects of extradition and extra-territorial legislation.
    Mr. Flannery: What view, if any, of the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has emerged from that meeting? When the official view comes out, can we be assured that a statement will be made in this House?
    Mr. King: I cannot be sure when we shall complete that review, but when it is completed I certainly hope to make a statement in the House.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say why the discussions on extradition and extra-territorial jurisdiction have been so drawn out? When does he expect a settlement?
    Mr. King: I think that some of the points under discussion are already showing their merits. We are seeking to co-operate as closely as we can with the Irish Government on, for example, extradition, to ensure that we are complying with their requirements. My hon. Friend will have seen the successful extradition only last week, which illustrates that the procedure is working.
    With regard to extra-territorial jurisdiction—in other words someone charged being tried in Dublin—my hon. Friend will be aware that, only last week, somebody was tried under that legislation on evidence provided by us and that that person was convicted.
    Mr. Molyneaux: The Secretary of State has quoted from the second paragraph of the joint communique. Did he press for a return to the earlier arrangement for RUC officers crossing the frontier, which existed before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed and which permitted them to carry their personal protection and weapons when they crossed the frontier? Is there not a hideous danger in the present rigid, formal arrangement under which they must be met by escorts and arrangements must be made beforehand? Is there not a real risk of security leakage?
    Mr. King: I had some difficulty in understanding the right hon. Gentleman's question. If he was trying to suggest that some change has been made in the arrangements because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that

    447
    is entirely untrue. Those are matters for the Chief Constable and the Commissioner. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no official change laid down in the arrangements under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Gow: Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form has allienated the majority without reconciling the minority and since it is my right hon. Friend's purpose to govern the Province with as broad an assent from the people as possible, does he think that he will succeed in producing a fresh agreement which commands a much greater measure of support in the Province than the present one?
    Mr. King: There will be no improvements in the directions desired by my hon. Friend and others unless people are prepared to state their views. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall carry on the basic principles of maintaining the right of the majority to determine their own future within Northern Ireland. That is a cornerstone for which this House has always stood and involves the principle of consent and the principle of the position and security of the majority. We shall also maintain our determination to stand together in the fight against terrorism. We shall maintain our principle that there is a recognisable and perfectly respectable interest by the Irish Government in the situation in Northern Ireland as it affects the nationalist community. On those planks, if anyone wants to advance ideas, but ignores those realities, he will not make progress. Those are the cornerstones of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    After the three years of its operation, I am absolutely persuaded that any alternative formulation which people might like to address is bound to include those principles or it will have no hope of making progress.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that when he has these Anglo-Irish conferences he should come to the House and tell hon. Members what is going on so that the representatives from Northern Ireland in this democratic forum can discuss what is going on at those meetings? As he very well knows, many of the proposals which come to this House through Orders in Council are born at those Anglo-Irish conferences and then come to this House, but we are never told where they come from or who is responsible for them. Will the right hon. Gentleman also check whether his facts are correct because the last time that I was over the border—escorted—the guns were taken from my escort, while on other occasions the escorts were allowed to go over the border with their guns?
    Mr. King: On the latter point, I denied the attempt of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) to associate that with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am aware of no evidence for that. In response to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), we have monthly meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference and I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to report to the House every time the conference meets. I have made it absolutely clear that I am very willing to talk to all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies after each conference to discuss the matters under discussion. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I will meet him and put him in the picture to discuss issues, if he puts forward his views
    448
    to me in advance of the conference, I give him an unequivocal assurance that I am ready to do that at any time.
    Mr. Mallon: Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether the recent Provisional IRA attacks on the north-south rail link were discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference? Can he confirm that both Governments are determined to keep that line open at all costs? Will he give the House an assurance that under no circumstances will the Provisional IRA's aim of destroying that vital social and economic link between the two parts of the island be allowed to succeed?
    Mr. King: I can confirm that this matter was discussed at the last meeting, and that there is complete identity of view between the two Governments on the importance of maintaining the rail link. I think that we all recognise the very real hardship that disruption of the link is causing, not only to Ministers or other such people, but to ordinary people who wish to go backwards and forwards. People use that line to visit families, and for various other purposes. It is they who are being very severely disadvantaged. We recognise also that real problems may well be caused by additional heavy road transport, and that people may be inconvenienced significantly. For all those reasons, we stand together in our determination to maintain the rail link.
    Mr. Bill Walker: In the discussions, will my right hon. Friend draw attention to the reality of the situation in the United Kingdom? Any discussions affecting the structures or method of operation of Government or local government in Ulster are bound to have an impact in Scotland. That must always be taken into account, otherwise we could have a break-up of the United Kingdom, coming from Scotland.
    Mr. King: I think that I shall stick to Northern Ireland, which occupies my time fully. Of course, the point that my hon. Friend makes is right, and one is conscious of the implications. Throughout my time as Secretary of State I have stood strongly in support of the cohesion of the United Kingdom, and should be very concerned about any risk to the Union.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that in his reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) he has the general support of Opposition Members? I refer to the principles that he was enunciating about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Is he aware that we welcome the fact that the Intergovernmental Conference is not now concentrating solely and specifically on security measures but is stretching its range of interests into social and economic matters? In that context, has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Republic of Ireland the effects of the Single European Act upon the economies of both parts of the island—in particular, with regard to the border areas?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that Northern Ireland will be able to get the maximum benefit from the expansion of the European Community structural funds? Has he discussed with the Republic the question of joint proposals for integrated development on both sides of the border?
    Mr. King: We are certainly very interested in seeing what the implications might be. In a constructive sense, in

    449
    respect of industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, had a conference with the Irish Minister for Industry and Commerce, in Louvain, Belgium. They discussed the potential, within the European Community, for co-operative development. Points about tourism have already been raised. Manifestly, this is an area in which considerable benefits are to be derived from co-operation. I am particularly interested in the impact of 1992 on the island of Ireland. It might do some interesting things to what is euphemistically called "the import-export business" along the border. If that happens, it can be only for the good as well.

    Regional Rate
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage increase in the regional rate for Northern Ireland for the year 1989–90.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The increase is 12·63 per cent.
    Mr. Ross: When the Minister quotes that figure, surely he is quoting the non-domestic rate. Is it not a fact that the increase in the domestic rate is 14 per cent., whereas the council rate increase is an average of 2·38 per cent? Of that 2·38 per cent., some 30 per cent, represents the cost of the local government elections this year. Since the regional rate covers other local government functions also, and since right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench support the Government in their rate-capping policy in Great Britain, why do they not rate-cap the expenditure of their own Departments? If they are incapable of controlling the runaway inflation that these figures reveal—and this has been the circumstances for many years—will they please resign and make room for competent people to get the expenditure of Departments under control?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman tables a question asking for the percentage increase in the regional rate, I shall give him that figure. If he wants the answer to a different question, he should table that question. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It sounds a bit Irish to me.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sorry if I am enunciating a revolutionary doctrine, but that is what I have always believed I have to do.
    Let me give the hon. Gentleman a mathematical answer. Out of that 12·6 per cent., 2·3 per cent. results from a change in the Treasury formula—a reduction from 82·46 per cent, to 82 per cent, in the amount of Exchequer support as a result of the improvement in economic circumstances in the Province; 4·3 per cent, arises from a one-off credit balance in the account last year, and the remaining 6 per cent., which is the real increase related to expenditure, reflects substantial increases in expenditure on education, road maintenance and other programmes, which I do not recall the hon. Gentleman complaining about when we announced them at the end of last year.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister accept that the differential between the regional rate and the district rate is even greater than the figures suggest, because much of the expenditure usually undertaken by the regional rate has been passed on to local government? The general grant
    450
    factor and community service budgets have been slashed and no money is being given for recreation, and the district councils are having to meet those additional burdens. Does the Minister accept that if he looks at the figures he will see that the differential is all the more remarkable in the cases of the DUP-controlled councils of Castlereagh and Ballymena? Castlereagh has reduced its rate for the second year in a row, this time by 2p, and has the lowest rate in the Province. Will the Minister accept that my question has nothing to do with the local government elections next month?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's assurance for that.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Why has a £1 million notional loan charge been added to the cost of collecting the rates and why is there no consultation with the district councils before the regional rate is struck?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific figure. I shall look up the answer and let him have it. The whole point is that the district councils should be responsible for the district rate and, for the time being, the Government are responsible for the regional rate. Expenditure on local government services in Northern Ireland equivalent to those provided in Great Britain has to be provided through the sum of the district and regional rates. Therefore, the regional rate meets the expenditure, and consulting district authorities about that would not change that picture.

    Denominational Schools
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will examine the potential for the phasing out of denominational based schools in Northern Ireland and the impact of such a measure on the attitudes towards each other of Catholic and Protestant children.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): As part of the proposed education reforms in Northern Ireland the Government are taking steps to facilitate the creation of integrated schools should parents so choose. But there is no question of the Government imposing integrated education or of denying the rights of those parents who wish to have a denominationally based education for their children.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that one way to achieve a long-term solution to some of the problems in Northern Ireland is through the hearts of its children and young people, by doing away with much of the religious-based education system there, and will he consider putting additional resources into a more secular system of education? Will the opting-out proposals in the Education Reform Act aggravate rather than assist such a solution?
    Mr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but those who choose a denominationally based education, which in Northern Ireland is predominantly a Catholic education, amount to almost half the pupils and schools in the Province, where parents have the right to choose, just as they do in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    451
    The Government also believe, as is reflected in our education reform proposals, that parents should have the right to choose integrated education.
    In terms of the new curriculum, as the hon. Gentleman may know, we are also introducing courses in education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage. We have introduced a cross-contact scheme to enable schools from different parts of the community to work together and learn more about each other. In all those ways we are seeking to meet some of the concerns which the hon. Gentleman legitimately expresses.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister accept that in my constituency, one very good school, St. Patrick's high school, Keady, has more than 20 mobile classrooms? May we have an assurance that that school will be considered for capital expenditure and expansion quickly, so that the children who are being educated in those mobile classrooms may be integrated into the rest of the school?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all schools that have proposals developed to an extent where it is possible for work to proceed are seriously considered each year in terms of the capital programme. He has welcomed the fact that in the last three years we have had a capital programme in Northern Ireland of about £75 million. There are demands on the budget which exceed our ability to meet them but we give careful consideration to all schools and their needs in determining our priorities for capital expenditure.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Could not a start to integrated education be made in teacher training colleges, where, presumably, parental choice is not such an important consideration?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will know that some years ago there was a review of teacher training in Northern Ireland which resulted in the status quo being maintained. He will also be interested to know that I have been having discussions with the two teacher training colleges to encourage them at least to combine more effectively in the training of teachers for education for mutual understanding, and I hope that we may be able to build on that initiative.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: To put his answer into perspective, will the Minister give the exact number of Roman Catholic and Protestant schools receiving Government grant?
    Dr. Mawhinney: There are 466 primary schools and 118 secondary schools under Catholic management, all of which receive grants from my Department. There are seven Free Presbyterian schools in Northern Ireland, and when the hon. Member asked me a similar question some time ago, I said that I was not aware that any of those schools had sought funding from my Department. I made it clear to him subsequently that if he wished to come and talk to me about possible funding for those schools, I would be happy to see him. That remains the position.
    Mr. Maginnis: I agree with the Minister that any phasing out of denominational schools would be seen as an attack on the wishes of, mainly, the Roman Catholic community who wish to have children educated within the ethos of the Catholic Church. But has not the Minister made a fundamental error in the way in which he has sought to bring about integrated education in Northern Ireland by selecting from both the state and the
    452
    maintained sector a select, privileged and exclusive few who are now being financed at an overgenerous rate to integrate them? Would it not have been better to point out that state schools are there to provide for all children in Northern Ireland, and have encouraged proper evolution in terms of integrated education?
    Dr. Mawhinney: In law, all Northern Ireland schools —not just state schools—are open to any pupil wishing to attend them. However, until the education reform proposals were implemented, parents who wished to send their children to state schools and those who wanted to send their children to Catholic schools received all the Government money that was available. Parents who wanted the choice to send their children to schools where they could be integrated in the same classroom as children of a different religion received none of the taxpayers' money. The Government firmly believe that parents have as much right to make a choice in respect of integrated schools as they do in respect of state or Catholic schools.

    Sectarian Activity
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have lost their lives as a result of sectarian activity over the past 20 years.
    Mr. Tom King: It is not possible to define exactly how many killings were specifically sectarian. However, since 1969, some 2,750 people have been killed as a result of the security situation in Nothern Ireland, including 1,900 civilians.
    Mr. Brown: While terrorism, including state terrorism, must be condemned, surely it is time that a Bill of Rights was introduced in Northern Ireland. Otherwise I fear that shootings and bombings will continue. Does the Secretary of State have a view on that? Does he agree that there should be a Bill of Rights? Will he introduce a process of consultation with local communities in Northern Ireland, whether they are Catholic or Protestant? Will he do something politically to solve the tragedy of the North?
    Mr. King: Clearly, the figures I gave are an appalling catalogue of human tragedy over the past 20 years. It is against that background that we have sought to address the situation by adopting a determined and positive security policy and by addressing other problems and difficulties—not least those in the social area—that might help achieve the equality of opportunity and the fairness that are relevant to those problems.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the successes of terrorism in Northern Ireland was to destroy the confidence we have in local and regional government there? Does he agree that one way of stopping sectarian killings would be to ensure a secure form of government in the Province? Has my right hon. Friend received any positive suggestions from Unionist politicians in particular about how matters should proceed, so that those politicians may assume full responsibility for governing the Province?
    Mr. King: At this stage we have received very little response. I have made it clear that we wish to know the views of elected representatives within Northern Ireland on the way in which its affairs can best be handled in

    453
    future. However, while there is an abundance of opinions in Northern Ireland about what the people there are against, it is extremely difficult to find out what they are in favour of.

    NHS Reform
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with and representations he has received from individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland since the publication of the Government's review of the National Health Service, "Working For Patients.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Richard Needham): I have discussed the White Paper "Working for Patients" with a variety of interests, including representatives of the medical, nursing and management professions and members of health and social services boards, and I will be meeting several more delegations shortly.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister name one individual or organisation that has welcomed the proposals unreservedly? Can he throw any light on the impact both on the Health Service and on patients of the recent fracturing of a main sewer in Belvoir, which is polluting the river Lagan?
    Mr. Needham: As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am keeping a close eye on the situation and will write to him about it. On the first matter, we are involved in a whole series of discussions that are both constructive and sensible. So far, I have spoken to more than 700 senior members of the medical profession. Yesterday, I received a letter from the chairman of the British Medical Association's general medical services committee beginning, "Dear Richard", in which he wrote to express his personal pleasure at our discussions, saying how constructive they were, and how little acrimony there was. A large number of those working in the professions accept that there are many good points in our proposals and wish to work with the Government in implementing them.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the campaign of misinformation and distortion against the White Paper, which is causing great fear among the most vulnerable in the community, was brought to an end?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, Sir.
    Ms. Mowlam: Has the Minister received any representations from the plastic surgery unit at the Ulster hospital in Dundonald? If, as the White Paper suggests, the patients at that hospital are among those for whom the Government are meant to be working, why are the Government allowing one third of the 60 beds there to be closed, when there are more than 3,000 people waiting for treatment?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Lady knows, what happens in the Ulster hospital is a matter for the Eastern health board. Since I have been Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland, the Government have increased expenditure from £700 million to £950 million. The hon. Lady should go back to her union bosses, with whom she
    454
    is constantly in touch, and suggest that they find more efficient and productive ways of spending the money that we have given them.

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an estimate of the number of teachers needed to implement the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is not possible at this stage to provide such an estimate, but it is not expected that there will be a substantial increase in teacher numbers to implement the national curriculum; there will, however, be a need for specific programmes of in-service training for existing teachers in support of it.
    Mr. Greenway: When does my hon. Friend expect to start implementing the national curriculum and by what date does he expect the implementation to be completed? What is he doing to recruit and train the additional teachers, whom he mentioned were necessary?
    Dr. Mawhinney: We hope to introduce the first programmes of study in September 1990, and £30 million will be set aside over the next three years to support the implementation of the national curriculum—including the retraining of teachers to which my hon. Friend referred.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to consider British Rail's proposals for the Channel tunnel rail link? Will she note that Britis;h Rail intends to send every passenger and piece of freight through central London, regardless of their ultimate destination in the United Kingdom? In view of the congestion of traffic in London and its impact on the Warwick gardens area of my Dulwich constituency, and the importance of the proposals to the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, does my right hon. Friend agree that these matters are far too important to be left to the haphazard and ramshackle private Bill procedure, and should be scrutinised by a full public inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but it is British Rail's responsibility to decide the best route for international rail passenger and freight traffic. It has no alternative but to proceed by way of the vprivate Bill procedure. I do not accept that such a procedure is inferior to a public inquiry. British Rail will have to convince Parliament that it has taken the right decisions, and it is right that Parliament should consider such a project, not least for the reasons given by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister understand that Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country will regard her decision to force through her identity card scheme to be an offence against common sense and common decency? In the aftermath of the terrible tragedy last Saturday, how can the right hon. Lady put the safety of others second to her own pride?
    The Prime Minister: I noted the way in which the right hon. Gentleman asked his questions. I would be grateful to him and the House if I could make one or two points— which are relevant to a decision—[Interruption.] I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's question, which was put very sharply. May I answer his points?
    First, the decision we are asked to take is against the background of four decades of problems with crowd safety and two decades of hooliganism—nearly 300 people have died, and we have the worst record in the developed world. To refuse to pass in this Session the Bill to deal with problems which have already been identified, and then leave ourselves with no vehicle by which to respond immediately to the lessons from Hillsborough—including all-seating stadiums—would be a very grave decision for the House. A Bill completed in this Session would still be able to take account of any interim recommendations by Lord Justice Taylor. Not to proceed with the Bill this Session would delay by 12 months any response to these grave problems. The World Cup is coming up in 1990— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is a matter about which the whole House wishes to hear.
    The Prime Minister: One part of the Bill—
    Mr. Faulds: Absolute abuse.
    The Prime Minister: I am trying to answer.
    Mr. Faulds: Absolute abuse.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
    The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the very important matter of the "membership scheme" part of the Bill. The Bill itself does not provide such a scheme; it sets up a procedure through which others may propose such a scheme for the Secretary of State's approval. It will then have to be laid before the House. The Bill will not pre-empt any decisions that may be made by Lord Justice Taylor. I do say most earnestly—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and others that the question that hon. Members must ask themselves after two decades of hooliganism is whether they wish to take responsibility for doing nothing for another 12 months.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is right to say that this is a "very important matter". In view of that, she might have done the House the courtesy of saying that she would make a full statement, so that she could be cross-examined. In the absence of such a statement, let me say to the Prime Minister that it is five days since the Hillsborough disaster, four days since she went to the Leppings lane pen and three days since she set up the Taylor inquiry. Now she is already undermining that
    456
    inquiry. Does she not realise that by pressing ahead with her legislation she is effectively putting the vital question of identity cards off limits to Lord Justice Taylor?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can quite have heard what I said, or listened to it. The timetable easily permits anything that Lord Justice Taylor may propose to be taken into account, because the Bill does not provide a national membership scheme.
    I suggest that the question that the House must ask itself, and on which it must reflect very carefully—that includes the right hon. Gentleman—is whether it positively wishes, in the face of the country's record of hooliganism and its reputation, to delay for 12 months and do nothing when confronted by the deaths that we have recently seen.
    Mr. Kinnock: No one is in favour of doing nothing, but what we want is effective action for crowd safety as well as for football security. The Prime Minister does not understand that. Does she not realise that she can have either what she calls an enabling Bill, or a no-holds-barred inquiry, but she cannot have both? Her course is full of utter inconsistency, as well as great vanity.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman treats this measure with the seriousness that it deserves. The purpose of the Bill is not only to control the admission of spectators by means of a procedure for a national membership scheme; it also involves licences to admit spectators. I thought that the whole House agreed with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when we suggested that in future we must have all-seat stadiums. Without a Bill we shall have no possible way of bringing that into effect.
    The proposals in the Bill were considered by Mr. Justice Popplewell, recommended in this interim report and confirmed in his final report. They are not being rushed. The final report was three years ago. I suggest that the House should not delay a legislative measure to enable us to take advantage of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations for another 12 months, and that it would be negligent to do so.
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend agree that recent inward investment decisions show that foreign companies have a long-term commitment to the United Kingdom and confidence in its economic prospects and in the policies of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Very recently we have seen three big inward investments in this country, Fujitsu in the north-east, Bosch in Wales and Toyota in Derbyshire. That is very good news. It shows that overseas companies recognise the attractions of doing business in this country. I should also point out that British companies, too, are very active in making overseas investments. We live in a global competitive trading environment and it is important that we, too, invest in other countries. So, in both ways, investment is going very well.
    Rev. Martn Smyth: Is the Prime Minister aware, as the nation is, that the people of Northern Ireland have for some time been concerned about the undermanning in the

    457
    Army regiments on duty, particularly in frontier areas? This has now been publicly confirmed. Wil she tell the House what steps are now being taken to give adequate protection, along the frontier in particular?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is considering the problems which may arise over recruitment because of the period of demographic change that we will enter when there will be fewer school leavers. The problem is not yet serious. My right hon. Friend is considering measures to increase recruitment, and we are also considering, and hope to be in a position to say something about it shortly, the decision on the Gurkhas. We will keep the needs of Northern Ireland very much in mind.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many small businesses the single European market will be truly meaningful only when it is as easy to sell into France or Germany as into the United Kingdom but that at the moment the complex customs documentation is a major deterrent? What progress is being made in simplifying or, preferably, eliminating the paper work?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the single European market offers great opportunities for small companies which have often made for themselves a particular niche in the market and should, therefore, be able to sell widely into Europe. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already introduced a single administrative document which should help these companies very considerably, compared with the previous multiplicity of such documents, and we are considering further whether we can eliminate the need for such documents after 1992. That will depend on the arrangements made for that. We will look at it very carefully.
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Prime Minister recall that some time ago I asked her about the social, economic and family factors behind the rising number of young homeless? Is she aware that many are being charged under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which made poverty a crime? Is not the
    458
    most graphic illustration of the inherent sickness of her market-led society the rising trend of calls to the Samaritans, 7 per cent, of which are from under 15s and 25 per cent. are from those aged 16 to 24? Will she not now reverse the policies of cuts in benefits to young people, her introduction of student loans and that family-splitting device, the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it perfectly clear that where young people are in genuine difficulty with their families interim arrangements will be made. I think that that is right. It was, I think, an amendment brought in after the hon. Gentleman first put the question to me. We are putting bed-and-breakfast accommodation on a par with income support and housing benefit. Previously, benefits selectively went to bed and breakfast. I think that that is reasonably fair. There are, of course, far more houses available than there used to be, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in some areas there are more council houses vacant than there are people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We must also give attention to that.
    Mr. Rhodes James: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April 1988.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the continuing and unhappy dispute over the salaries of university teachers? Is she aware that the tactics of the Association of University Teachers have been widely criticised on both sides of the House and within the profession? None the less, there is a real problem that must be resolved. Will she consider today the machinery for the negotiations so that we may end swiftly this lamentable dispute and ensure that such a dispute is never repeated?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the present action by some university teachers is to be deplored. I think that the AUT should have absolutely no public support. People often say that the answer to everything is education, yet here we have the most highly educated section of the community depriving their students of an opportunity that they themselves enjoyed. That could have a fatal effect on the future careers of those students. My hon. Friend suggested that there might be alternative methods and alternative machinery. No convincing proposals have been put forward by the negotiating parties concerned. If they were put forward, we would consider them.

Cormorant Alpha Platform (Explosion)
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Doran(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the explosion on the Cormorant Alpha platform, the consequent reduction in Britain's oil production and the implications for the price of petrol.
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Cormorant Alpha is both a production platform and the gathering platform for the nine fields in the Brent system, from which the oil is exported to Sullom Voe.
On 18 April, when fitting an emergency shut-down valve on the platform, in accordance with the recommendations of the interim report on the Piper Alpha incident, a gas leak occurred. Shell notified the Department and evacuated non-essential personnel from the platform in accordance with emergency procedures. The leak was repaired but an explosion occurred at 1820 hours. There was no fire or loss of life or injury. The Brent system was shut down as a result of this incident. My inspectors and officials from Shell are now on the platform assessing the damage. Until they have completed this assessment, we cannot estimate how long the system will be shut down.
As a result of this explosion, the loss of production is some 400,000 barrels per day. This amounts to 17 per cent, of United Kingdom daily production.
Petrol prices depend primarily upon crude oil prices and other factors in the world market. Obviously the crucial factor is the total free world oil supply, which runs at approximately 50 million barrels a day. Even though Brent is a crude oil commanding a small premium, production from the Brent field is therefore less than 1 per cent, of world production, and it is impossible to calculate the effect of any temporary shortfall from this field on petrol prices.
Safety is and will remain the first consideration. I can assure the House that every precaution is being taken to ensure that the installation is safe and that my safety directorate will not agree to production start-up until it is satisfied that all safety measures have been taken.
Mr. Doran: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The Opposition welcome the fact that the evacuation of the platform was, apparently, efficient and that there was no loss of life or injury.
Will the Secretary of State publish his report on the investigation that is being carried out into the causes of the explosion so that the lessons that are to be learnt can be learnt? There is obviously a great deal of speculation as to why there was an explosion three hours after the gas leak was noticed at about 3 pm. It is important that we discover the causes.
The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been a string of disasters and accidents in the North sea in the past year, many of which have resulted in substantial losses of production. There have been the Brent Alpha explosion and the Piper Alpha disaster, with tragic loss of life; the Fulmar Auk and Clyde fields were closed at Christmas; the Brent Delta was closed in the new year; the Dunlin platform was closed in February; and now the Cormorant South platform and the Brent system have been closed. I am advised that nearly 40 per cent. of the
460
total oil production in the North sea has been lost as a result of these accumulated breakdowns and shutdowns in production.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the loss of 40 per cent. of oil production is the direct consequence of the cuts in maintenance and safety applied by the oil industry after the fall in oil prices in 1986, and an inadequate inspection of safety by his Department? Is he prepared to allow this state of affairs to continue? Has he considered the cost to the country of those failures in the North sea oil industry? On my estimate, the result of the loss of 40 per cent, of the United Kingdom's oil production will be to add £300 million to £350 million to our monthly balance of trade deficit. That is a huge figure by any standard.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable fears of the consumer who has experienced steep rises in petrol prices since the beginning of the year? Since January, the price of petrol at the pump has risen by 24p a gallon. That is a massive increase in anyone's terms and there are genuine fears that there will be further increases as a result of the latest loss of production.
Will the Secretary of State accept that, as a result of the huge loss of production in the North sea, there is no justification for further increases in petrol prices? Does he recognise that the loss of production and consequent increase in oil price is caused by inadequate safety procedures or negligence on the part of the oil industry, and that the industry should bear the cost as part of its normal commercial risk? The cost should not be borne by the already hard-pressed consumer. We know that, if the temporary increases in prices resulting from this shutdown are used by the oil industry to increase petrol and other prices, it is very unlikely to reduce prices when oil prices stabilise. Will he use his good offices with the oil industry to protect the consumer against unnecessary price increases?
Mr. Parkinson: On the first question, we shall make sure that any lessons to be learned from the incident are widely disseminated throughout the industry as quickly as possible, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to publish the report. As he knows, such reports can be used as the basis of prosecution if that is necessary. I cannot prejudge that, and I am not suggesting that there will be prosecutions, but that is a reason why we do not publish. But we shall publish any lessons and make sure that the information is disseminated as quickly as possible.
May I put the hon. Gentleman right, marginally, on the figure that he quoted? We have lost a great deal of production, but it is not 40 per cent. We calculate that it is about 31 per cent.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the hon. Gentleman's smear on the industry in saying that the accident was a result of cuts in maintenance and safety. I further repudiate the idea that the rigs are not being properly inspected. The rig involved, and all the others, have been inspected, some within the past few months.
The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the effect on the balance of payments. Our best estimate—it is not possible to give a particularly accurate estimate as we do not know how long the platform will be out, but assuming four to six weeks-the effect on the current account could be up £800 million this year.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, price increases are being investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission,

461
which will look at the recent price increases as it looked at the increases earlier this month. Prices have moved broadly in line with the increase in world oil prices in the past few months. World oil prices have risen by about 70 per cent, during that time, and prices have moved in roughly the same direction. I am not prejudging that, as it is a matter for the MMC which is investigating the matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be impossible to eliminate risk completely in an area like the North sea where oil is being extracted? The important thing is to learn the lessons and to implement the measures that result from the inquiries. That the Government have pledged to do. Those of us who are interested in the North sea are appreciative of that. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) about concern in the Highland area of Scotland, where it seems that the £2 per gallon price for petrol will happen tomorrow? That is causing great concern. The oil companies claim that problems in the North sea lie behind some of the price increases.
Mr. Parkinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is not possible to eliminate all risk from operations in the North sea, any more than it is possible to eliminate them from the coal industry or any other energy industry. That is no excuse for not making every effort to ensure that a dangerous job is carried out safely. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), petrol prices have moved broadly in line with the increases in crude oil prices. There are other pressures on the market. There is an especially large increase in demand from the United States, which is putting further pressure on gasoline prices. I am sure that petrol companies will hear what my hon. Friend has said and will recognise that price increases are extremely unpopular.
Mr. David Steel: Can the Secretary of State say anything more about the disruptive effect of the explosion on work at the Sullom Voe terminal in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? On petrol prices, the Secretary of State will remember that it is only a few weeks since the Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, told us that he would not increase excise duties because of the effect on inflation. Since then, the price of petrol has gone up by about 8p a gallon. When do the Government expect to get the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the Secretary of State, together with the Chancellor, seek to intervene to make sure that the price of petrol does not go through the £2 barrier?
Mr. Parkinson: As to Sullom Voe, the loss of production represents a flow of oil that will not get there and will not be processed. We hope that the loss will be temporary and that production will be back on stream as soon as possible. A period of a few weeks has been mentioned. There can be no certainty about that until the full scale of the damage has been investigated. My officials spoke to the inspector on the platform less than an hour ago. It does not appear that there is any structural damage, but it is too soon to give a full assessment of the damage and therefore to be able to assess when it will be back on
462
stream. Obviously everybody, subject to the demands of safety, will do everything possible to get it back on stream quickly.
The MMC will report when it has finished its work. I cannot put a date on it. The commission recognises, as do the oil companies, that there is great public interest in the matter, and it will make every effort to report as soon as possible.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the Budget, the oil companies have given every impression of operating a cartel on retail prices? If it is true, as my right hon. Friend says, that retail prices are following the price of crude oil, and if, as a result of the incident in the North sea and the consequent increase in the price of Brent crude to $20, there is another increase in the retail price, will he try to ensure that, when the price comes down, as it surely will, there is a corresponding fall in the retail price of petrol?
Mr. Parkinson: The MMC is investigating precisely the cartel whose existence my hon. Friend alleges and the oil companies deny. I do not think that I can anticipate the report.
Mr. Greville Janner: Recognising the series of grave and potentially dangerous incidents on North sea oil platforms and rigs, with the Piper Alpha disaster leading to vast loss of life, is it not time that the Department of Energy handed over responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Commission? Is the Minister aware that nearly all the serious tragedies that have occurred recently—in the North sea, at Zeebrugge and at King's Cross—have been in areas where the Health and Safety Commission has been barred from looking into safety until there has been an accident? It has only been brought in afterwards.
Mr. Parkinson: Surprisingly and unusually, the hon. and learned Gentleman has misled the House about the legal position. The Health and Safety Commission has a responsibility for safety and delegates it by agreement and under contract to my inspectorate. Moreover, there is no evidence that separating the inspectorate from my Dapartment would change matters. Although the Opposition consistently say that the same Department should not be in charge of both production and safety, they then draw our attention to the Norwegian arrangements, which are precisely the same: the Norwegian operator is responsible for both production and safety. We do not accept that there is any substance to the hon. and learned Gentleman's allegations. This matter is being considered by Lord Cullen and I have committed the Government to accepting his recommendations. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman awaits that report.
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Ewing.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not now.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although the Secretary of State has referred to the safety checks that are conducted on the platforms and the rigs, how extensive are those safety checks, how long does each one last and what is the expenditure on them? As we are now in the third decade of production in the North sea and the age factor

463
must be taken into account, is any emphasis given to the age of platforms? Will the Secretary of State accept that we all welcome the fact that the safety directorate will not open production until it is satisfied that the standard of safety is appropriate, because production and profit pale into insignificance when placed against potential loss of life?
Mr. Parkinson: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's last point about safety. Indeed, I stressed in my statement that safety is absolutely pre-eminent and no risks will be taken. No permission to operate the platform will be given unless my inspectorate is satisfied.
On the hon. Lady's first point about safety checks, the duty to operate a platform safely 24 hours a day is a duty that Parliament has placed on the operator. My inspectorate is not responsible for safety; the operator is. My inspectorate makes regular visits to ensure that the operator is carrying out that duty. Therefore, it is not fair to put all the responsibility on an official who visits occasionally when it is the operator's duty to ensure that safety is the prime consideration.
So far as the age of platforms is concerned, quite separately from the regular inspections, the certifying authority, which is an independent body, has to give a regular certificate that the platform is safe. The certifying authority supervises the design and construction and subsequently, at regular intervals, has to renew the certificate. That examination is quite independent of my Department. As the Department of Transport is responsible for the movement of people to and from the platforms, the evacuation equipment is inspected by that Department independently. A series of checks and balances is therefore built into the system.

Business of the House
3.58 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
Motion on the Food (Northern Ireland) Order, which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 25 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Motion relating to the Mines (Safety of Exit) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 26 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 27 APRIL—Second Reading of the Children Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 28 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that the Government have today published the Bill to outlaw the sale of human kidneys, which is the product of no fewer than four years of laborious drafting by the Department of Health since we originally asked for such a law to be introduced?
When are we likely to get the long-promised debate —in Government time—on the future of the National Health Service, and when will we have the even longer-promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute student loans for student grants?
Because of the growing concern about the scale and nature of the Government publicity machine and about the propriety of those who are running it, and growing concern among civil servants about the increasing party politicisation of that machine, will the Leader of the House speak to Mr. Bernard Ingham and ask him nicely whether we can have a debate about it in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions.
I am 99·9 per cent. certain that the Human Organ Transplants Bill has been published today, but it will certainly be published this week. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition for the discussions that we have had to facilitate a speedy passage of that important measure.
We have just had a debate on the National Health Service, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman last week, the House will wish to return to that matter. I cannot, however, promise a debate in the immediate future.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would not have made the mistake of saying that the Government were proposing to substitute student loans for student grants. The proposal, which is still being discussed, is for top-up loans for students. I believe that the most sensible time for a debate is when the discussions have been completed with the banks and other institutions about the way in which the loans will be administered.
I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman phrased his last question. I do not accept or recognise the abuses to which he referred. Therefore, the rest of the question does not follow.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. Friend said that we had just had a debate on the National Health Service, but he must recognise that that three-hour debate, of which the leader of the SDP took up 46 minutes, was highly unsatisfactory and that we need a full-scale debate on the Government's White Paper before the consultation deadline runs out. Will my right hon. Friend take particular note of the fact that Members on both sides of the House have substantial misgivings about certain aspects of the White Paper's proposals, especially as they affect doctors? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on this occasion at least, the Government will be willing to listen and to act upon constructive suggestions?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend seeks to encourage me, but the sting in his tail is not acceptable. The Government listen; when they have consultations, they mean consultations, and when they issue papers, they expect views. I cannot add anything further to what I have already said. I agree that Tuesday's debate was not an adequate substitute for a full-scale debate, which I will arrange as soon as I can find the time.
Mr. Michael Foot: I join those who have demanded that there should be a debate in Government time on the National Health Service.
The right hon. Gentleman must have been present in the House a few minutes ago. Does he not recognise how objectionable it was to the House and to its procedures —he must have been a party to it—that, instead of making a proper statement about the Government's proposals for the Football Spectators Bill, the Prime Minister should have chosen to tell us in response to a question? As there does not appear to be a single Member of the Cabinet who is capable of standing up to the Prime Minister on the subject—as she alone appears to be responsible for it— when will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for her to come to the House and answer questions from Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The Home Secretary made a statement at the beginning of the week. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) asked a question and I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a very full and good answer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. When my right hon. Friend does not, in the opinion of the Opposition, give a full answer, they complain; when she does, they do not like it either.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that before a final decision is taken on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the brewing industry—the consequences of which may be different from those envisaged by the commission—there will be a full debate in this House?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering the report; I have nothing further to add, except that I note what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the powers of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive? Among other things, that debate would give the Secretary of State for Energy the opportunity to apologise for accusing me of misleading the House when I am sure that
466
he did not intend to do so. I stated—as was and is the case —that the Department of Energy has responsibility for safety on offshore oil rigs and that the Health and Safety Commission has not; that is all I said. That is absolutely correct, but it is wrong that that responsibility should remain with the Department when there have been a series of actual and potential disasters perilous to the life of the people who work on the rigs and dangerous to the production of oil from those rigs.
Can the opportunity be given to the Minister to resign, to apologise, and thirdly, the easiest step, to ask the Health and Safety Commission whether it will resume those powers regarding the inspection of rigs, which would make people and production safer?
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. and learned Gentleman started asking his question I had some sympathy with him, but, by the time he had finished his speech, I thought the need for a debate was not so necessary. There appears to be a difference between the hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend—I am on the side of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my hon. Friends will have been pleased to hear from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the rigid timetable for the Football Spectators Bill has now been dropped? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that many of my colleagues remain somewhat worried about that largely unloved Bill and believe that alternative measures should have been brought before the House in the new Session? Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to have a debate on football before the Bill's Second Reading, so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to discuss the matter? If the legislation is to be amended as much as anticipated, the House will be far better informed as a result of such a debate on the Floor.
Mr. Wakeham: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said was that it would be a grave step for the House to lose the opportunity of putting into legislative effect any proposals that Lord Justice Taylor might make and to cause those recommendations to be delayed for a further 12 months. It is clear that, during the course of this Session, there is time to make progress on the Bill, and not to finalise it until we have had time to consider what it is hoped will be important recommendations.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I endorse what has been said by hon. Members from both sides of the House about the need for a debate on the National Health Service in Government time. Is the Leader of the House aware that the funding of the Equal Opportunities Commission has not kept pace with inflation, which means that the decline in resources is damaging to women who do not have a full opportunity to use the services of that commission? May we have a debate on that next week, please?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate next week, and I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on the Equal Opportunities Commission. I believe that it does a good job and that its work should be supported.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is customary to debate a

467
White Paper and that, therefore, the White Paper on the National Health Service would seem to be such a subject for debate? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that particular White Paper has green edges and is something of a consultation document? Therefore, as the consultation period ends at the end of May, we should have a debate before that date.
Mr. Wakeham: I promised the House that we will have a debate, but I have been unable to go firm on when that debate will be. It certainly will be before we introduce legislation to enact any matters that flow from the White Paper.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Leader of the House agree that there should be an opportunity to debate how the Department of Transport handles the coastguard service? It is of great importance to all right hon. and hon. Members, given that its efficiency affects the lives and livelihoods of so many of our constituents. Is he aware that, yesterday, the Department of Transport issued a public information bulletin affecting the Aberdeen district of the north-east of Scotland? That bulletin said that the Department was going to downgrade the Lossiemouth coastguard station and change it into a voluntary, part-time unit. Later in the day, the Department had to apologise for making an error in its bulletin. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a loss of confidence in how the Department handles the service and that it is important for hon. Members to have the opportunity to raise this matter in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Lady that this is an important subject. If there has been a mistake, I apologise on behalf of my colleagues who might have made it. I will draw the hon. Lady's point to their attention. I wish that I could promise an early debate, but I cannot. Of course, the hon. Lady may find other ways to raise the matter.
Mr. Neil Thorne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 499 which refers to the GEC-Siemens bid for the Plessey company?
[That this House notes with grave concern the revised proposals put forward by GEC and Siemens for the dismemberment of The Plessey Company; believes that these proposals deprive the Government of United Kingdom competitive tendering in the fields of avionics, naval systems, radar and defence systems; that they will consign the United Kingdom's leading radar and army communications command and control suppliers, not to mention a number of highly secure programmes, to foreign ownership, that they will deprive the United Kingdom's telecommunications manufacturing industry of access to the lucrative West Germany market; that they will effectively transfer the leading edge of the United Kingdom semiconductor industry, together with its associated jobs and skills to West Germany and that the predator companies have prostituted the principles of the Single European Market in a collusive bid to eliminate a competitor; and calls on the Secretary of State to give due weight to these factors when he considers the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on this matter in due course.]
My right hon. Friend will remember that I drew third place in the ballot for private Members' motions, but mine
468
was not reached on that occasion. I am most anxious that this sort of matter should be debated under the system whereby legislation can be brought in which is inappropriate for an Adjournment debate. In these cases, hostile bids are being introduced very soon after an original bid and that occupies a company in no less than six to nine months of top management effort. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has turned down something once, is it right that it should be resuscitated so quickly? That drains a company's resources.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important matter involving matters of general principle in addition to the particular case about which he is concerned. As he knows, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently considering the report and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on the matter or to have a debate in this House in advance of publication. The announcement by the European Commission yesterday does not prejudice the position of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Allen McKay: At the beginning of the year, the Secretary of State for Employment, I believe, suspended section 4 grants for the promotion of tourism, until a review had taken place. I understand that the report has now been completed. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that report is published and that a copy is placed in the Library? Will he ask the Secretary of State to reinstate section 4 grants for the promotion of tourism, as their absence is interfering with the work of the national parks and local authorities? If not, could we have a statement explaining why they are not to be reinstated and why the report is not to be published?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer on that point without referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, I will do that and ask what the position is.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the long title of the Football Spectators Bill will actually allow the implementation of the kind of recommendations which might flow from Lord Justice Taylor's report? Is he satisfied, therefore, that the policy that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put forward is workable?
Mr. Wakeham: These are matters on which there are greater experts than I. The advice that I have received is that, yes, it would be a suitable vehicle. That is on certain broad assumptions about the type of recommendations which might come forward, but I think that the answer is yes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether he had a long discussion about the Football Spectators Bill at the Cabinet meeting this morning? He need not tell me everything, but did people object or did they just go along with the Prime Minister? Did she just come along and swing her handbag and all the 20 members of the Cabinet toed the line? Is anyone keeping a diary of the events, or is it all left to Bernard Ingham? With the reshuffle coming very shortly and with the Leader of the House having been mentioned in dispatches as one of the likely casualties, I

469
suggest that it is time to get something on paper before he is kicked out. There is no point in being sacked with just a whimper.
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman has television on the brain, that is his problem. I can understand that the hard work which Parliament does week in week out, with interventions from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sometimes from a sedentary position, sometimes not, but mostly ill-informed —is not as exciting as me giving details of what happens at Cabinet meetings. I can understand that that would be a more exciting debate, but I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Greenway: While we are talking about women, may I ask whether we could have an early debate on self-defence courses for women so that I may raise in the House the objections, on the grounds of discrimination, of a very large number of men and women in my constituency, and in the rest of the borough of Ealing, to the fact that Ealing council is to use ratepayers' money to provide a self-defence course, for six weeks in May and June, for lesbian women only? May we have a discussion on this discriminatory proposal?
Mr. Wakeham: As happens from time to time, my hon. Friend brings forth from Ealing some strange matters for the attention of the House. He shares with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a fervent imagination about what might produce an exciting debate in the House, but I cannot promise him a debate next week either.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the business until, effectively, 2 May, would he care to think again about the timetable that the Lord Chancellor has imposed on the Green Papers on reform of legal services? This means that the Green Papers will not be debated in this House before the initial closure date. Bearing in mind the fact that the Lord Chancellor has agreed to meet the judges in mid-May, obviously time for consultation has been extended. It would be quite wrong if the Green Papers, which are said to be White Papers with green edges, were not to be debated in this House before the matter was considered further. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance that, towards the latter part of May, Government time will be given for a debate on the whole question of the reform of legal services.
Mr. Wakeham: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As I have said in previous weeks, of course this matter will be debated, but I cannot promise a debate on the Green Papers themselves. Obviously, any proposals will be debated. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Since today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Herr Hitler, would my right hon. Friend warn Mr. Delors that the last attempt to thrust union on an unwilling Europe was defeated, largely by a combination of the will power of the British Prime Minister alongside the determination of the British people?
Mr. Tony Banks: And the Soviet Union.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not keep a record of the dates of Adolf Hitler's birthday and events of that sort. I have enough to do to remember my own children's birthdays, without bothering with that sort of nonsense. On reflection, my hon. Friend may agree that he was probably a little unfair to Mr. Delors. Although we may disagree with Mr. Delors's recent proposals, I think that my hon. Friend pushes the point just a little too far.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I, from these Benches, endorse the plea for a debate on the Health Service, bearing in mind the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was unable to say that anyone had given an unreserved welcome to the Government's proposals?
Is there a possibility that in the near future there will be a statement or a debate on the armed services? I had understood that there might be one next week, but obviously one has not been arranged. Is there a possibility of our having such a debate in the near future, especially as—this is something that we in Northern Ireland have known for some time—undermanning in the armed forces, particularly the Army, stems not simply from a recruitment miscalculation but from the failure, over a number of years, to deploy forces at full strength?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question about the level of forces, and I recall that the position was not quite as the hon. Gentleman put it. He has asked me whether there will be a debate. Yes, there will be a debate in the not-too-distant future, and I hope that he will have an opportunity then to make his point at greater length.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that there should be a debate in this House on the reform of the legal services, if only to give a more balanced view than that conveyed by the debate in another place and by the inept behaviour of the judges?
Mr. Wakeham: There are two ways of looking at that. I would welcome a debate, particularly if we could have some level-headed contributions of the sort that my hem. Friend would make. I wish that I could find the time, but I do not think that I can just at the moment.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of district councils in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire, including the county council and my own Ashfield district council, had a massive debate on mining subsidence in the county? A report has now been submitted which shows that hundreds and hundreds of properties are being severely damaged, yet British Coal is not prepared to accept responsibility. We have had discussions on that before in the House, but it is high time that we had a proper debate so that we can sort out the problem once and for all—it affects hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—so that those who are getting an unfair deal get a fair deal. I am on my bended knees to the Leader of the House to do something about that.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is always very persuasive, but I have a suspicion that that matter is more properly directed to British Coal's management than to the House. There are occasions when mining matters are raised in the House. There is one next Tuesday, but it does

471
not seem wholly appropriate. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate, but I shall check that he is receiving proper answers to his letters from British Coal.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has ever had an office in 2 Abbey garden or 7 Old Palace yard, but if he has he will know that crossing Millbank is extremely dangerous. I have taken that matter up with the Department of Transport and Westminster city council. The Department of Transport says that Westminster city council is busy drawing up a scheme for Parliament square and Westminster city council says that in drawing up its scheme it is in consultation with the Department of Transport. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to knock together a head from the Department of Transport and a head from Westminster city council to try to ensure that Members of Parliament and their staff going to and fro between the House and their offices can cross that lethal road in safety?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall look into the matter and see whether I can do anything to help, on condition that in the meantime my hon. Friend takes great care in crossing the road, because we do not want a by-election in his constituency.
Mr. Max Madden: If the Leader of the House cannot persuade the Prime Minister to come to the House to defend her stubborn stupidity in ploughing on with the football identity card scheme, will he arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement next week explaining how the Taylor inquiry will be conducted? If the inquiry's interim report will be central to the Bill, as we understand it will, a statement from the Home Secretary would tell us whether Lord Justice Taylor knew of today's decision before he accepted the chairmanship of the inquiry, whether he intends to visit other football grounds where tragedies have taken place, including Bradford City, and whether he will make himself available to football supporters in many places throughout Britain and visit clubs in all divisions. It is important that all those points are made clear in a statement next week so that we know precisely how the inquiry will be conducted.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Leaving on one side for the moment his totally unjustified remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he would be the first to complain if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to the House and made a statement on how Lord Justice Taylor was to conduct his inquiry. Lord Justice Taylor will decide how to conduct his inquiry. He has been given terms of reference. I have no doubt that he will do an extremely good job and he does not need advice from the hon. Gentleman or anybody else. He will choose the method that he thinks is appropriate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern about the continuing destruction of the tropical rain forests around the world, in which contributory factors are the economic policies adopted by western Europe and the United States and the pressure put on countries with tropical rain forests by the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the EC?
472
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a full debate about this subject and about the serious climatic changes caused by the destruction of the world's rain forests so that this country can make a contribution towards protecting the world's environment rather than contributing to its destruction?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a serious problem which it would be appropriate for the House to debate. I do not accept his analysis of where the blame lies. The British Government, through the Overseas Development Administration, are doing their best to make a helpful contribution. I should like to arrange a debate, but I cannot promise one in the near future.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that a Roman site of great significance has been uncovered in Upper Thames street? It is said to be the site of a former Roman governor of London, Julius Agricola. Less than six weeks remain in which to survey the site, under present legislation, before it is destroyed for ever. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that it is a site of great importance? Will he make representations to the Department of the Environment, because it appears that current legislation is woefully inadequate to enable sites such as this to be protected? Will he arrange for an early debate so that we may discuss the preservation of sites of archaeological interest?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that the remains of one of his distinguished predecessors, a governor of London, should be properly looked after and preserved. I recognise the serious point of his question and I shall refer it to those who can give him a better answer than I can.
Mr. Ashley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw a comment that he made a short while ago? I asked for funds for the fine work of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the right hon. Gentleman replied accusing me of attacking the commission. He must have completely misunderstood my question. Will he withdraw his accusation?
Mr. Wakeham: I did not think I attacked the right hon. Gentleman in any way. Indeed, I thought I used words which were in support of the Equal Opportunities Commission. But I withdraw anything that I might have said inadvertently. The last thing I would wish to do is upset the right hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can assist me and other Members in defining the difference between the answer to a quesion and a statement. This afternoon, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister took in excess of four minutes, in effect more than 25 per cent, of the time allotted to questions to the Prime Minister. If ordinary Members are to be given an opportunity to ask pertinent and relevant questions of the Prime Minister, it seems an abuse of the process of the House for the right hon. Lady in answering a question to take more than 25 per cent, of the time available.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for whether statements are made and I had no request today for a

473
question on that matter. We reached question No. 6 today, which is about average for Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for you to extend injury time if the usual pattern of the House is abused so that Members wishing to put questions may have an opportunity to put them if a long time is taken, even by the Prime Minister, to answer a question?
Mr. Speaker: As I said, we reached question No. 6, which is about average for Prime Minister's Question Time. It is not unprecedented for fewer questions to be reached when a series of questions fom the Leader of the Opposition leads to long answers.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I will take next the point that I understand the Hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) wishes to raise with me.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably know that, for some months, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have been refusing to answer letters from Members inquiring about entry clearance cases and other matters and that they have been referring them for reply to officials. Since this procedure began, I have been tabling large numbers of parliamentary questions about entry clearance matters, reunifying families and so on. I was alarmed recently to receive a reply from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to three such questions telling me:
"In accordance with the recent guidelines on the Handling of Representations by Members of Parliament in Immigration Cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the Correspondence Unit of Migration and Visa Department of the FCO. The hon. Member will receive a reply from them in due course."
Given that Ministers refuse to answer letters from right hon. and hon. Members, it is a bit much for them to refuse also to answer parliamentary questions but to refer them to officials—especially since those questions reveal a catalogue of incredible incompetence and bungling in the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the British embassy in Islamabad. I can well understand why Ministers do not want to answer such parliamentary questions, but can you, Mr. Speaker, persuade them to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I am often asked if I can bring pressure on the Government to alter answers or to give different answers, but that is not my function. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), Mr. Speaker. Recently, the Select Committee on Procedure reported on various aspects of disorder and misbehaviour in the House, and on right hon. and hon. Members who exploit opportunities that are open to them but which are in effect an abuse of the House. The Procedure Committee roundly denounced those practices—as you, Mr. Speaker, do, both in the House and when you give radio or television interviews. However, today we saw a clear abuse by the Prime Minister of her position in the House.
474
If we are to seek all-party support for upbraiding right hon. and hon. Members who wrongly exploit their position in the House, it must apply to all. Today, you could see from your seat, Mr. Speaker, as I could from mine, that the Prime Minister arrived armed with a two-page statement on the Football Spectators Bill, which she proceeded to read word for word. If that had been done by a junior Minister, you would have pulled that Minister up and called him or her to order.
Mr. Speaker: But today, the Prime Minister's response was to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot be held responsible for what was said in reply.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to your reply to my earlier point of order, I say with great respect that it is not the number of the question on the Order Paper reached that matters, but the total number of questions asked. When a statement is made or a very long answer given, surely it is within your powers, Mr. Speaker, to intervene—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did intervene. I said, "This; is Question Time."
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can remember, as I am sure you can, when questions from the Leader of the Opposition seemed as though they lasted for as long as four minutes. Opposition Members did not complain then, so what is sauce for the gander is surely sauce for the goose.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have a very heavy day ahead of us. Is it a fresh and helpful point of order?
Mr. Skinner: I believe that I know the reason why the Prime Minister speaks at length in that way. Her long-winded statements always occur on a Thursday. The clue lies in the fact that, on Thursdays, the Prime Minister meets the Cabinet and throws her weight about there. She does what she likes, making long-winded statements to which nobody replies. Then she comes to the House and forgets where she is.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let us be fair about this. I do not raise many points of order, because you cannot see me from your place. When I put my question to the Leader of the House earlier, I thought from the expression on your face that you shared my concern. The Leader of the House said that there will be a mining debate next week. I know all about that debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman misled me in a way, because you, Mr. Speaker, know as well as I do that I shall be unable to raise the problem of subsidence in a debate about pit exits. The Leader of the House is not really being fair to me. I asked for help, and I have not received any. My right hon. Friend left me drowning in the pond.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he tries an Adjournment debate.

BILL PRESENTED
  HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS
  Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to prohibit commercial dealings in human organs intended for transplanting; to restrict the transplanting of such organs between persons who are not genetically related; and for supplementary purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Private Bill Procedure
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
[Relevant document: Report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure (HC625 of Session 1987–88).]
4.24 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Anyone coming across private Bill procedure for the first time could be excused for wondering what this apparently arcane, complex procedure is all about and how it relates to public business. The fact that "Erskine May" devotes some 200 pages to explaining its intricacies only adds to the mystery and many may be put off from involving themselves further. I know, however, that this does not apply to the Joint Committee whose report is before the House. The complexities of the procedure, the fact that it is over 30 years since the topic was last examined and the wider implications of the whole subject—which are not always readily apparent—have not made this an easy task. But this is a really important report and it provides an admirable basis for our debate.
It may be helpful if I say how I propose to proceed. As I have said when various hon. Members have asked me to arrange this debate, I wish to hear the views of the House on the Joint Committee's report. But the House will wish to hear the Government's initial thinking. I have had the benefit of informal talks with a number of hon. Members and that has helped to clarify my thinking on this complex subject. I am not concerned with individual Bills, nor do I want to dwell on problems from the past. With the permission of the House I intend to speak briefly at the end of the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not respond in detail to all the points raised. The complexity of all this means that it is important to reflect very carefully before we introduce any changes.
Before proceeding further, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the other members of the Joint Committee, including those from another place. My hon. Friend brings a unique set of qualities with him. We think of his clear vision, personal charm and long experience in the House. But, above all, he brings an immense knowledge to this subject, including the expertise developed in piloting—if that is the right metaphor—various British Rail Bills through the House.
The report begins with a quotation from "Erskine May":
"Private legislation is legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons … in excess of or in conflict with the general law."
I note that the Chairman of Ways and Means also used that quotation in his memorandum to the Joint Committee. In any consideration of private Bills and the procedure for their enactment, we should not lose sight of that. The fact that private Bills are for the interest or benefit of one or several persons, a group or some public or private body, means that they may also be to the detriment of others. But it is also clear what private Bills are not. They are not a means of giving any additional powers to the Government. Any Bill that included such provisions would be classified as a hybrid Bill and would be subject to a different procedure.

477
With that consideration in mind I wish to place on record my appreciation of the role of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker). I do not think the part played by the Chairman of Ways and Means in private Bills is always fully recognised. It includes supervision of private Bills in this House, appointing the various stages and finding time for opposed private business to be debated. All that has to be done in an impartial way, having regard to both promoters and petitioners, the effect on the time available for public business on the Floor of the House and—it goes without saying—without regard to personal, party or constituency interests. The House is fortunate that it can call on hon. Members such as the right hon. Gentleman who have had a vigorous life in party politics and who hold strong personal views on political questions, but who are able to set all that aside when it comes to filling the posts in our House that depend on utter integrity and impartiality. I know that the House would wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all that he does in his very distinguished office. I know that the House will understand why he is not with us for today's debate.
Turning to the Joint Committee's report, perhaps I can make two general points at the outset. First, I would repeat the point I made in my written evidence to the Joint Committee, that I welcome procedural streamlining which lessens the demand on Members but retains the essential rights and safeguards for promoters and petitioners. Secondly, on the whole, the existing arrangements have served us very well and we should not lightly contemplate major change, especially where the effect would be to remove or lessen parliamentary control.
The Joint Committee's report is a radical reappraisal of the whole place of private Bill procedure at the end of the 20th century. It challenges many assumptions in a refreshing and valuable way, and if its recommendations were implemented in full, the map of private Bill procedure would be largely redrawn. The report demands the most serious consideration, and the views of the House will be especially significant in that process.
The Joint Committee's recommendations can be conveniently split into four groups. Within those groups, some of the proposed changes could be brought about only by legislation and some only by amendments to Standing Orders, while others might be termed exhortations for a change or improvement in practice.
The first group of recommendations are of general application. They would reduce the range of private legislation by restricting it to matters that could not be handled in any other way, and by diverting matters that could be pursued by other means into those channels. That would apply where planning considerations were dominant and/or where the primary purpose of a private Bill could be achieved by other means.
We sympathise with the wish of the Joint Committee to impose greater discipline on promoters of private Bills, but I suggest that that should not be at the cost of constructing procedures that are too rigid. Every private Bill must contain an averment that the purposes of the Bill cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament. It has, I know, become customary for promoters to include in their Bills a range of measures—some of which require parliamentary authorisation and some of which do not —and thereby present a complete package to Parliament. I can well understand why that should be so: it could be cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming always to
478
insist that two different processes should be complied with. Furthermore, if those different processes came to contradictory conclusions, the promoter might have to start again.
On the other hand, I am well aware of the view that promoters may use private Bills to avoid more expensive and time-consuming procedures, and I entirely agree with the Joint Committee that we should have no sympathy with promoters who simply "try it on". Committees take their duty seriously. The Committee on the recent Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill rejected the Bill, and I have no doubt that parliamentary agents are aware of the implication of that decision.
The Joint Committee also recommended that, when the primary purpose of a Bill can be authorised through other means, those means should be pursued first, leaving Parliament to deal only with the aspects that require parliamentary approval. That proposal marches alongside the recommendation that, where planning considerations are considered dominant, non-parliamentary procedures should be used. Again I see the thought that the Committee is pursuing in its recommendations, but some questions may need to be thought about. Simply deciding the "primary purpose" and determining the "dominant" features may, for example, be matters of subjective judgment, open to dispute and liable to create further delays.
Although action has been taken to speed up inquiry handling times, it remains true that, for a major proposal, non-parliamentary procedures—involving the holding of a public inquiry by an inspector, the preparation of a report and the consideration by Ministers of his decision—can be a very time-consuming process, by contrast with private Bills with similar subject matter. A two-stage process, in which a non-parliamentary inquiry into the "primary purpose" was followed by a private Bill on the secondary aspects, even if it could be made to run smoothly, would inevitably be a long-drawn-out and expensive process. To limit Parliament's consideration to secondary issues could also prove an unacceptable fetter if there were serious doubts within Parliament about the merits of the proposal in principle.
Under the Joint Committee's proposal Parliament would be expected to confine its debate to the narrow subject matter of a Bill, and to abstain from addressing itself to the wider issues already decided by non-parliamentary procedures. While I am sure that this scheme could work well in a number of cases, I cannot help asking myself what might happen if the measure in question were a controversial one. Would hon. Members really keep their own counsel if they had strong views and had been given no earlier chance to express them?
The second batch of recommendations, as I have grouped them, would also include a reduction in the scope of private legislation by the introduction in new primaiy legislation of ministerial order-making powers in respect of various matters relating to railways, trams, highways and harbours to replace the private Bill procedure.
At present, the private Bill procedure is the only way of giving statutory powers for the construction and operation of railway lines of any kind, including trams. If order-making powers on railways were given to the Secretary of State, Parliament would lose its say. The recommendation that railway work should be authorised by an order-making process would require primary legislation. Such a Bill would need to cover not only new

479
order-making powers for British Rail and London Regional Transport Bills but the modernisation of 19th century legislation to deal satisfactorily with the increasing number of light rapid transit schemes that are expected to come forward over the next few years. Consultations would be necessary with the local authority associations on whether local authorities should be empowered to deal with some of the matters now dealt with in private Bills. Other interests, including the operators, would also have to be consulted.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be willing further to consult those concerned if these proposals for legislative change have the clear support of the House. This would, however, be very major and complex legislation and we would need to be satisfied in detail that the alternative arrangements would represent an improvement. Private Bill procedure is, after all, a tried and tested way of dealing with schemes.
Mr. Tony Banks: What concerns me at the moment is that I am not altogether sure if the Lord President is just rehearsing the arguments for and against. Will he be giving us a clear indication of the Government's intentions and attitudes rather than giving us the argument on the one hand and the counter-argument on the other? He must know that, if this is to be a 'take note' debate for the Government, the report has been out since October 1988 and this debate could have taken place, as some of us urged, much earlier. The Lord President is making interesting points. Wherever possible, will he indicate firm Government support for or opposition to the various recommendations?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman must just listen to my speech and form his own conclusions at the end. On the first batch of recommendations that I mentioned, what I said was, I thought, clear and precise and to the point. I said that the Government had some reservations about them. If, however, it were the clear view of the House that we should proceed, the Government would seek to consult all the outside people who have a major say or whose views are important and who would need to be consulted before we decided to bring forward extremely complex legislation.
That is a perfectly reasonable point of view to adopt. The hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make his own speech in his own way if, Madam Deputy Speaker, he catches your eye, but I should have thought that a perfectly reasonable view for Government to take in a debate on the Adjournment at this stage.
Recommendation 7 addresses the procedures for stopping up highways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is already considering proposals to amend section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 which governs the procedures for stopping up all-purpose highways. The proposal also affects the stopping up of footpaths and bridleways under section 118 of the 1980 Act and he will be consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on that. I am glad to say that, provided all goes well, we should be able to accept this recommendation, but it will have to await a suitable legislative opportunity.
Recommendation 9 proposes that the purposes for which harbours orders may be made under the Harbours
480
Act 1964 should be broadened and that section 62, which allows powers to be obtained either by order or by private Bill, should be repealed. Clearly, this would require primary legislation and, as with railways, we need to be sure that new arrangements will work. My right hon. Friend will be willing to undertake appropriate consultations if the House generally favours that change.
If I could take stock at this point, the first and second groups of the Joint Committee's recommendations, taken together, would sweep out a large proportion of what currently comes before the House as major private business and direct it into routes outside Parliament. That would undoubtedly have some advantages, but the business so displaced from the House would almost certainly proceed at a slower pace. I have mentioned a number of points where I think that the practical working of the Joint Committee's scheme might bear further thought and I have also made it clear that my right hon. Friends will be prepared to consult in greater depth if that reflects the wish of the House. I hope that the House will agree that this is a constructive and sensible approach to a very far-reaching set of proposals.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the strongest recommendations for removing Bills from the private Bill procedure concerned local government Bills. The spate of jumbo Bills that we have considered has more or less come to an end, unless there is to be another reform of local government, but, even then, there may be nothing like the number of Bills that we have had to consider in the past.
Would this not be a good opportunity to remove the vast majority of local government Bills from the private Bill procedure and ensure that in future primary Government legislation enables local authorities to do various things? Surely that would be better than the use of the private Bill procedure. It was absolutely crazy that, in the case of the west midlands, Merseyside and Humberside, we had to debate the hours that take-away shops could be open, as well as massage parlours and processions. What was needed was national enabling legislation.
Mr. Wakeham: I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.
I have referred to our general approach to the matter. Before I leave that part of the report, however, I should like to emphasise the value and the importance of the private Bill procedure, both to the promoter and to the petitioner. It imposes a discipline on promoters, but offers them a reasonable degree of certainty and a fairly predictable timetable. It gives petitioners, both public bodies and individuals, the opportunity of a fair and sympathetic hearing befor a Committee of this House and of another place. I am aware of the care and trouble Private Bill Committees take to ensure that this is so. Any Member can raise the case of an individual on the Floor of the House as the Bill proceeds. Not least, it ensures that the eventual decision is taken by Parliament.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that I ought to make a little progress. Every hon. Member will have an opportunity to make his contribution.
Mr. Smith: Could I ask the Leader of the House a question about that specific point?
Mr. Wakeham: Very well.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I do not wish to interrupt his flow, but he suggested that in his view the private Bill procedure gave a fair crack of the whip to petitioners against a Bill. That is certainly not the experience of my constituents who are seeking to petition against British Rail's proposals for King's Cross. They find that the procedure for making their democratic voice heard is arcane, difficult, expensive and extremely frustrating.
Mr. Wakeham: That is typical of the way that we should not proceed. I was talking about the experience of the past 30 years or so. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is currently engaged in a matter which concerns his constituents. He is saying various things that are certainly the subject of considerable argument. In my experience of these matters, by and large petitioners have had a pretty reasonable crack of the whip. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman may not agree, but I shall make my speech in my own way and then I shall listen to him.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the Leader of the House agree that the general burden of evidence to the Joint Committee, whose report we are considering, from individuals and organisations who have petitioned in the past, was that, roughly speaking, they found the procedure to be as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)? That is why they would prefer public local inquiries.
Mr. Wakeham: I quite understand that the people who want a change in the procedure give evidence to committees and those who are satisfied with the procedure are probably not so moved to give evidence. That does not mean that those who give evidence are wrong and those who are quitely acquiescent to the system are right. Parliament has to take a balanced view, listen to the arguments and reach a conclusion. I am perfectly entitled to put my view that, over the years, by and large, petitioners receive a fair hearing before Parliament. It is not a procedure which I would abandon lightly without being sure that the alternative would be better, and I consider that to be a reasonable view.
The third group of recommendations deals with matters of detail and procedure, and I can say at the outset that we support very many of those proposals. There are, however, some proposals on which we would wish to express doubt or qualification, and it may help if I set them out now.
On recommendation 10 I must make it clear that the relevant Government Departments keep the case for public local authority legislation under regular review and look for the opportunity to introduce miscellaneous provisions Bills as the need arises and as opportunity permits. But such Bills have to compete for a place in the legislative programme and their very nature means that they are susceptible to amendment and thereby take up valuable time on the Floor of the House.
On recommendation 16 the Government agree that a private Bill should normally be expected to complete its progress within one Session, or two at most, but we should
482
be reluctant to see the incorporation of any formal restriction to this effect in Standing Orders, and we are glad to note that the Committee took a similar view. There may be sound reasons for a carry over beyond two Sessions and, if I may say so, bodies which promote a Bill before Parliament—and pay for it—are entitled to expect a decision provided that they themselves have not been unduly dilatory or obdurate.
A further aspect of the carry-over procedure is the proposal in recommendation 18 that Bills should be carried over a Dissolution not by means of a portmanteau resolution in the dying Parliament, but by revival motions, moved separately for each Bill, in the new Parliament. That could, however, lead to the possibility of an extra Second Reading-type debate on every carried-over Bill, and I cannot help wondering whether that would be an effective use of our time.
There are three recommendations—Nos. 20 to 22— relating to the blocking of Bills. I can see the argument for the recommendation that an hon. Member should be required to give reasons for opposition, but there may be practical difficulties. If hon. Members were obliged to give reasons, the Chair might be required to make some difficult judgments about the sufficiency of the reasons advanced, in order to prevent such motions from degenerating either into a standard all-embracing formula or a precis of a Second Reading speech.
We also have doubts about the proposals to abolish the procedure for oral objection and to require a Member to obtain the support of at least five other Members in blocking a private Bill. Would it really be fair to restrict in these ways a single Member who wished, for example, to raise a genuine constituency point?
In recommendations 50 to 52 the Joint Committee also proposed in respect of special procedures orders that if a petition of general objection is referred to a Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee finds in favour of the petitioners, the Government ought not to overrule the Committee by means of a confirmation Bill. I think that the constitutional position here is rather more complex than the recommendation implies. I have no doubt that the House would always want to pay particular attention to the report of a Joint Committee, but ultimately it must be for Parliament itself to take the decision.
If I have dwelt on those detailed procedural recommendations about which we have reservations, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I have done so because I felt it right to explain our reasoning in view of the time and effort which the Joint Committee devoted to its consideration.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: As my right hon. Friend has identified the recommendations under House of Commons procedures with which he is not happy, do I take it that he is content with the rest?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend interrupts me as I am proceeding with my speech. I know that it is very exciting, but if he can contain himself I shall do my best to explain about the others. My next sentence begins, "For the rest".
For the rest, we are broadly content with the remainder of recommendations 11 to 39 affecting England and Wales, and would be happy to leave them to the decision of the House. That means that we would, of course, accept the various recommendations which suggest improvements to, or encourage the development of, current Committee

483
practice, the proposed simplification of the arrangements for fees and the suggested amendment to Standing Orders to allow remaining stages to be taken immediately after a debate on consideration.
In view of current interest in environmental matters I should particularly like to say a few words about recommendation 13, which is that the House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into private Bill procedure. As with many of the Committee's other procedural recommendations, it will be for the House to decide whether to amend Standing Orders as proposed by the Committee. But in this case the Committee envisages procedures under which the Department of the Environment and other Departments would determine whether environmental assessment is, in fact, necessary and would later report on the environmental statements which promoters would be required to submit to Parliament.
Requirements for environmental assessments have already been introduced for projects that are approved under statutory procedures to comply with the European directive on environmental assessment. The directive does not apply to projects approved by specific Acts of national legislation, which include private and hybrid Bills. However, the Government have said that they will ensure that for Bills that they promote, relating to projects to which the directive would otherwise apply, such assessments are undertaken. We are therefore in favour of the concept of environmental assessment in appropriate cases and we support the Joint Committee's recommendation. In particular, we are willing for Government Departments to undertake the functions envisaged for them in that recommendation. We are therefore ready to consult about the way in which those aspects of the recommendation that would affect procedures outside Parliament can best be implemented.
The fourth group of recommendations deals with private legislation procedure in Scotland. The practical difficulties involved in implementing the Joint Committee's proposals to limit the range of private legislation apply as much to Scotland as they do to England and Wales. The burden that private legislation procedure imposes on Members is usually much less than for Bills relating to England and Wales, and actual working experience is that the distinctive Scottish inquiry procedure gives opportunity to objectors to put their case. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State believes that there is no strong case for change in Scotland but he will study closely any views expressed by Scottish Members.
The detailed Scottish procedural points—recommendations 41 to 49—are largely acceptable. The proposal to set a 12-month time limit is acceptable as the expected norm, but we would not wish to formalise that by amending the relevant legislation. The spirit of the recommendation can be implemented without legislation. The proposal that a confirmation Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee only where there are grounds for believing that the inquiry by commissions was inadequate is acceptable, but it would require legislation, and we shall have to wait for a suitable opportunity.
In concluding, I emphasise again my wish to hear the views of the House. This is an important and far-reaching
484
report which recommends major changes in the range of private legislation. I have set out some practical difficulties in some of the recommendations, the advantages of the present system and the flexibility that it allows. In particular, the private Bill procedure should not be sold short in any comparison with non-parliamentary procedures. I have indicated that many matters of detail and procedure will have our support, if they are acceptable to the House, and I have explained some of those on which we have reservations. I should add that, if there were general and wide-ranging agreement on a number of the detailed procedural recommendations, I should be glad to see what could be done to implement them in time for the next Session.
4.55 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Before getting involved in the intricacies of the Joint Committee's proposals for changes in the way that both Houses of Parliament should deal with private Bills, I should pay tribute to a number of people. The first, Madam Deputy Speaker, is my and your right hon. Friend, the Chairman of Ways and Means, who rightly decided, after years of growing dissatisfaction among Members of both Houses, and also among many people involved in promoting or in trying to obstruct the promotion of private Bills, that something should be done and that the time was ripe for a full review of the procedures. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on grasping the nettle.
Next to be congratulated are those valiant seekers after truth, the seven hon. Members of this House and the seven Peers who served on the Joint Committee, which met on over 30 occasions and heard a vast amount of detailed evidence on extremely complex matters. Above all, we should pay tribute, as has already been done, to the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) who chaired every one of those sessions. Stakhanovite tendencies, which are probably still looked on with favour even in the perestroika version of the Soviet Union and here, are shown by people who do that amount of work on our behalf. Everyone owes them a debt of gratitude for all the work that they have done.
I also pay tribute to the members of the Joint Committee for the report, although that tribute should more properly go to the clerks who drafted the report. It is not a long report. I thought that I could browse through it on a train journey and get its general drift, but at the end of the 56 pages I found that I needed to go back to page 1 to find out what page 56 was about. It is an extremely concise, well written document. The only trouble is that all its concepts and complexities are of high density. It is an excellent report but it is hard going. Our method of dealing with private Bills is complex and consideration of ways to change those procedures is even more complex and demanding, but the Committee tried to do that job.
Having paid those tributes, I think that I should set out what I see as the principles and the practical considerations that might best guide our response to an excellent report and also colour our view of private Bills in general, now and in the future. I am not a lawyer, but we hear a lot about the rule of law. A basic concept of the rule of law is that all laws should apply to everybody, that we should all be equal before the law, that the obligations of the law should fall on everyone and that the protection of the law should be available to everyone. One book that I

485
consulted on this matter gave another interpretation of the concept of the rule of law—that all should be treated alike and that
"unfair discrimination must not be sanctioned by law"
because that in itself would be contrary to the rule of law.
The general nature of our laws in this country is exemplified by the fact that most are to be found in what are classified as public general Acts whereas private Bills, seek to confer on individuals or organisatons powers that are over and above those that are available to individuals or other organisations. In some cases, for the benefit of the promoters, a Bill takes away the protection that Parliament has given people through a public general Act or even that the common law has provided. At one and the same time a private Bill can bestow benefits on those promoting it while taking from other people the legal protection that they previously enjoyed. We must bear that in mind when we are considering the concept of private legislation.
A further objection to private Bills is that some promoters have resorted to using them to take from people who object to what they are proposing the rights that Parliament has given to those objectors to challenge such proposals at a public local inquiry. Nearly everybody who has had to go through the business of being a petitioner against a private Bill regards the forum of a public local inquiry as infinitely superior in almost every way to having to petition against private Bills.
Private Bills are relatively cheaper for promoters but they are relatively more expensive for those who wish to object. On the other hand, while a public local inquiry may be expensive for the promoters who must be present all the time, a public local inquiry gives the objector whose objections may be fairly limited the opportunity to make his objections and then disappear. In addition, as many public local inquiries are, indeed, local, people in Northumberland or in Wales do not have to traipse down to London, or get someone else to traipse down to London, just to register their objections. There are many ways in which ordinary people regard public local inquiries as superior to the idea of having to petition against a private Bill.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: While I support my hon Friend's thesis in general, does he agree that it presupposes that there is adequate planning machinery, especially strategic planning machinery in the area of any project? However, does he also agree, in contravention of what the Leader of the House said, that one of the problems of private Bill procedure in the House is that the locus standi in terms of parliamentary procedure is almost certainly narrower than any inspector would impose at a local inquiry, which tends to be wide-ranging and seeks to be very fair?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. I was disturbed at Prime Minister's Question Time today when I heard the Prime Minister say, in response to a question about the railway lines from the Kent coast to London to facilitate the establishment and running of the Channel tunnel, that she would not accept that the private Bill procedure
"is inferior to a public inquiry."
I feel fairly confident that nearly everyone in Kent, in Dulwich, in Peckham or even in my area of King's Cross
486
who wants to object would prefer a public inquiry to being given the wondrous opportunity to petition against a Bill promoted by British Rail.
Mr. Roger Moate: Leaving aside the issue of the Kent railway lines, to which I might refer later if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, while I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—basically, that is what we tried to say in the report—before he exaggerates the point, and because the private Bill procedure will face prospective petitioners for a long time to come, does he agree that there are compensating advantages in the private Bill procedure in that prospective petitioners or opponents might stand a better chance before a Committee of four hon. Members of this House, who might be quite sympathetic, than they would before one planning inspector who would report back to a Secretary of State?
Mr. Dobson: Yes, that is true, especially if the inspector would be reporting back to the current Secretaries of State. I can see all sorts of disadvantages in that respect.
Nevertheless, while it might be all right for us to say to petitioners, "You would be better off petitioning," it would be difficult for us to gainsay them if they decided that they would be better off with a public inquiry. In the evidence that was presented to the Joint Committee, it was noticeable that the bulk of those organisations that gave evidence and that were involved in opposing more than one private Bill tended to say that they would infinitely prefer a public local inquiry. Indeed, the first sentence of paragraph 38 of the excellent report states:
"The defenders of private Bill procedure were in the main promoters."
I believe that it was Lenin who said that to some extent one can judge people by their friends. The friends of the private Bill procedure are, in the main, promoters.
We have found recently that at one and the same time a private Bill promoter, who may be seeking to take some; protection away from a local community—for example, its right to bring actions for nuisance, a protection which the law has given to the people living there just as it has given it to people living everywhere—is, by using the private Bill procedure, taking away from people their right to be heard in the forum of their choice where they can object to the process of losing their long-term rights. Some of the more objectionable of the more recent private Bills have been objectionable in both their long-term and short-term effects by means of the very use of the private Bill procedure.
I can do nothing other than repeat that there seems little doubt that up to now the private Bill procedure has favoured promoters and disadvantaged petitioners. In my view, Parliament should be much more reluctant than it has been in the past to allow organisations to use private Bills to set aside the law, for that is what private Bills do.
Mr. Peter Hardy: In the context of those remarks, does my hon. Friend accept—I am not making this point in a purely partisan sense—that in recent years the considerable extent of privatisation, coupled with a number of Bills giving private businesses the rights compulsorily to purchase or to enter private property, has enormously extended the power and the influence of private businesses and that this House should therefore be careful before it allows that practice to be further extended?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who has had considerable involvement in opposing several private Bills, makes a valid point. Indeed, my next point follows on almost directly from what my hon. Friend has said. The fact that the promoters of private Bills are nearly always wealthy and powerful organisations, whether in the public or the private sector, makes unnecessary resort to private Bills all the more objectionable. In this Parliament we have been running, in effect, a system in which wealthy and powerful organisations have bought themselves benefits that are not available to most people. They buy those benefits by virtue of having money and access to our procedures. In some cases, they have contrived to use the private Bill procedure to secure, quite literally, one law for the rich—that is, for the rich organisation promoting the Bill.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In some cases, statutory companies do not have the option of going to local planning inquiries, but their statutory obligations require them to come to the House. Would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of seeking to repeal all the requirements upon statutory companies to come to the House?
Mr. DobsonI shall deal with that later. If I do not do so, I shall be happy for the hon. Gentleman to remind me.
Those privileged organisations, by using the private Bill procedure, impose substantial costs upon the public purse. It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to say that, when people promote their Bill, they have paid their money and they are entitled to some degree of certainty, but they have not paid the full costs. One of the report's proposals is that the costs that the promoters impose on the public purse should in future be fully recovered from them.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recognise also that those promoters impose, in a sense, considerable costs on hon. Members of the House? I know that two of my hon. Friends, who are present today, have sat on Bills and have invested a tremendous amount of time in those Bills, perhaps to the disadvantage of their constituents and other political issues.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, with his impeccable logic, has almost enunciated my next sentence. I believe that in many ways the most weighty practical reason for trying to curtail the unnecessary use of the private Bill procedure is that those who seek privileges by private legislation impose enormous demands on the time of Members of the House. I remind all my fellow parliamentarians that we serve in the Parliament which, of all Parliaments in the democratic world, already sits for the greatest number of days in a year, for the longest hours and to a preposterous parliamentary calendar, originally decided upon in Victorian times. Compared with practically every other legislature in the world, we are already overdoing it. However, despite those long hours and the large number of days that we work in a year—as the Leader of the House knows to his cost every Thursday—we do not find time to debate all the topics that we, as Members, think should take priority.
By the existence of the private Bill procedure and by us not having a rigorous attitude towards those who wish to use it, we allow ourselves to be forced to find time to debate and legislate, not the priorities that we have laid down, but a series of priorities determined by the private interests of outside organisations.
488
For all those reasons—both of principles and of practice—we should take a much more rigorous attitude to would-be promoters of private Bills. They should have to prove the need for what they propose. They should have to prove that what they propose is not just in their interests, but in the interests of the general public. If it is just in their interests and they cannot find a law to allow them to do it—tough.
At the outset, even if it is in the public interest, promoters should also have to prove that what they need cannot be achieved by other means, however expensive and inconvenient to them those other means might be. I welcome the report of the Joint Committee because, as I understand it, it proposes just such a robust approach to those who want to promote private Bills. I say "as I understand it" advisedly because, although I have studied the report carefully and I have discussed it with people who understand these matters far better than I do, I would not claim that I have mastered all its intricacies. Not only do I acknowledge the tenuousness of my grasp of some of the report, but I am doubtful of the grasp of many other right hon. and hon. Members. My experience in the House is that, if someone says that he understands a procedure, he is the last person to ask for advice on that procedure. That is why I always go to the Clerks.
As the Leader of the House has said, the nub of the Committee's approach lies in its recommendations that a promoter should be required to prove that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the Bill and that, where that primary purpose can be secured by other means, Parliament should either not be involved at all or should be asked only to deal with any aspects that specifically require the authority of Parliament. In other words, what happens in future should not be what has happened in the past, where some minor need for parliamentary approval has been used as a stalking horse by the promoters to avoid a local planning inquiry into the primary purpose of their project. That is a most welcome proposal.
My notes, which I wrote before I heard the Leader of the House speak, say, "I cannot see how it could be resisted by anyone." However, I now discover that that aspect of the proposals is resisted by the Leader of the House, partly on the ground, apparently, that we might have great difficulty in deciding the primary purpose of a piece of legislation. That is from a Government who have introduced an immigration law that says that a person marrying someone from abroad has to prove the primary purpose of the marriage.I suggest to anyone with any experience of this world that trying to prove the primary purpose of a marriage is much more difficult than trying to discern the primary purpose of a private Bill.
I believe that, if we set our minds to defining the primary purpose of a Bill, we should not find it very difficult. I hope that we will not see strenuous Government resistance to that aspect of the proposals. If there is strenuous resistance, it will be strenuous Government resistance to the nub of the proposals, as I understand them.
The Committee goes further than that and recommends that, in certain circumstances, where planning considerations are accepted by everyone to be dominant—but there are works which at the moment would require resort to the House—even the works could be dealt with by

489
non-parliamentary procedures, where necessary involving public local inquiries. That appears to be a sound approach, too.
Much of the history of what might be described as the modern private Bill procedure is dominated by the need for legislative protection for railway promoters and builders against common law actions for nuisance. Railway works are still the single most common reason for seeking to promote a private Bill. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to deal with our joint interest in British Rail's deplorable and ludicrous proposals to build Britain's premier Euro-station in a vast, gloomy and horrible cavern underneath the mainline station at King's Cross. Even my minor involvement in helping some of the objectors to the proposals—who have therefore become petitioners—suggests that our present procedure is not a sound way of going about things. People feel much more excluded and much more mystified by the private Bill process than they do by public local inquiries.
The Joint Committee proposed to change the procedure for railway works to bring them roughly in line with the proposal for road works, in that the promoter of the railway works would draft an order and consult locally about it. The promoter would then submit the draft order to the relevant Secretary of State, who could make, modify or reject the order only after a public local inquiry into any valid objections. On balance, that is probably a good idea. However, we must accept that that means that the promoter of a railway, having secured Government support for it, if there is any parliamentary trouble, is likely to secure the payroll vote—and have everyone else voting for it, too—should that prove to be necessary. For major railway schemes, that may, in some senses, be for the best.
If the Government support the Euroline from Dover to London, it would be far better if they made their genuine support clear. In that case they could back the scheme rather than stand behind a door poking sticks and offering buns to the people from British Rail. Currently the Government appear to be urging British Rail to get on with it while ensuring that the Government do not take any of the blame. If we support the concept of reasonable and sensible government, it would be far better for such a Government to say that they believe the project to be right. People would then know exactly with whom they were dealing and on whom they should bring pressure to bear.
The current situation is neither fish, flesh nor fowl. No one is clear about whether the Government are behind the proposed link or about whether British Rail would dare go ahead with it unless they had Government support. I shall not go into all the private letters sent and so on at this time. In general, if the Government support a specific major, local project, it would be better for them to declare that support and to take responsibility, political and otherwise, for it.
Mr. Spearing: I hesitate to intervene, but this is an important point. My hon. Friend may have misunderstood one of the report's recommendations. If we follow paragraph 47 of the report, which deals with the sixth recommendation, does it not mean that, after the planning inquiry on a certain project, it would then go to the Secretary of State of the day who would decide on it? That means that the project would not come to Parliament.
490
Despite the merits of what my hon. Friend has said about the current unsatisfactory situation, would he like to leave the decision entirely to the Government of the day?
Mr. Dobson: I believe that important orders that cover substantial geographical areas and so on should be subject to the decision of the House. If we get away from the private Bill procedure and move towards the procedure operating orders we must accept that, once the Government have endorsed a project, it is likely to go through. Anyone in favour of adopting the order procedure must accept the logical conclusion that a project is then more likely to go through than if it had been subject to the private Bill procedure. That may be unfortunate and perhaps it is one reason for rejecting the proposition.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: As far as I know, British Rail has never failed to get a Bill accepted even under the present procedure. To many of us that explains why British Rail presents its proposals in such an arrogant and sub-standard fashion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, currently, we have the worst of all worlds because a Bill is scrutinised by people who, by definition, know as little as possible about the locality affected? Despite everything, they have little effective opportunity to prevent such a Bill from going through the House.
Mr. Dobson: I apologise if I have not made it clear that that is my view.
Those who would prefer the cleaner order approach must accept that, if an order manages to get the approval of a Secretary of State, the chances are that it will get parliamentary support, even if we insert another parliamentary stage into that order. In general, Secretaries of State can reckon on getting things through the House except in odd circumstances. I know that there are examples when that does not happen, but the odds are usually in the Government's favour. At the moment, I wish that they were not.
The Joint Committee also recommends that the order approach be applied to tramways and perhaps to the light transit outfits which want to shove railways down the roads. It believes that the orders presently permitted under the Harbours Act 1964 should be extended to cover a wider range of developments. Therefore, the railway order principle would be applied to other spheres.
The Leader of the House has already pointed out that all the proposals require primary legislation. We believe that if they are acceptable, in principle, to the House, the Government should undertake to introduce the legislation in time for the beginning of the next parliamentary Session.
Mr. Wakeham: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that we should have consultations with local authorities before we do that?
Mr. Dobson: It would be sound for the Government to consult local authorities and others. The Government, however, may be rather picky and choosy about whom they consult. The right hon. Gentleman was happy to leap to the Dispatch Box and support the abolition of the dock labour scheme without any consultation with the 9,000 people affected. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman should issue such cries about consultation at the moment.
Providing the Opposition find the measures, as drafted, acceptable, we would not wish to obstruct them if that is

491
the general will of the House. We cannot give carte blanche to the legislation, however, because we never know what the parliamentary draftsmen will come up with. Even when they have been working on something of which I have approved, some of the things drafted have been nonsense. Therefore, we could not let everything go through on the nod.
As there has been so much concern about private Bills, it would not be acceptable for us to make minor amendments to our Standing Orders without changing the primary legislation quickly. That change is necessary if the meat of the Committee's proposals is to go through.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I believe that, unless the Government are prepared to look at the whole package, the changes to our Standing Orders are unacceptable. My concern is shared by many groups outside the House. At the moment the whole procedure is weighted in favour of the promoters, but the safeguards in our Standing Orders slow the promoters down slightly. It would be unacceptable to do away with many of the safeguards in the Standing Orders without an absolute guarantee that matters concerning the environment would be subject to a planning inquiry first and subject to the other changes proposed.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Currently we have a system of checks and balances—the checks are not substantial and the procedure is rather unbalanced. However, any changes to our procedures would obviously upset that system, especially if the major proposals that require primary legislation do not go through the House.
The Leader of the House has proposed that we should make our own changes, but that we should not start to try to change the law. I am sure that that would be unacceptable to many people who are especially interested in this topic.
I do not want to dwell on the procedural changes at great length. There are many and those that are important to the House impinge upon the rights of Back Benchers who are faced with a private Bill affecting their constituencies or some organisation of great interest to them. We must bear in mind the needs and rights of Back Benchers in this matter. I want to listen to the views of other hon. Members about procedural changes. We should not accept any streamlining procedural changes which would deprive an individual Member, who is concerned about something which affects his or her constituency, of the right to block and, by blocking, gain concessions. That is a vital part of the present procedure which should not be lost.
However, I most strongly support the proposal that the new procedures should require the submission of environmental impact assessments in all cases where they are relevant. I am very happy to welcome whole-heartedly the undertakings given by the Leader of the House about Government support for that. I am also keen that, provided Scottish Members want it, that provision should apply to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 orders, as that would provide in Scotland as well as in England and Wales better information and protection for people affected by the works for which authorisation is sought. Subject to the views of Scottish Members, who will
492
be more familiar with their procedures than most of us, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure is on the right lines when it recommends for Scotland the additional protections for the public and petitioners which are recommended elsewhere in the report.
There is only one item about which I take an entirely different view from that taken by the Joint Committee, partly because it has been drawn to my attention by the Ramblers Association. I have doubts about recommendation (7) which states:
"The Highways Act 1980 should be extended so as to permit stopping-up orders"
for rights of way
"to be made on safety grounds in appropriate cases".
British Rail advocated that to the Committee on the ground that the use of high-speed trains made paths across railway lines increasingly dangerous.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that in my constituency British Rail has not protected a waist-high bridge on which there has already been one serious accident involving a child? Would it not be more incumbent on British Rail to do something about that kind of problem instead before it worries about the effects of high-speed trains?
Mr. Dobson: I am in favour of British Rail trying to make everything safe, and I have sympathy with its desire to make things safe. It is not the walker who makes the situation dangerous; British Rail does that with its high-speed trains. Instead of stopping up a footpath which has traditionally crossed a railway line, British Rail should build a bridge or dig a little tunnel under the line for people to use. It would not be right to close those paths on the ground that British Rail was making them more dangerous. Those who make things dangerous are obliged to remove the dangers, not to remove the privileges and rights which people have hitherto enjoyed.
I very much welcome the report, although I was a trifle disappointed by what is apparently the Government's response as enunciated by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House said that he is here to listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that he will do that. This report was the unanimous product of a very diverse group of people. It may not receive the unanimous support of hon. Members of this House, but its approach will receive considerable cross-party support. I hope, therefore, that the report will be acceptable, subject to a few caveats, and that the Government will get on with facilitating the changes which the Joint Committee unanimously believes are necessary and urgent. I commend the efforts of those who served on the Committee and who have done such a fine job.
5.34 pm
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the welcome which he broadly gave to the report and for the kind remarks that he made about me. I also appreciated the way in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) received the report from the Opposition Front Bench.
It is now nearly three years since, by resolution, the House indicated its decision to establish a Joint Select Committee and it is now more than two years since the Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman,

493
started its work. At the outset, I want to thank everyone who served on the Committee for their tireless work. Sadly, two Committee members—Mr. McQuarrie and Mr. Weetch—were not returned at the last general election. I want particularly, on their behalf, to thank the two Committee Clerks, Miss Baker and Mr. Makower, without whom, frankly, the report would not have seen the light of day. We are greatly in their debt. In passing I associate with those remarks Dr. Malcolm Grant and Mr. Ralegh Hancock, who were advisers to the Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained, there have been other attempts to reform private Bill procedure. The two most notable, and the two which have occurred in the lifetime of most hon. Members, were the Committees in 1930 chaired by Mr. Dunnico and that in 1955 chaired by Mr. Glenvil Hall.
Without in any way detracting from the work of those Committees, their terms of reference were rather more limited than the terms of reference given to us, which were extremely wide. I congratulate and thank in his absence the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), the Chairman of Ways and Means, who insisted from the outset that the report should provide a wide and thorough examinination.
In this Session of Parliament, there are more than twice as many private Bills as public Bills—58 as opposed to only 28. Even if we include the nine private Member's Bills on the assumption that they are public Bills, there is a marked preponderance of private Bills. Each of those private Bills on average costs the taxpayer £10,000. Therefore, nearly £1 million is provided to allow promoters, who are often extremely wealthy organisations, the privilege of coming to Parliament and, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, to use hon. Members' time.
This is a big legislative business. It involves hon. Members in long periods of attendance in Committees which are quite unlike Standing Committees, where pairs can be arranged. More importantly, this costs a great deal of money. I was somewhat alarmed when the Society of Parliamentary Agents suggested during our deliberations that raising the figure to what we would now consider a reasonable figure—in other words to recover the £10,000 per Bill which the Bills cost—would somehow put off those who had a legitimate reason for introducing legislation, since we then discovered that on the society's estimate of the costs, an unopposed Bill would cost the promoter £20,000, and an opposed Bill would cost £36,000. So I have a feeling that we may be more or less right. I certainly believe that Parliament must stop providing a voluntary service for organisations that can well look after themselves.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the recommendations fall into four separate categories. There are a lot of them—I make no excuse for that. Indeed, there are over 60. This debate will give hon. Members an opportunity to express views on all or some of them. I want to make it crystal clear that, although there are many recommendations, and although they cover various functions, they hang together as a package. While I can see the attraction of singling out the easy bits—those which would not cause too much trouble, or on which action could be taken quickly—that would unbalance the package and, as a result, ultimately destroy it. So I recommend very strongly that this report be seen as a whole, as a single piece, and not as an ill-assorted collection of bright ideas.
494
Let us look at the question of the need for private legislation. During the Committee's deliberations there was a point at which some of us had the revolutionary idea that the proving of the preamble should come before the Second Reading. After all, as at least one hon. Gentleman in the House today will know, one can go through the whole procedure on a private Bill, only to lose it by virtue of the fact that the preamble is not proven. The proving of the preamble is at the heart of a private Bill, because that establishes whether the Bill is required, whether it is the only way in which the promoters can obtain the powe:rs that they require. However, we decided not to recommend that alteration, for the simple reason that the Second Reading of a private Bill, unlike that of a public Bill, does not establish affirmation of the principle but represents a vote to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee for additional examination and discussion. So we left the question of the preamble where it is.
But the word "preamble" is at the heart of many of our concerns in respect of the first group of recommendations. We believe that the authorities who are responsible for examining Bills that are brought to Parliament should lie particularly firm and scrupulous in ensuring that nothing is brought if it ought to be dealt with under a general Act of Parliament or in some other way.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I hope that I have followed correctly my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the preamble. Does he not agree that at the Second Reading stage more attention should be paid to the preamble? Is it not at that stage that some Bills should fall, on this ground?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, I recall that, within the last 12 months, in a debate affecting my constituency, I drew attention to precisely that point. I was opposing a particular Bill. Hon. Members should recognise that it is the reason for legislation that has to be examined first— almost before we get to whether or not the piece of legislation is actually correct.
Let me draw hon. Members' attention to the Committee's comment on remarks made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, Lord Aberdare, when he was giving evidence on 13 January 1988:
"The Chairman of Committees admitted that many works bills include things for which approval could be obtained under the general law, as well as things for which only parliamentary approval was possible. Indeed, the element requiring parliamentary approval might be only a very minor element of the whole scheme, in which case the effect would be to allow 'a small tail to wag a large dog'." Indeed, it would be possible for a promoter to search for that small tail. I could give an example, but I will not weary hon. Members with it. Promoters could search for the small tail and attach the dog to it, in order to allow a private Bill to come forward.
Again in this area, broadly we are talking about works Bills and powers Bills. My noble Friend, in the evidence that he gave to the Committee, had some very important remarks to make about works Bills:
"Indeed, where works are at all extensive or controversial I can see the force in the argument that Parliament is not the most suitable forum for determining whether they should be carried out. If, therefore, there is one area more than another in the Private Bill field where an alternative to Private Bill procedure could be usefully explored it seems to me to be that covered by works provisions."

495
This is a very important point. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, I have had a decade's experience of sponsoring British railways legislation. The fact is that most of those general powers Bills relate to comparatively small works, but if works are to be either very extensive or very controversial, my noble Friend's comments should be uppermost in everyone's mind. As was said by so many of those who gave evidence to the Committee, the problem is that, on occasions of that sort, petitioners feel intimidated, and indeed inhibited, in coming to Parliament to give evidence in unfamiliar surroundings, and would be much happier and more secure in the atmosphere of some public inquiry.
That leads me to those aspects of the primary legislative changes to which my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred. Here, of course, we are concerned principally with British Rail; I will deal with the other matters in a moment. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in his place on the Front Bench. British Rail is a statutory body, yet, unusually, it obtains its powers by private Bill. Of course, we know that there is an historical reason for that. Over the years British Rail has been the biggest single customer for private Bills.
As I pointed out at the outset, there is a very large number of private Bills in Parliament at the moment. Among the 58 to which I have referred, 13 are rail-related—not British Rail-related, but rail-related. Railway building, whether the big projects such as I mentioned a moment ago, or light railways—trams and so on—is certainly a matter of great significance. It has been argued—although it is not an argument that one would wish to examine in great detail—that one of the reasons for the private Bill procedure is that it provides an opportunity, at least once a year, for a general debate on the railway system.
I cannot believe that it is not possible to find another way to resolve that problem. In the changed circumstances of today there must be a genuine argument for bringing railway building into line with motorway building. I understand the comments that have been made about the fact that, once the draft order has been agreed by the Secretary of State and so on, we are into that situation, but, as was pointed out earlier, British Rail has not lost a Bill. There have been problems with Bills, but none has been lost.
Mr. Tony Banks: Not yet.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Not yet, but the fact is that the track record so far does not show that people are better off, or more secure, with the present system than they would be in the changed circumstances to which I now want to refer.
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend not agree that a particularly telling example of the kind of issue to which he is referring is the proposition that British Rail should seek the right to build a station, with a colossal car park, in the centre of an area that every local authority in the locality has argued should not be used for that sort of development? By doing that through a private Bill, it would be able to avoid all the planning procedures which such a massive change in the road system would otherwise involve.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Without wishing to be drawn into the detail of the King's Cross legislation, I would support my hon. Friend to the extent that, when I came into the Chamber earlier this afternoon, I was handed a letter by my noble Friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is also the chairman of English Heritage, making precisely that point and arguing that ancient monuments, buildings and the rest are at risk as a result of this procedure. Therefore, the point is well taken.
Our report suggests that we should provide British Rail with an alternative route. It has been suggested that it should have an alternative route now, but as you know only too well, Madam Deputy Speaker, British Rail requires some significant exemptions to be made available to it in order to build its track. It has to have exemption from nuisance and from interference with statutory undertakings and the rest. No general Act of Parliament currently in place would enable it to proceed except in the way that it does.
I can well understand the attraction to British Rail, or any other promoter, of being able not only to seek powers for particular works but to wrap up within the same Bill many additional powers. In a Bill that I sponsored some three or four years ago, the powers of the British Transport police were altered by a proposal slipped in at the end of the schedules.
The second category that the Committee was concerned about related to procedure, on which there were clearly differences of opinion. I said at the outset that this is a balanced package. One of the problems in the passage of private legislation is the failure of promoters to consult adequately petitioners who are worried about the Bill's effect on them. Many problems may not begin to emerge before the Bill is debated.
The report suggests that a clear explanatory memorandum should set out exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve, giving petitioners an idea of what was in the promoter's mind. There could then be a period of consultation before Parliament became involved.
As those of us who follow these matters know, a promoter's statement is made available with a private Bill to Members of Parliament, usually those concerned with a particular Bill. That is a lengthy and detailed document setting out some explanation of the clauses and what the Bill seeks to achieve. We contend that something along those lines should, of necessity, be made available to all when the Bill is deposited, so that petitioners can find out what is in the promoter's mind.
Allied with that document should be a booklet explaining what the private Bill procedure is all about. In the Library are some notes on how the procedure works but, with respect to those who drew up that document, it is, of necessity, fairly slight and limited. Her Majesty's Stationery Office should provide a proper booklet which can be bought by those who are anxious to know how the private Bill procedure may affect them.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: If such a handbook were published for the benefit of the public, would it lead to a greater demand for private Bills as a result of the public feeling that, having studied it, they wanted to bring forward a private Bill for their own purposes?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: At no point in our deliberations did we look at the possibility of abolishing private Bills. To

497
that extent, the private Bill is part of our democratic process. It is a manifestation of the citizen's right to petition Parliament. If one explains it in such a way that a citizen might feel that a private Bill would be appropriate, always remembering the remarks that I made earlier on the need for legislation, it would be doing good rather than harm and would be a sensible addition to our democratic way of life.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Can my hon. Friend give me some guidance on a practice that I find rather confusing—that of picking off a project piecemeal? Let me take a hypothetical instance of a promoter who wishes to promote a rail terminal but makes no reference to the route leading to that terminal. Those affected by the route have no locus standi in objecting to the terminal; so, on a narrow legalistic ground, they are ruled out of order and are voiceless in making their opposition to the terminal known.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I guess that he is referring to the King's Cross legislation. He will know, as will the House, that some 280 petitions have already been received and the locus of those petitioners is being examined. I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been heard by the British Rail board and others and noted. He highlights one of the problems to which I referred a moment ago.
In the second section on procedure, the Committee made a recommendation, largely as a result of a detailed and interesting memorandum supplied by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central, the Chairman of Ways and Means, on the starting date for private Bills, which is November. It was thought that it would be sensible to bring it back a month to October so that Second Readings could start somewhat earlier. There has been some concern about that proposal for a number of reasons, with which I shall not weary the House, and it has been decided that at best a fortnight, not a full month, could be saved. I cannot speak for other Committee members, but I want to make it clear that, if there were insuperable difficulties, I would be prepared to be persuaded. I think that the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central would agree with that interpretation of the resistance that there has been.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talked about the carry-over motion. Carrying over from one Session of Parliament to another, or, in the case of a Bill with which I was particularly concerned, from one Parliament to another, distinctly separates the private Bill from the public Bill. The public Bill has to be dealt with within the 12-month Session. That carry-over places tremendous additional power in the hands of the promoter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) pointed out earlier that British Rail had never lost a Bill. Promoters relying on that carry-over principle will always, in my view and I believe in the view of the Committee, have an advantage over petitioners, if for no other reason than that private Bills are not cheap and it is likely that a rich promoter will stay the course rather longer than a poor petitioner. That is why, in my earlier remarks about increasing the cost of private Bills so that the promoter effectively pays about £5,000 per House, we kept the petitioner's figure at £20, and there is no question of raising that.
498
Our suggestion that no more than two carry-overs would normally be accepted is reasonable, bearing in mind that there are those who have already spent time and money, either petitioning or as part of the promoter's group, whom it might not be sensible to require to start the Bill all over again.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that a carry-over motion can be objected to in the House and that the Chairman of Ways and Means will at some stage find time for a debate? So we have it in our power to stop a Bill carrying over to the next Session. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might concentrate the minds of promoters wonderfully if we turned down a carry-over motion on a future occasion? The King's Cross measure might be a good one to start with.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes am important point, which relates to my early remarks concerning the assumption that, if private Bills are in existence, they must be right—the point about the preamble and so on—and his intervention is further evidence of the assumption that the carry-over is an automatic advantage which is not normally objected to, am issue to which I shall return.
A suggestion in the report to which reference has not been made is that of establishing a private legislation panel of Members. The Committee took evidence from the parliamentary Bar, the members of which are more conversant with private Bills than any individual Member. In its evidence on 2 December 1987, on page 137, it said:
"The procedures under which private bill committees operate are in some respects old fashioned, ill defined and unsophisticated. There is abundant scope for reforms which would greatly improve the quality of this part of the decision making process. It has become apparent in recent years that Members of the House of Commons find it increasingly difficult to take part continuously in the quasi-judicial work of the committees; and thus there is a widening gulf in the quality of the decision making process between the two Houses."
That was stern criticism. It was being said that these Bills are not being properly considered—because Members are not sufficiently interested or because they cannot strike out five or six weeks from their diaries—and, as a result, the decision-making process is threatened. I appreciate that. Indeed, it could be argued that the genesis of the inquiry which the Joint Committee undertook was that at least one hon. Lady was unable to strike out a long enough time from her diary to enable her to attend.
I said in my opening remarks that there was a big difference between a Committee on a private Bill and a Standing Committee on a public Bill. In a Standing Committee, the sides are broadly balanced and there are Whips to arrange pairs and so on, and in normal circumstances a reasonably civilised regime can be established.
But with a private Bill we have something more akin to a jury in a court—it is quasi-judicial—and if Members absent themselves from the Committee and it is inquorate and can no longer undertake its work, the corridors of Parliament may be full of silks and other legal advisers, not to mention the witnesses, petitioners and the rest, all of whom are unable to take part in the work of the Committee because it can no longer operate, with the attendant expense and inefficiency to which that must lead.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the proposed panel in more detail? It would seem

499
to place an even greater burden on Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) gave up a great deal of time recently when dealing with Bills. Would not a panel demand a few Members having to repeat that process of giving up a great deal of their time? While I appreciate that it might be a more efficient way of proceeding, would it be a reasonable request to make of Members?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was about to deal with that point. I have long held the belief, having been in the House for 25 years, that many Members in all parts of the House would like to be involved in a job of work apart from the normal day-to-day activity of looking after their constituents, which is their primary job. In other words, there are Members who, if they recognised that a panel considering private Bills had been established, might want to spend some of their parliamentary life in this interesting and important part of the legislative machine.
I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is not construing my remarks as referring to a press-ganged group of individuals forced on to a panel. That is far outside what the Committee had in mind. They would be volunteers, and perhaps it would be the same route as the Chairmen's Panel and others would follow. If such a panel were established, one would, hopefully, not have the problem of Members absenting themselves, because they would know what they were in for.
We are dealing with a large legislative programme in this Session from the point of view of private Bills. We would have the satisfaction of well-manned committees, and perhaps the Whips and other responsible bodies in all parties could take note of the extra work being done by those Members, and some compensating lightening of the rein might be generally available.
Mr. Spearing: While, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman advanced, there might be dangers in such a concept, the disadvantages might be overcome if Members made themselves available—just as some do in respect of the Finance Bill—for a year or two for this work and without the consequential rewards to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but if we take the voices in the House today and consider whether individual Members want to serve on the Committee dealing with the King's Cross Bill, we might get a clear sign that not all are greatly enthusiastic to do so. However, some would wish to do so. The Joint Committee's suggestion would not commit any Member to anything particularly difficult. It is an idea that should be examined.
Sir John Strutting Thomas: What my hon. Friend is suggesting seems a feasible proposition, which we might try as an experiment. There is an old saying about volunteers being better than pressed men. I have never been aware of a paucity of supply to join the Chairman's Panel. This proposal is worth an experiment, because the work is time-consuming. I have met colleagues who, unexpectedly, have told me how much they enjoy the work of the private Bill procedure, so, if only as an experiment, it is worth trying it out.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who exactly describes my own feelings. The Committee was unanimous on that point, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will at least consider the possibility of examining whether such a panel could be established, which will be important in the years ahead.
My right hon. Friend made reference to the recommendation to remove the oral objection procedure. At the start of my remarks, I commented that there should be proper consultation so that no time is wasted. I go further. The point should be reached where a decision one way or another can be made, so that Parliament can move on to deal with other, perhaps more important matters. The oral objection followed by the blocking motion gives an indication to the Chairman of Ways and Means that a Second Reading debate will be necessary. The oral objection gives the first indication that not everyone is happy with the Bill. Subsequently, a motion appears on the Order Paper.
The Select Committee is anxious to remove an almost unnecessary procedure, because the blocking motion can go on the Order Paper anyway. It was suggested that a reason be given in the blocking motion so that the promoter will have an indication of where the individuals concerned felt the Bill had problems. That is all part of signalling what is wrong as quickly as possible, so that discussion can take place and so that one can avoid the minefield of procedural hurdles that currently exists.
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the individual constituency Member, and it may be that my right hon. Friend will want to consider altering the numbers concerned. However, a blocking motion that indicates what is wrong with the Bill would be in everyone's interest, as it would allow the promoter to take corrective action. That is why we suggest a simple majority for the closure motion. We are all familiar with the existing arrangements, which require 100 right hon. and hon. Members to go through the Aye Lobby, and all the rest of it. Again that is a form of trip wire. Many right hon. and hon. Members know that, with a small private Bill, perhaps taken on a Thursday evening, when there is no particularly contentious business to follow, it is not easy for a sponsor to rustle up 100 right hon. and hon. Members to go through the Aye Lobby. I do not say that it cannot be done, but the Committee suggests that a decision should be reached by simple majority.
The original intention was to ensure that nothing came before the House that could be achieved in some other way. We would prove the preamble to start with, and the business should then be progressed as swiftly as possible so that, if necessary, the Committee could consider the Bill in a thorough and detailed way, with advocates for both parties arguing their case. Procedural trip wires, attractive though they may be, do not serve any useful function other than to make matters generally difficult. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion for a blocking motion alongside that for closure on a simple majority.
Mr. Moate: As my hon. Friend knows, I support his remarks and his recommendations. However, does he concur in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that, in removing the trip wires and hurdles, it would be unfair if we did not maintain the balance of the package, which would make it easier for petitioners and objectors, at public inquiries or otherwise, to have their case put clearly?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the package concept; it needs underscoring the whole time.
I turn to one of the proposals with which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is himself closely associated—the Joint Committee option. That option is already available, but it is not automatically drawn to the attention of the parties concerned. In the case of some Bills, it can be a waste of everyone's time to have two Committees—all the second House problems—when, if the parties agree, a Joint Committee could solve all the difficulties. The suggestion is that it should be made very clear to those concerned with a private Bill that the joint option exists. If the parties agree that that route should be followed, the Joint Committee should be used, rather than take up additional time elsewhere.
In drawing to the end of my remarks, I want to comment briefly on matters of no lesser importance, but which are dealt with at the end of the report. I refer, first, to Scottish private legislation. The Select Committee's recommendations are broadly that the procedural changes it proposes should, as nearly as possible, affect Scotland as well. In considering Scotland, the Committee's real difficulty was the view widely expressed by those who gave evidence on that aspect—that the Scottish Office is not always good enough and that information is not always readily available from it.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already taken action on that matter, and that some criticisms have already been dealt with. The Secretary of State for Scotland is rather different from any other, and contact with the Scottish Office is important when legislation is being passed. The report proposes a tidying up of better relations with the Scottish Office, which it feels is particularly necessary.
As to the special procedure orders of 1945, the House will know that they were largely brought into being as a consequence of the need for reconstruction after the second world war. Usually they worked well, but a glaring omission that concerned a number of people concerned the Okehampton bypass. In recommendation 51, the Committee suggests:
"If a petition of general objection is referred to a joint committee, and the joint committee finds in favour of the petitioners, then the Government ought not to over-rule the committee by means of a Confirmation Bill."
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made special reference to that matter because, with the one exception I mentioned, that procedure works well.
The Committee endeavoured to produce not just a balanced package but one that re-establishes the balance between Parliament, the citizen, the promoter and the petitioner that offers a blueprint for a procedural system that should, with some luck, last as long as those that, have been examined over the past 30 years.
There is no doubt that private legislation will be with us for as long as parliamentary democracy exists. However, there is no use denying that pressures on Parliament today are much greater than they were when I entered the House 25 years ago. We now have European legislation and other matters to consider, and the varying scope of private Bills has increased so substantially that I hope the House finds favour with the report and will accept its recommendations.
6.18 pm
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): It is unusual but not unprecedented for an occupant of the Chair to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for permission to speak from the Floor of the House.
As the Leader of the House said when opening the debate, the Chairman of Ways and Means has many responsibilities relating to private Bills. It was felt, therefore, that a "Ways and Means view" might assist the House in its deliberations. That is the reason for my intervention.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was hoping to speak in the debate. Unfortunately, he is unavoidably absent; therefore, the task falls to me. I believe that my remarks will have the support of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I join in congratulating the Joint Committee on its wide-ranging report. In particular, as has already been said, the House is grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for his sure hand in guiding the Joint Committee through the complexities of private Bill procedure, as well as the procedues relating to special procedure orders and Scottish private legislation. Under his guidance, the Joint Committee has carried out a major and extensive analysis of those matters.
The Joint Committee was kind enough to invite the Chairman of Ways and Means to give evidence to it twice, and also to involve him in its final decision-making process. Therefore, he had the opportunity to see and, for the most part, to agree with, its final conclusions. Subject to one or two matters, which I shall raise presently, he strongly supported the Committee's suggested changes to the procedures of the House. The Joint Committee has seen fit to adopt many of the reforms that the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested in his evidence.
The House will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to repeat in detail all the points made by the Chairman in his evidence. However, some remarks may be helpful to the House in connection with a number of the proposed changes. As the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for New Forest emphasised, the Committee was concerned about the share of Parliament's valuable time that was taken up by the promotion of Bills on behalf of private interests. That reflects the view held by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the burden of private legislation should be considerably lessened.
There will always be a need for some private legislation, but much could be done to lighten the burden on the House. The Joint Committee's recommendations—set out in part 2 of its report and summarised in recommendations 1 to 10 in paragraph 201—will go a long way to achieve that objective, which is especially desired by those hon. Members who have been closeted in an opposed private Bill Committee for any appreciable length of time.
In addition, the Joint Committee has sought to close an unwelcome loophole in our procedures that has permitted promoters to avoid planning procedures that might expose them to trouble and expense. It is clearly undesirable that the will of Parliament, as expressed in statutory planning procedures, should be evaded by another form of our procedures. I commend to the House the remarks in the report about planning procedures.

503
A major source of disgruntlement among hon. Members about the present procedures for dealing with private Bills is the arrangement for taking opposed Bills in a specially convened Committee of Members who are completely disinterested about the Bill's fate. Sometimes, these Committees' stages can be lengthy, which has resulted in hon. Members feeling that their unwilling presence on a private Bill Committee—a type of Committee which, uniquely in our procedure, they are obliged to attend—takes them away from business in the House that they regard as their primary duty. Some Members find it hard to justify their presence on a Committee dealing with matters related to a part of the country that is probably far from their own constituency. They often preface their complaints with, "I wasn't elected to make judgments on this."
While one might not agree with that view of the duties of hon. Members, I sympathise with it. We live in an age when the local Member of Parliament is expected to take a close and active interest in his or her constituency. Gone are the days when a Member could seek election to a seat on the base of a promise not to visit his constituency.
Mr. Tony Banks: It might still work.
The First Deputy Chairman: Though we may sometimes envy those more leisurely days, we must never forget that they are past. We may therefore wish strongly to support the Joint Committee's suggestion—to which the hon. Member for New Forest referred, and which should suit modern working practice better than the present system—that a panel of Members should be created from which members of opposed Bill Committees should be selected. They could be selected exclusively from the panel or on the basis of a proportion—such as three panel Members to two non-panel Members on each committee. Service on a new panel of members of opposed Bill Committees might act as an excellent apprenticeship for service on the Chairmen's Panel. That suggestion has already been made in the debate by a number of hon. Members.
Such a scheme would certainly give hon. Members who were interested an opportunity to develop the sensitivity to our procedures and the common sense that are necessary attributes of members of the Chairmen's Panel.
We might also support the suggestion that the number of Members on a Committee should be raised to five, and the rule requiring Members who failed to attend to be reported to the House should be abolished. Those changes, combined with a lightening of the burden of private business, as a result of the adoption of the other recommendations in the report, should go a long way to satisfy the complaints relating to service on opposed Bill Committees.
The only caveat to be registered at this juncture is that the selection of panel members to serve on particular Bills should remain with the Committee of Selection. In many cases, private Bills are fairly uncontentious, but for the sake of those which are highly contentious and hard fought, it would be a mistake to allow the Chairman of Ways and Means, or any other single member, to choose members to serve on an unopposed Bill Committee.
The Chairman of Ways and Means differs from the Joint Committee over recommendation 37, that an option should be offered to parties of a Joint Committee stage,
504
which would cut down costs and time on both sides. That option, the broad aims of which the Chairman of Ways and Means supports, will fail to be taken up in those cases which most deserve the use of the procedure. The proposal should be stronger: we favour a period in which a Joint Committee stage is mandatory.
As has been mentioned in the debate, each year it is necessary to allow private Bills to be carried over from one Session to the next. That is partly caused by, and partly causes, a log jam in private business, and that is inconvenient. The Joint Committee has suggested in recommendations 16 and 17, that only in exceptional circumstances should private Bills be permitted to be carried over for more than two Sessions, and that a private Bill should be expected to complete its progress within a single Session.
The Joint Committee also recommends that requests for carry-overs should not be acceded to unless the promoters can show that they have not been dilatory. I am pleased to tell the House that the Chairman of Ways and Means is careful to ensure that promoters' agents do not expect a carry-over as of right. He expects that most Bills should be able to pass through their stages in two Sessions—rather than one, as suggested by the Joint Committee in recommendation 16.
The House may wish to support the principle underlying the recommendations, which is that Bills must proceed with all possible expedition. We advise the House, however, not to require them to become rules in Standing Orders. The present system works in a flexible manner, allowing the application of the principles to the best advantage of the House. There will always be Bills of great importance, possibly of national importance, which will be fought hard and will require a greater allocation of parliamentary time than would normally be politic. I hope that the House will continue to have confidence in the ability of the Chairman of Ways and Means and his successors to apply a suitable discipline in choosing which Bills may be submitted to the House for its consent that they be carried over. The final choice in each case, of course, lies with the House.
The Joint Committee also considered the position of Bills that are interrupted by the Dissolution of Parliament before a general election. It suggested in recommendation 18 that such Bills should not, as they are now, be carried over by means of a single portmanteau resolution, but should be subject to separate revival motions in the new Parliament. The Committee drew attention to the comparative lack of pressure on parliamentary time at the beginning of a Parliament, and the need for a new Parliament to re-examine the principle behind each Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means feels that that idea is unrealistic in its assessment of the Government's willingness to find time for debates on separate Bills, and that it overlooks the fact that Bills not passed by the House of Commons and requiring a carry-over on Dissolution will involve at least an opportunity for debate on Third Reading. In any event, we should keep in sight the basic principle that promoters should not be disadvantaged by events unconnected with the merits of their Bills, such as a Dissolution.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Surely, after a general election, when the composition of Parliament has changed, there is a considerable advantage in obtaining a vote on the principle of a Bill as soon as possible. If the vote took place

505
only on Third Reading, would it not be very unfair on the Members who had served on the Committee if, because of a substantial change in membership of the House, the principle was no longer acceptable? Carry-over has the advantage of securing a vote fairly quickly to establish whether the principle of a Bill will carry from one Parliament to the next.
The First Deputy Chairman: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The matter can be argued either way, and clearly requires careful consideration before any changes are made.
The final point of substance that I wish to raise relates to the proposed requirements in recommendations 20 and 21 that blocking motions should contain reasons for the blocking of Bills, and that "blocks" should be signed by at least six Members. It is difficult to see how a system of reasoned amendments could be policed; presumably the Chairman of Ways and Means or another Officer of the House would be called on either to limit excessively prolix arguments or to judge whether a purely formal reason was good enough.
The Chairman of Ways and Means supports the possibility of some sort of statement in the "block" explaining why the Bill is opposed only in so far as it is a voluntary method of communicating the reasons for opposition to the promoters so that negotiations may start. His objection to a minimum number of names being required before a blocking motion becomes effective is similarly based on difficulty of enforcement and lack of real utility. After all, few hon. Members are so deeply unpopular that they could not find five friends to come to their aid by lending their names to a blocking motion.
Hon. Members may be rather surprised that a speech that started with praise should continue in an apparently rather critical vein. Let me therefore commend the Joint Committee's recommendation 39, relating to fees, and encourage the House earnestly to support its speedy introduction in time for the next Session. The House may also support the view of the Chairman of Ways and Means—not mentioned in the report—that, to save the administrative trouble and expense of pursuing small debts in respect of petitions against Bills, prepayment of the fee should be a condition of a party's being heard before the Committee.
I hope that those points on matters of detail have in no way camouflaged the support given by the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself to the broad principles of the report, and our appreciation of the Joint Committee's work. The Committee came into being because the procedures of the House were seen to be outmoded. Much contained in the report, especially in relation to Committee proceedings, will go far to revolutionise arrangements for dealing with private legislation if the House lends its support to the Joint Committee's proposals. We all look forward with great interest to the contributions of other hon. Members, and hope that a clear green light can be given to the adoption of the best material in the report.
6.35 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me immediately after the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as it gives me a good opportunity to express hon. Members' views on the work done by the Chairman of Ways and Means, his colleagues and his staff. Some of us are aware of matters
506
with which they must involve themselves; the fact that they work silently and invisibly is a tribute to their activities, and may not be appreciated by others. It also marks the unusual feature of the Chairman or his deputy speaking in the House, and, indeed, the essential nature of today's debate.
We are not involved here with matters of partisan politics or of ordinary parliamentary procedure; we are, I submit, discussing what the future rules of the high court of Parliament shall be. They are not the rules that relate to our public legislation or party political philosophy. Almost all, by their very nature, are outside the normal political battle.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and his Committee for their careful piece of work. If, at first glance, my comments seem to the hon. Gentleman to be picking apart what he considers a balanced package, I hope that he will understand that that is because I wish to produce—after a few preliminaiy remarks—what I hope is a coherent broader approach that suggests ways of achieving the aims of his Committee, perhaps through an alternative package or at least an alternative concept.
Before I do that, however, let me comment on one or two aspects of private Bill procedure in general. I have been involved in it for nearly 20 years, in many different guises: objecting to Bills, moving instructions to Bills, moving motions to Bills and, finally, serving as Chairman of the Committee considering a controversial Bill, the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill. Some thoughts have come to me over the years, and I hope that they may be helpful to others.
First, should we not think a little about terminology? "Private legislation" is not private at all; anything that happens in the House, and anything that is legislative, is public. There is also the problem of private Members' Bills, which are not private legislation. Private legislation promoted by public bodies—including, as I recall, the Greater London council—may be in the general public interest, or conceivably in a private interest. Private legislation promoted by a private body may be generally agreed to concern the public interest. We do not do ourselves much good with our terminology.
I suggest, for want of a better solution, that we begin to distinguish between externally and internally promoted legislation, some of which is promoted by the Government and some by hon. Members in their own right. Whether we can find better words for "external" or "internal"— perhaps find some appropriate Norman French—I am not sure, but I suggest that we have a go.
The second aspect, the rights of promotion, has already been touched on by the hon. Member for New Forest. One of the tests of a democracy is who can promote legislation. In this country, theoretically and perhaps practically for matters such as a deceased wife's sister Bill and that sort of thing, any individual can promote a Bill and petition the House that it be passed or that it be not passed—hence the phrase "petitions for Bills". The right is not confined to hon. Members. Compared with the constitutions of assemblies in other countries, our is enormously flexible in this respect, so I would be very wary of restricting, in theory at least, that ancient and proper democratic right.
All of us, but particularly my hon. Friends, are worried about what is regarded as an abuse of that right or an inappropriate use of it, particularly when, by its use, bodies that already possess power or substantial resources

507
can appear to override the rights of individuals. That is where an increasing concern has given rise to many of the matters that we have been discussing.
The abuses or inappropriate uses fall into several broad categories. The first is the proof of the preamble, the averment. We referred to this in our special report on the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, HC 650 87/8, where we found that although legislation was required, it was not of the kind that was placed before us. It was the example par excellence of the tail wagging the dog: a Bill in Parliament was required but it was not the Bill that was placed before us.
Another category of concern about the extent of private legislation is where Bills appear to cut out the preliminary procedures that one might expect, particularly in matters relating to strategic planning. King's Cross has been mentioned; it has enormous strategic planning significance. So has a Bill that we may expect next year—I do not know what it will be called; perhaps the high speed British Rail Channel tunnel Bill or Channel tunnel route Bill.
Perhaps I can give an example whose implications are now being realised and which hon. Members may not even have heard of, the London Docklands Light Railway (City Extension) Act 1986. Its passage triggered the whole of the Canary wharf development which will have enormous strategic implications for London and the south-east and will probably spawn its own railway Bills next Session.
The next category has not so far been mentioned. It is where a private Bill can have party political or party philosophical overtones or have economic implications for the country. The North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill for the importation of coal for electricity comes into that category. Much more hung on that Bill than the building of a port. I suspect that the Felixstowe Bill had similar implications.
We have, therefore, several categories of Bills between which we may have to distinguish in future as we consider how far the so-called private Bill procedure is appropriate.
Before I return to that point, I want to comment on the whole question of railway Bills. This is where I must disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on the balance of considerations that he has reached in respect of these Bills. I take at once the point of the hon. Member for New Forest, that up till now they have not failed to get through, but he and, perhaps, the Committee may have overlooked the hidden, negative factor of the need for a Bill. The fact that there is a need for a Bill may assist in filtering and tailoring the provisions that can be got through. It acts as a silent censor; there is a need to come here, where hon. Members from any part of the country may object because they dislike a level crossing or whatever it may be. I am not, therefore, sure that I would accept that they have not failed to get through as a good reason for saying that we need not have them at all.
I understand that many of the small powers relating to footbridges, underpasses and so on, could be dealt with initially by planning application. That might be an advantage. But if it means that we should say that we do not want railway Bills here at all—which seems to be the purport of recommendation 6 and paragraph 47—I challenge that strongly for another reason, which I will come to in a moment.
Mr. Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman pursue the logic of his argument—and I am genuinely interested in his answer—to suggest that when a British Rail high-speed link Bill is proposed it will be better dealt with by parliamentary procedure or by a separate public inquiry?
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman points the way to something that I should like to say later. Perhaps I may pursue a narrow way for the moment. It was conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that transferring to the Secretary of State the final decision on these matters would deprive Parliament of its present long-stop and final powers. I immediately ask if we should, in principle, hand over powers from the legislature to the Executive. In principle, I say that we should not. If we do so, we must consider very carefully the reasons.
The best argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras could advance was that since the proposal would get through in any case, in view of the Government majority, we might as well let the Secretary of State for Transport have the power from the beginning. I cannot go down that road. Given certain suggestions that I shall make shortly, it is an inappropriate recommendation. I am sorry to disagree with the Committee on that matter—
Mr. Moate rose—
Mr. Spearing: I will come to the point in a minute.—particularly in view of the fact that we may be entering a new era of railway building; if the motorways get any more crowded and demand for travel and freight transport goes up, that will be inevitable. We have already seen the beginning of a new era of light railway building. Docklands is a case in point. If it had been a tramway there, rather than a light railway, it should not have gone to the Secretary of State, for reasons that I have already advanced.
So I suggest that we may be doing Parliament a disservice. Given the safeguards that I shall come to in a moment, I am sure that everybody would consider that power should not go to the Executive but should be retained by the House.
Mr. Moate: Again pursuing the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case, if he is saying that the parliamentary sanction is important for projects of this nature, it must surely be extended to major motorway projects and other matters which are currently dealt with by planning procedures.
Mr. Spearing: That is logically the case, but I would hesitate to argue at this stage that Parliament should take more powers to itself, particularly on motorways—that is a motorway that I will not go down. All I am saying is that we should not give up the ultimate powers that we, as opposed to the Government, now possess.
Nevertheless I understand why the Committee made its suggestion. The absence of any widespread and proper inquiry into the strategic implications of a railway is a great gap, which could have been filled by the Executive but which it has, on this occasion, chosen not to fill.
It is much easier for petitioners and objectors to appear before a local public inquiry than to come to this place. I have done both. Members of the public are inhibited from appearing before a Committee, where they see people wearing wigs and gowns. The public are more at ease if

509
they appear before an inspector at a public inquiry where there is greater informality. Ideally, we need a combination of both.
Hon. Members will say that that would take more time. It may. However, if we are to maintain our democratic procedures, we have to pay the price. Time may be one of them. Big interests are often in a hurry, whereas citizens often say, "Let's take time to get it right." Moreover, the locus of those who petition this place against a Bill is very much narrower than their locus when they appear before a public inquiry.
The question that arises, therefore, is how we can combine the democratic safeguards of both procedures. Recommendations 20 to 22 would bring about a change in the procedure. Blocking motions could be used by hon. Members. I am very concerned about recommendations 20 to 22. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) agrees that over the years the powers of individual Members to require a debate have been used. Hon. Members may believe that those powers have been abused. Even if that were conceded—I do not concede it—I do not believe that any diminution of the power of individual Members of Parliament should be accepted without great thought. The individual Member represents individuals outside Parliament. Any diminution of our power to delay private legislation, to require consultation behind the scenes, or to require some form of just and proper concession would lead to the powers of hon. Members being forfeited. Therefore, I am not convinced by recommendations 20 to 22.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand the report, all that it is saying is that if we did not follow the procedure at 2.30, when we sit in our places and shout "Object" to the Second Reading or Committee stage of a Bill, we should be able instead to table a motion in the Private Bill Office. I do not mind too much about coming here at 2.30 to object, but it is an arcane procedure. I should have thought that it would be just as easy to table a motion as to come here in person.
Mr. Spearing: I apologise if I have misunderstood my hon. Friend, but I thought that reasons had to be given. Recommendation 21 says:
"Blocking motions should not be effective unless they are signed by at least six Members."
Recommendation 22 says:
"The procedure for objecting orally to a bill should be abolished."
I believe that those recommendations will diminish rather than enhance the powers of individual Members. Abolition of the closure by 100 Members would, I believe, benefit the promoter. I am not sure about that, either.
Mr. Tony Banks: If my hon. Friend looks at today's Order Paper and the private business after Prayers he will see that, apart from the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the King's Cross Railways Bill, to which both my hon. Friend and I object, six hon. Members do not object to any of the other Bills. I have no constituency interest in the Hythe, Kent, Marina Bill but it has been put to me that a number of principles are involved and that the House ought to discuss them on Second Reading. According to regulation (21), I should have to find three other hon. Members to add their names to the Hythe, Kent, Marina
510
Bill. That would not be too difficult. It is a bit of a nonsense, like early-day motions. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we should be placed at a great disadvantage.
Mr. Spearing: It is a matter of judgment. The British Film Institute Southbank Bill is on the Order Paper and my hon. Friend the Member for Den ton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the sole objector. If the rule were to be changed, I suggest that he would be placed at a minimal disadvantage.
I turn to the alternative package approach, which I base on the agreeable recommendation 1. I do not think that the fact that this is the first recommendation is accidental. It says:
"Promoters of a private bill should be required to prove before the committee on the bill that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the bill."
I was a member of a Committee when the preamble of a Bill was not proved. The Committee sat for three weeks. That disrupted my life and the lives of my three colleagues. The proceedings lasted for 80 hours. Therefore, I welcome wholeheartedly that recommendation. However, I wonder whether it ought to apply before or after Second Reading. If it applied before Second Reading, it would save people a lot of time.
The hon. Member for New Forest referred to a diversion. I shall take that one step further. Why should we not introduce a perimeter procedure or perimeter fence, or—to use an agricultural analogy—an electric fence: moreover, to mix one's metaphors, an electric fence that, by means of radar, directs people to the gaps? In other words, a greater form of perimeter examination than we have at the moment ought to be put in place to reflect the general will of the House on the type of private legislation that it believes is acceptable.
It must not be just a question of proving the preamble and the averment, and the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps we ought not to accept big Bills with huge implications before certain other procedures have been exhausted. That would be a novelty, as would be the non-acceptance of Bills that have public policy implications which have not been properly debated and defined by the Government or others.
I accept that that would be a radical change, but it would be a development of an existing procedure. Some of the machinery is already in place. Much of it is invisible and much of it is conducted by learned Clerks and their associates. There are the examiners and there is the Court of Referees. At the moment, the court is concerned only with decisions on locus and related matters. The Standing Orders Committee meets occasionally. It deals with the compliance of private Bills with Standing Orders and occasionally it allows an exemption, even if compliance with Standing Orders is shown not to have taken place.
Why should we not develop a code that would mean that a petitioner for a Bill would have to go through a certain number of hoops before the Second Reading Motion is tabled by the Chairman of Ways and Means? The code would have to be agreed according to precedent and it would have to reflect the views of the House. Almost inevitably, it would have to be developed by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The manpower implications might be relieved if it were to be a Joint Committee that assumed the functions of a court. People might ask why that Committee should have such huge powers. But we do that already by giving a Private Bill Committee the power to dispose of a Bill under Standing Orders, unless there is

511
some exceptional procedure. The Bill in which I was involved was sunk by a Committee which was committed by the rest of the House to listen to all the evidence, to consider it in great detail and to make a decision. I suggest that the same principle might be applied to some perimeter body, perhaps multi-functional, appointed by the House to supervise the general procedures relating to private legislation. If that suggestion were developed, at least in concept, it might be able to deal with some of the problems that have been properly identified by the Joint Committee and give cause for hon. Members' complaints.
There would be several advantages to such a system. It would maintain the final powers of Parliament to decide and would not transfer to the Executive any decisions that are currently taken by Parliament. It would maintain hon. Members' individual rights to represent the interests of their constituents, and, therefore, defend the liberty of the subject; properly supervised and worked, it would restrain and perhaps restrict the promotion of private legislation that some hon. Members or the entire House might consider inappropriate to current circumstances.
I hope that, in considering such proposals, Parliament will evolve from its ancient procedures and develop all that is necessary in this place for the common good and the protection of individuals and their liberties.
7.1 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I welcome the report and congratulate the Joint Committee which produced it. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on his masterly exposition and the clarity with which he set out the problems and the recommendations which might solve them.
Like many hon. Members I was acquiescent to the procedures of the House until I came up against a particular issue which affected me and my constituents directly and personally. It was not until British Rail proposed a recent private Bill with implications that went beyond the terms of that Bill that I realised the inadequacies of the present procedure. My views reflect those of many of my constituents affected by the proposals in the Bill. All right-minded and reasonable people recognise that from time to time individuals have to make sacrifices in the interests of the majority. Most people are prepared to accept those sacrifices as long as they feel that the system under which those sacrifices are made is fair and based upon equity and justice, and, moreover, one in which they have the right to be heard and make their views known. The private Bill procedure and practice in the House is defective on one, two or three of those points.
Recently I have been involved in opposing the King's Cross Railways Bill. As drafted, the Bill is self-contained and merely makes reference to British Rail's promotion of a terminal in north London. I understand that it makes no reference whatsoever to the routes leading to that terminal, but we all know that that terminal would not exist in isolation and would have direct consequences for the routes that lead to it. The Bill implies that other Bills will be brought forward. The very existence of the Bill to establish a terminal at King's Cross predetermines other consequences for the routes which lead to it. Those who are directly affected by it, not only in the King's Cross area, but in south London, south-east London and Kent,
512
all the way to Folkestone, realise that their lives will be changed by a proposal about which they have no opportunity whatsoever to make their voices heard and make their opposition known. That, coupled with the rather antiquated mumbo-jumbo which surrounds so many of our procedures, makes them feel that they are unable to articulate and voice their opposition and they are opposed by those who, through cunning draftsmanship and legalistic strategems, deny them the opportunity to state their opposition.
When they have got over the first legal hurdle of putting in a petition, which seems to require witchcraft spells to make it understandable in its interpretation, they have to appear before a Court of Referees, which appears to interpret their opposition or rule them out of order on very narrow legalistic lines, and they feel that they are being denied basic justice. If our constituents come to the House to voice their opposition to a measure which will dramatically change their lives, their families, their homes and their communities, and have no opportunity to make their voices heard and are ruled out, we have progressed very little beyond the middle ages and it is high time to reform our procedures and make them more responsive and more accessible to those affected by proposed legislation.
I am pleased that the Joint Committee report contains some proposals which appear to alleviate the problems which I identified, relating the principle to the particular. Recommendation 13 states:
"Each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment".
Regrettably, British Rail's proposals for King's Cross and for the route that runs through my constituency show no evidence whatsoever that there has been any environmental assessment of effects on the human environment, the natural environment and the urban environment. The proposals appear to have been cobbled together. No doubt in due course some glossy document will be produced, purporting to address the environmental issues, but that will be a piece of icing, or an afterthought, on the basic proposals.
Another principle which appears to have been overlooked, or to which only lip service has been paid, is consultation. The only consultation which British Rail had before producing its proposals for King's Cross or for the route was a public meeting which in no way could be regarded as consultation. It was merely a confrontation at which the spokesman for British Rail batted a straight bat the whole way, conceded nothing and accepted none of the views that were expressed at the time. People feel that the battle was lost before anything was on the pitch. If we, as Members of Parliament are conniving with and acceding to procedures which leave people with a sense of injustice, it is high time that we changed those procedures and implemented the recommendations in the report.
Mr. Moate: I understand my hon. Friend's argument and I am most impressed with his eloquence. We understand the sense of grievance among his constituents, but why does he believe that a public inquiry—the solution that we favour—apart from allowing them a hearing, might produce a more beneficial result from their point of view?
Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend prompts me to address a point that I might have overlooked. There is a feeling that proposals put forward by private Bill follow the salami

513
principle where a slice is taken off here and there individually so that they are not noticed elsewhere. What is proposed now is a Channel tunnel at one end linking us to France and a terminal at the other end where trains will arrive, but there is no discussion about what lies in between. I imagine that British Rail will put forward proposals which treat the route as a whole. From what I can see, under our procedures British Rail could take it station by station. It could pick the route off, cutting the slices even thinner. So what we would have would not be a major planning operation, as it should be, but several mini-plans which together would have a dramatic effect which could not be recognised at the beginning.
As I understand it, the essence of the report is that if a major planning operation affects different areas, it should be treated in its entirety as a comprehensive project and not picked off point by point, which seems to be the procedure now. British Rail's proposal will not only affect the south-east but have implications for the north-east and the north-west, because it will open up the whole country to Europe. People want to see a project in the round and as a whole and not bit by bit.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I give the hon. Gentleman another point in answer to his hon. Friend's question? If there were a public inquiry, more people could make their views heard more audibly. Indeed, they would be heard where it matters most. They might be heard by the Prime Minister herself, who could more clearly gauge the degree of public opposition. Nothing concentrates the minds of the Prime Minister and politicians generally more than the clattering down of party majorities that might follow.
Mr. Bowden: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman down that path.
Certain questions that are basic and fundamental to the overall proposals that come out in separate private Bills have not been addressed. The first one, which I raised earlier this afternoon and which I make no apology for raising again, is whether it is necessary for every piece of freight and for every passenger coming from the continent to any destination in the United Kingdom to go through central London. That assumption is in the proposals put forward by British Rail, which seems to think that it is good that they should. The House or a public inquiry should ask seriously whether that assumption is right.
A private Bill does not allow at the earliest stage the opportunity to ask such questions. I shall be more parochial, but it is the particular that illustrates the principle. BR proposes that the tunnel proposed in outline should have a spur rising from the ground in my constituency at Warwick gardens and then tracking five or six miles around south and south-east London, over viaducts and bridges and on embankments, through Denmark hill, Loughborough junction, Brixton, Clapham, Wandsworth and Vauxhall before it gets to Waterloo. That is some eight miles above ground which will be rather dangerous, considering the speed of the trains. If one looks at the map and studies existing tunnels, one sees that it would not be beyond the wit of engineers to make a connection from somewhere near London bridge underground to Waterloo, a distance of less than one mile. That is a fundamental point that a public inquiry would winkle out but which would be taken as an assumption in a private Bill. I raise these issues because they illustrate the principle.
514
A further point, that has been alluded to several times in the debate, is that the private Bill procedure should be limited to one Session of Parliament and that only in exceptional circumstances should it roll over. If that were adhered to, there is no doubt that the King's Cross Railways Bill, and any subsequent British Rail Bill relating to the Channel tunnel link, would not fall within that ambit. I refer to recommendation 16 on page 53.
I welcome the report and most of its recommendations; I welcome particularly the two recommendations which appear to address the problems that we see with British Rail's current, rather cavalier promotion of private Bills in relation to the Channel tunnel link.
7.15 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on his speech and on discovering how politically sexy private Bills can be. Certainly they will be with regard to the matter that he has just discussed. It will ring through Parliament for the next year or so. I discovered that political fact somewhat earlier. That is why I volunteered to go on Committees on private Bills soon after being elected in 1983.I believed that it was time well spent, which is not something that I can say about my other parliamentary activities since 1983. No doubt Conservative Members will agree with those sentiments.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), as a member of his Committee, on the way that he chaired it with great patience and skill. I have already told him that I thoroughly enjoyed being on the Committee. I considered it a privilege. It was another useful learning process. It gave us a chance to examine procedures and issues away from the hurly-burly of the Floor of the House, although there is not a great deal of hurly-burly today. This is a good, constructive debate. When one gets involved in sharp political exchanges, there is a great deal of heat but little light is revealed. In the work that I did on the Joint Committee I found that being on the Select Committee on Procedure and on the Standing Orders Committee was a useful complement. May I again say that I thoroughly enjoyed the work and was grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Joint Committee.
The debate is most welcome but I still feel that it is belated. The report was published in October 1988.1, with others, have pushed the Leader of the House at business questions on many occasions to say when we would have a debate. His answers, always courteous, were to the effect that the Government were studying the report and ware considering their response. It was commendable so to do because it is a big fat report with a lot of good reading in it, but it would have been a reasonable response from the Leader of the House if the debate had enabled us to vote on something.
I had to leave the House for part of the speech of the Leader of the House. I should like to find out from him whether a date has yet been fixed for a substantive, executive debate when we can vote. That is the important thing in the end. Many of us spend much time and energy on Committees which bring forward considered recommendations and then there is only a take note debate and the House does not have an opportunity to say how it feels by voting. The Leader of the House said on several occasions that he would let the House express its decision.

515
That can be done only by voting. When will we be allowed to vote? I have tried to resist becoming over-cynical or suspicious in the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Don't.
Mr. Banks: I take the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, it is something that one should not do. I am trying to be as generous to the Leader of the House as I can, but I always listen closely to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
I am forced to conclude that the delay is because the Leader of the House and, therefore, the Government do not want these recommendations in situ prior to the Kent Bill coming before the House in the next Session.
Mr. Wakeham: I rise to intervene in a spirit of friendliness towards the hon. Gentleman, because the debate has been interesting. Judging by one or two of the interventions, something that might be called the "Newham question" appears to be emerging. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are miles apart in their thinking about the way in which we should go forward. I shall be interested to see how that debate develops.
Mr. Banks: That is certainly not true. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is disagreeing very much with what the Leader of the House has just said. My hon. Friend and I always go together in the closest possible political and personal sympathy. I assure the Leader of the House that that is as true on this matter as on others.
Mr. Moate: I thought that what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was saying was diametrically opposed. Even if that were true, does he agree that that is no reason why the House should not vote on the proposition? [Interruption.]
Mr. Banks: I am taking my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. I was going to say that perhaps I will read his speech with more interest, but I could not have more interest in what he says. I shall read his speech carefully, but I do not see that we are in any way apart on this matter. In the end, although he and I might have our differences on the various recommendations, they will be differences of only a minor degree and I am sure that we are together in saying that the House must have an early opportunity to vote on those recommendations.
Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given way, because perhaps I can clarify the matter. His having been a member of the Committee and party, to some extent, to the detailed recommendations, may hide the fact that we are at one in our wish to adjust the procedures for private business towards modern demands. The routes that we may take to minimise the abuses and the difficulties may be different, but those are our objectives. Like my hon. Friend I look forward to substantive changes in the Standing Orders and the arrangements, although I acknowledge that this sort of debate facilitates the changes to be made—and the sooner the better.
Mr. Banks: I am sure that I agree entirely with everything that my hon. Friend has said.
516
If we are to set up Select Committees or special Committees, after taking time to reflect and to read the report of the Joint Committee, the House should be given an opportunity to vote. That is all I am saying, but I hope that when the Leader of the House replies to the debate he will tell us when we will have the opportunity to vote.
There will always be a role for private Bills, but, as the report clearly stresses, there have been a large number of private Bills before the House this Session—I believe that the hon. Member for New Forest said that there had been 58—many which have been or are highly controversial. The Committee felt that there was a general desire to reduce the number of private Bills coming before the House and that, as far as possible, some of the more controversial aspects of those Bills should be eliminated. I thoroughly support recommendation 1.
There was a general belief in the Joint Committee, as there is in the House and—just as important—outside the House that private Bills are being used to bypass public inquiry procedures. The most blatant example of that was the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill. The House should not tolerate that. The Committee has recognised the fact and even before we have a vote the Leader of the House should recognise that the concern is shared by hon. Members of all parties. Therefore, I strongly support recommendations 5 and 13.
Parliament is being used—I stress the word "used"—by promoters to fast-track developments and, in certain cases, to override the great weight of public opinion which is often against the more controversial proposals contained in private Bills. The House is not an appropriate or satisfactory alternative to a planning inquiry when local communities and local amenities are affected by proposals.
The private Bill procedure requires that hon. Members who serve on an opposed Bill Committee should declare that they have no constituency interest. Obviously, that is right, but it could be only a short step removed from their having no interest whatsover. I am not being critical but some hon. Members who serve on a private Bill Committee simply wish to get out of it as fast as they possibly can. Many of us who work on Committees know that the work does not attract the media attention given to work on the Floor of the House. When one serves on a Standing Committee, it is like disappearing into a legislative black hole; but on private Bill Committees, it is like going for a long walk through a desert, never to be heard of again until the Bill finally comes back to the House—and even then no one pays very much attention to it. Although the Bills may be important—I am not denigrating the importance of the issues that are discussed—serving on private Bill Committees will not achieve much for hon. Members who like their work at least to be noted. We must try to sweeten or to give a few temptations to hon. Members who might want to continue to serve—as I do—on Committees on private Bills.
It can be a problem if hon. Members who serve on a Private Bill Committee have only a little if any local knowledge of the issue confronting them. Of course, hon. Members may at least acquaint themselves with the locality by visiting the area affected by the Bill, but frankly, that is no substitute for having some detailed local knowledge similar to that of the local authorities and the local people. Indeed, as far as possible, important decisions should be taken in the areas where the decisions will have the most impact. That is what "devolution" means in political terms. In many ways, private Bills argue

517
wholly against political devolution and decision making. In addition, hon. Members who serve on private Bill Committees often have inadequate expertise in planning matters. Such expertise would assist them to make a proper assessment.
The evidence that has been submitted by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and by the Ramblers Association stresses—and I agree—that it is difficult for local people and communities to voice their objectives within the private Bill procedure. I have chaired a number of Committees on private Bills and agree that it is quasi-judicial procedure which can be intimidating to people who come along to try to represent the interests of their small communities, organisations or even themselves, as they are entitled so to do. It is not just a question of standing up and giving evidence. Individuals or their representatives, who can be amateurs not professionals, can be cross-examined by expensive leading counsel, which is not something that many people find enjoyable. Therefore, the process can be intimidatory and that aspect should be eliminated. I remind the Leader of the House that the promoters of private Bills can afford the most expensive legal representation for the Committee stage. As so often, the more money one has, the more law one can buy. We must be mindful of that fact when we consider the report's recommendations.
Private Bills are even more inappropriate for schemes involving massive infrastructure investment with strategic implications. When there are strategic and even national implications, I do not see how a Private Bill Committee can be the appropriate forum to consider the proposals. Indeed, I do not know whether a Private Bill Committee could be allowed to consider such strategic implications. That will certainly be true of the King's Cross Railways Bill and of the "fast routes through Kent" Bill that we will have next Session.
I join the hon. Members of all parties who believe that these private Bills are back to front. It seems nonsense to have a Bill that decides where the terminal will be before a Bill that sets out the route because the location of the terminal will go a long way to pre-empt the decision on the route. That cannot be good for Parliament and it cannot be good for the strategic transport implications presented by such private Bills.
I believe that such Bills as the King's Cross Railways Bill and the "fast routes through Kent" Bill should be public Bills. If we cannot have them as public Bills, there should be full public inquiries where the strategic implications can be rehearsed.
I am still shocked that the Government have abdicated any responsibility for strategic planning and transportation matters. I was glad to see the Secretary of State for Transport here a little while ago. A couple of weeks ago he came to a meeting of the London group of Labour Members, which I chair. I pointed out to him that I met British Rail and said, "Look, the King's Cross terminal is a matter of strategic importance for London and the south-east." British Rail's response was, "We are not the strategic authority for transport for London or the south-east. We are a commercial transport undertaking. This is a matter for the Government." I then said to the Secretary of State for Transport, "You are, surely Secretary of State, the strategic transport authority." As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, it shocked us that the Secretary of State said, "I am not the strategic authority." In that case, who is the strategic
518
authority? The answer is that there is none, which cannot be good for the future planning of transportation matters in this country.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has illustrated that the opinion of Conservative Members was already prejudiced. My hon. Friend is absolutely in parallel with what I was saying. Does my hon. Friend not understand that the situation in London is even worse? I received recently a written answer from the Secretary of State for Transport saying that he certainly was not responsible for planning public transport in London, but that that responsibility lay with London Regional Transport. That does not fill me with any confidence.
Mr. Banks: It appears that the Government, especially the Prime Minister, want to interfere with the daily affairs of everyone—in particular the local councils—but do not want to take the strategic overview. Perhaps that is the nature of the busybody rather than of the person with the imagination to look at something on a broader canvas. For transportation that attitude is appalling. All sorts of disconnected decisions are being taken, which spell disaster, and certainly enormous difficulties, for transportation policy. That appears to be the nature of the beast we are dealing with in government today. It is not good for transportation and will not be good for the country as a whole.
Mr. Skinner: Of course, there is another way of looking at it, which is that the Government have their legislative programme anyway. That is chock-bang full of measures that will redistribute the balance of wealth and power in Britain. If, however, the Government wanted to introduce a Bill on transport or the Associated British Ports Bill, they could use the private Bill procedure as an addendum to their own legislative programme. At the same time, they have the added advantage of being able to say when they are passed, "Really, you know, they were free votes." They can say, "Hands off, it's nothing to do with us," but at the same time, in addition to their own programme, they have got through some of the things that they wanted as well. That is why, on that ports Bill, the Prime Minister turned up at 10 o'clock at night in her carpet slippers to vote it through.
Mr. Banks: As ever, I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. I shall be coming on to the second part of my objection to private Bill procedure, which concerns the highly controversial nature of some of those Bills.
On the strategic role of certain private Bills, recommendations 5 and 13 will at least go some way to answering my worries about the way that things are being done at present. They are the ones that will involve a public inquiry and an environmental impact assessment to be attached. That is necessary, because they appear to be inappropriate matters for the Private Bill Committee to consider. If the Committee had to take into account all those other matters, it would only extend the period in which it considers the Private Bill Committee stage. It is onerous enough for Members as it is, without adding more and more to the responsibilities and burdens that they should not have to shoulder, in many cases do not want to shoulder and, as I have said, they do not, perhaps, have the skills to shoulder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned the controversial nature of a number of private Bills. At

519
times it is clear that the private Bill is being used by the Government to further their political objectives. Hon. Members must recognise that this makes nonsense of the private Bill procedure. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the two Humber Bills are good examples. It was clear that what we were really talking about was the dock labour scheme, the Government's battle with the National Union of Mineworkers and their energy policy. We are aware enough to realise that that is really what was going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Prime Minister turned up in her carpet slippers for the vote on the ports Bill. She did so because she recognised that that Bill was crucial to Government policies. It was dishonest of the Government to push those matters through under the private Bill procedure. It should have been done openly through the public Bill procedure, when they could have openly used their majority and the payroll vote, rather than doing it surreptitiously.
Another convention that is being ridden over roughshod by the Government is that there is now whipping on private Bills. I agree that there might not be any official whipping on private Bills. However, if the Leader of the House were willing to put his hand on his heart—assuming that he could find it easily enough—and say that, when he was the Government Chief Whip, he never became involved or never sent his assistants out to ensure that hon. Members turned up to vote on some of those Bills, I should be prepared to give way. However, I suspect that he would not want to mislead the House by making such a statement.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is done in more subtle ways. One does not put a Whip on the private business, but a three-line Whip is put on an order that comes on afterwards. Then one has done the same thing.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is a very sophisticated Member and would make an excellent Whip. Of course there are ways of doing it. Another way of doing it would be to say to hon. Members, "The Prime Minister would consider this to be a particular favour. The Prime Minister would like to see you voting for this Bill. There are a few tricks coming up. Don't forget the new year's honours list is being drawn up at this very moment." As my hon. Friend has said, there are more subtle ways of doing it.
Mr. Wakeham: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all these tricks have suddenly been learnt since 1979 and have never been thought of before?
Mr. Banks: I am not that naive. I have always been a critic of the overweening power of Prime Ministers and, I might add, of Leaders of the Opposition. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will catch me out with a question like that.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Let us put all the cards on the table, because I remember a debate that we had on a Friday concerning an amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill. The Government whipped in every Minister to vote it down. Normally, we have Ministers only at the Dispatch Box to answer the debate.
520
On that occasion, nearly every Minister was whipped in—no doubt by the Prime Minister—to vote the amendment down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the Bill on the disabled was not a private Bill.
Mr. Hardy: There is another aspect of the Government's approach to private Bills on which my hon. Friend might like to comment. That concerns the Bills with substantial environmental content, where the Government agencies—the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—petitioned against the Bill and advised the Minister, who is not the Minister with whom they deal and who bears that responsibility, to oppose the Bill. I have seen environmental Ministers, who have received the advice of Government agencies after pronouncing the Government's neutrality, eagerly leading their troops through the Lobby in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Banks: They are yet further examples of the way in which the private Bill procedure has moved into areas of great political controversy. It would be far better for the business of the House if, as far as possible, such Bills were taken out of the private Bill procedure and dealt with as openly and as honestly as possible.
I am sure that such problems have arisen in the past, but in recent years they appear to have arisen more frequently, and that is not good for the private Bill procedure. Bills that are controversial for political or environmental reasons would be more appropriately considered as public Bills rather than through the private Bill procedure.
I support recommendation 16 which deals with the carrying over of Bills from one Session to the next. As the hon. Member for New Forest said, the ability to have Bills carried over gives additional power to the promoters. That power presupposes that, merely because a Bill is before the House, it should be carried over on the nod. I believe that it would concentrate the minds of some promoters if we did not accede to the request to carry over such Bills formally. I believe that we should bounce a few back. We all have our favourite candidates; I have already nominated mine, but only time will tell.
When I have chaired Private Bill Committees I have often found that the proceedings have become lengthy because counsel seems to be on a payment-by-word basis. It is assumed that Committee members cannot even read and the papers that have already been put before the Committee are gone through word by word. I believe that the Chairman of such a Committee should make it clear that there is no need to go through the documents and should say, "Look, I am capable of reading. Please pass on."
If the promoter happens to be a local authority I am always aware just how much the whole thing is costing the ratepayers. If the promoter is British Rail, I am aware of the cost to the taxpayer. The corollary to that is how much it costs the poor old petitioner. An individual may come to the House for a couple of days to voice some objection, but is forced to sit through interminable hours of counsel reading through masses of documents. Counsel clock up extremely fat fees and I should remind them that they are paid at a far higher rate than the rest of us. I am anxious to get value for money for the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

521
Recommendation 39 deals with costs. In Committee I pushed hard for costs to the promoter to be substantially increased. The rates we are recommending are only marginal in comparison to the overall costs to be faced by the promoter when paying for a development. When we are talking about mega-million or multi-billion pound projects, £2,500 or £5,000 is the sort of money that developers no doubt carry in their back pockets. If anything, I believe that the Committee has erred on the side of conservatism in terms of the money that we could get out of some promoters.
It is also worth considering the idea of a formal panel of Members appointed to opposed Bill Committees. I listened with great interest to the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, who said that serving on the panel could be an apprenticeship for the Chairmen's Panel. We all know that once one is on that panel one is on the way to the Chair of the House and the coveted full-bottomed wig, which is apparently desired by many Members.
I recognise that those who serve on Committees, whether Standing Committees or Private Bill Committees, are the true Stakhanovites of Parliament. Some modest reward should be given to them. I do not know whether that should be a knighthood, a damehood or whatever. If such an honour were offered to me I would renounce it immediately and ask for it to be transferred to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
We must recognise the work of members of all Committees—that work is essential to the business of the House. In many respects it is unrecognised and unacknowledged. I found working on the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for New Forest extremely interesting. I find working on private Bills interesting, but I believe that such work would be made far less onerous if we reduced the number of Bills and eliminated those that are politically or environmentally controversial.
The report is good—I am not saying that merely because I was a member of that Committee—and it contains many suggestions that should be implemented. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us an opportunity to vote on the recommendations as soon as possible.
7.44 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) with great interest. I thought that it was a pity that, given his chameleon-like nature, he could not decide whether he was trying to make a useful and constructive contribution to a sensible debate or whether he would rather have been haranguing a full House with a rowdy and rumbustious speech about building a railway line, with a three-line Whip and Divisions all night.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on a most remarkable report. I feel rather hesitant in speaking because I have not had the honour of serving on a private Bill Committee. I was listed to do so, but, fortunately for my diary, the opponents managed to settle their differences and the Committee was never called.
For some time I have been trying to introduce a private Bill to help my constituents who have a problem regarding the protection of a covenant dating back to 1934. I note that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water
522
and Planning is present and he is aware of that problem. My constituents would like me to organise a delegation to visit him about it.
I declare a natural interest in this subject as I am an engineer. It is no accident that the headquarters of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers are on the other side of Parliament square. I am a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I regret that I cannot stay for the entire debate because of a prior engagement at the Institution of Civil Engineers.
The thrust of the report is that the principal purpose of private Bills is to get things done. I support the recommendations for modernising and improving the private Bill procedure. Recommendation 13 relates to the impact on the environment of a particular Bill. I believe that that recommendation, together with the recommendation to publish a handbook to make the complex mystery of such Bills more understandable to the public, will mean that private Bills will be introduced not so much to get things done as to stop things being done.
My constituents are anxious that a covenant which was entered into in 1934 and which was designed to protect some open land from being built on, should now be flouted. Only last week a large national rapacious builder announced his intention to start building within the next few days, despite the existence of the covenant and despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to discharge the covenant when asked to do so. In future, constituents will demand a simplified procedure for bringing forward private Bills to protect their interests.
I am doubtful about some of the recommendations, as I believe that they will make it more difficult for people to introduce such Bills. Fees at a minimum level of £10,000 represent such a difficulty. I note that it is recommended that there should be a remission of costs to protect charities. I am not sure how far the Committee considers that protection should go, but perhaps I will get that answer tonight.
Today I received a letter from the Bolton civic trust asking me to raise in Parliament how the covenant could be protected. Would the trust be able to bring in a private Bill and expect to be given remission of the large fees proposed? If that were so I would find it easier to accept that part of the report.
Another part of the report which fills me with horror relates to the rigid timetable. To have only one day in the year—I believe that it is 27 October—to introduce a private Bill is an impossible way to proceed. That is a classic example of a monopolistic bureaucracy, which this House is, coming up against the desires of people to bring in private Bills. People should not be told, "I'm sorry, you've missed the deadline by a few days and you'll now have to wait a year before you can bring in a private Bill to protect your case." I hope that the Committee will consider that point further.
The report addresses the needs of big business. It is clear that big business should have the right procedures to bring forward private Bills properly, and we know that that happens with the railways and the docks. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that we should also make it easier for small groups which in the past have looked to the local authority to protect them. In the case to which I have referred, a covenant needed protection. With regard to that covenant, in 1981 the local authority said that steps had been taken to effect registration so that

523
the agreement would be enforceable. However, counsel for Barratts, which also has interests in Dulwich, has said that its legal advice is that it can flout the covenant. People may look to the council to protect them and then find that the council fails them.
If people are concerned about the strength of a covenant and if they want to rest comfortably in their beds at night, they must know that if there is any doubt they can bring a private Bill through to ensure that the covenant is reinforced by the House. I hope that the Committee will consider that when it further considers the report which I otherwise support fully.
7.51 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I will not follow the course pursued by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) very far. He showed considerable ingenuity in raising a problem in his constituency. However, the whole advantage of having to present private Bills on one day in the year is that it makes it far easier for objectors to analyse a Bill to see what it involves. I often speak on behalf of the Ramblers Association in the House. If it did not know on which day a Bill was to be presented, it would face a formidable task in obtaining a copy to check whether footpath interests were affected.
One of the most challenging issues for a democracy is to persuade individuals that they should accept personal sacrifices for the benefit of the majority of their fellow citizens or, in some cases, for the benefit of the minority. It is even harder if people are asked to make sacrifices when they know that someone else will make a profit.
Someone may want to build a new power station, running on any kind of fuel, at the bottom of someone's garden. Similarly, a new motorway may cross the corner of someone's back yard or a railway line may cross someone's patio. There may be a new public lavatory on a street corner or a municipal refuse incinerator in a field at the back of a house. There may be a proposal for a gipsy encampment within half a mile of someone's home. In all those cases, I suspect that, if people were in favour of them at all, they would be in favour of them somewhere else and not close to their homes. I wonder whether we can produce any procedure which would convince people that such proposals should go ahead close to their houses.
It is even more difficult to produce procedures which will safeguard the environment against the immediate public and private expediency of damaging it. It would be very difficult to produce any procedure which would convince people that they have had a fair hearing if the decision goes against them. It will be even harder to convince future generations that we have done our planning well when they consider the environmental damage which we have already inflicted on this country.
It is very difficult to find a procedure which is genuinely fair to people who would be disadvantaged by such a decision. I am absolutely certain that the present private Bill procedure is grossly unfair. We should be able to find a fairer and better system.
The procedures are heavily weighted in favour of a Bill's promoter and are heavily weighted against those who want to object, particularly when individuals do not have great resources or find it difficult to raise money to make
524
representations. Anyone who goes down the Corridors and enters the House of Lords to witness the proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will realise what difficulties are involved.
A very affluent body is promoting the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and it has no difficulty in bringing its expert witnesses up from south Wales and engaging Queen's counsel to make the case. However, the individual objectors in the area face the expense of travelling here. When they arrive, they may find that there has been a slight alteration in the timetable, a QC may have spoken longer or shorter than expected or the individual may have come up on the wrong day and may be required to come up again the following day. Such people face many problems. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is almost in despair at having to organise and marshal opposition to that private Bill.
I have seen many private Bills pass through this House since I became a Member in 1974. These have included county council Bills and regular British Rail Bills. We should link waterways Bills with those British Rail Bills, although they do not come up quite as often. Many of those Bills have caused a great deal of environmental damage. In many ways, that legislation has involved the worst side of politics, with blackmail, bribery and many chance occurrences. I recall one Bill which failed by a single vote to gain the majority necessary for a closure. Obviously, no one can plan for that. All forms of jiggery-pokery have occurred in private legislation. That is not new: those political processes have occurred throughout the centuries in connection with private business.
We should remember that private business in the past took up much more time than it does now. The burghers of Northampton worked hard for nearly 10 years to prevent a railway line from going through the town and ever afterwards tried to get the railway line put through the town. Those of us who have studied railway history will be aware that various lords negotiated with the railway companies for their own private stations with guarantees that trains would stop. Only once such concession were granted did the lords allow the railway lines to cross their land.
There is nothing new about the shenanigans that have occurred in private Bill legislation. However, we should change things in this day and age. When the Town and Country Planning Act was passed in 1947, the House should have considered private Bill legislation very carefully and taken out most of the planning elements from the private Bill procedure.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech, much of which I agree with. Does he agree that his concept is consistent with the concept that I put forward in my speech—that any private Bill would have to satisfy a Committee of this House that public inquiry procedures had been followed properly? An inspector would probably make a report to the House rather than to the Secretary of State on matters requiring legislation rather than report on matters in the present way.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that. I do not think that there is a fundamental difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the Committee. The Committee says that a lot less should be

525
done through private Bills. My hon. Friend says almost that his total case is based on the first recommendation and that the others are subsidiary. The Committee says that the first recommendation is the most important and that the others follow. I do not think that there is a great deal of difference. My fundamental point is that this proposal for reform should have come with the new planning legislation after the second world war.
I welcome very much the work that the Committee did, and I pay tribute to the Chairman and the other members. However, I stress that what they have produced is a package. If all their proposals were implemented, most of the groups outside with which I have contact would be very happy. But those people would be very disappointed if only some of the proposals were implemented. If we were to get the balance right by reducing the number of environmental Bills, planning Bills, and things of that kind, the other changes to Standing Orders would be acceptable. But those changes would be totally unacceptable if the recommendations and those that follow from them are not right.
That is why I found the Government's response extremely disappointing. It suggested, almost, that this whole report could be buried for some time and that perhaps they would pick out two or three little points as a sop to the Committee and to the House. That would be totally unacceptable.
The Leader of the House referred to the sovereignty of Parliament. He seemed to suggest that if we were to go down this planning road we would get rid of the sovereignty of Parliament. In the case of the Channel tunnel, the railway line through Kent, and the King's Cross issue, the Government should have introduced legislation setting out the principle that there would be a Channel tunnel and a high-speed link, and that there would be either a London terminus or, as I prefer, a terminus much nearer the midlands to ensure that the whole country would benefit. Those principles should have been set out in Government legislation, and there should have been an inquiry to establish the route. In that way various people could have put forward the alternative arguments.
As I understand it, the King's Cross Railways Bill is a total farce. The London terminus will be established, and the tunnel will be under construction, so two points are set, and the piece between has to be filled in. No one could imagine that the route will be via Manchester or Belfast. As the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) made clear, his constituents will not be able to appear as objectors to the King's Cross Railways Bill, because they are not, as I understand the Standing Orders, directly affected. Of course they are not directly affected. I am not quite sure what will happen to the people of Newham, who would like to argue that Stratford should have been chosen instead of King's Cross. I am not sure whether those people will be entitled to appear. By a very strict and narrow interpretation of the Standing Orders, they have nothing to do with King's Cross.
Mr. Tony Banks: I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that the promoters, British Rail, have challenged the locus of Newham borough council. The matter went before the Court of Referees, which found against Newham. We will not be able to petition against the Bill
526
unless we can attach an instruction at Second Reading, which is something that I intend to do. Paragraph 101 of the report says:
"Proceedings over locus standi are uncommon. In the House of Lords, 36 challenges to locus standi have been recorded since 1950; in the House of Commons, the Court of Referees has considered only 11 cases since 1977."
British Rail is making up for lost ground: it has challenged over 150.
Mr. Bennett: I understand that. All that I am suggesting is that using the private Bill procedure is ridiculous. What we ought to have is a planning inquiry, at which people could argue for an alternative route and alternative termini. When the inquiry has been completed—some people suggest that the recommendations should be made to the House; others that the recommendations should be made to the Minister—orders, or a short Bill, could go through the House implementing them. That is the procedure that should be adopted.
I do not believe that by accepting the report the House would be giving up any sovereignty at all, and I am disappointed that the Leader of the House made that point.
In an intervention, I stressed to the Leader of the House that he should make very sure that there would be no more jumbo Bills. Recommendation 10 is extremely important—that Government Departments do not use private legislation as a short cut for provisions that they have failed to get through the Cabinet legislative committee.
It seems to me important that carry over motions should be debated at the start of the new Parliament. A new group of Members must be able to pass judgment as quickly as possible on the principle. I welcome the proposal concerning environmental impact. It is extremely important that it should be implemented.
I welcome the reforms—so long as we get them in balance. If there are no local government Bills, if the new procedure for British Rail Bills and others introduced by the waterways authority and if planning matters can be dealt with by planning inquiries, it seems to me that the other changes are acceptable.
On the question of having six names, it has been pointed out that at least one Bill has only my name on it. That is the requirement at the moment, but, if necessary, I think I could find five Friends in the House to add their names. Then I could start to argue. There is one thing that causes me to hesitate. On occasions I have put my name on the block and then started to talk to other people, who add their names. If eventually I accepted that a deal has to be done and I have to take my name off, I might find that others have stronger resolve than myself. So that creates a few difficulties.
On the question of 100 Members having to vote for a closure, the real question is the extent to which the Government whip the business. This has been referred to in an exchange. The days named for private business procedure are an amazing affair. I am told that the Chairman of Ways and Means has total discretion and can choose exactly for which day business is put down. Afterwards, the Government have the choice whether to put an order down and use the Whip. Sometimes, a private Bill arrives, and there is nothing after it. One thinks that that is a hint from the Government that they do not mind if it disappears, and a hint from the Chairman of Ways and Means that he does not mind if it disappears. On other

527
occasions the Chairman of Ways and Means picks a night when he is pretty confident that there will be other business either that day or the next. It is a very interesting process.
I do not think that it makes a lot of difference if we move to a simple majority for the closure if it reduces some of the behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, particularly if the rest of the package were implemented. I suspect that, if we were to vote on the principle, there would be more chance of people coming and listening to the debate on a private Bill and voting on its merits rather than as a result of pressure from behind the scenes such as, "It does not matter what you do tonight. Don't take any interest in the debate, but please be here at 10 o'clock for the vote." I would not object to that so long as it is part of the package.
The Committee recommends that there should be five Members instead of four. I have always felt that, in equity, it is not a good idea to have four people hearing evidence, because the Chairman, in return for performing his duties, gets two votes. At the moment chairmanships are supposed to alternate. The Opposition get one, and next time the Government get it. Obviously in the case of Bills that are party political, the order in which parties occupy the chairmanship makes an awful lot of difference.
I have been trying to find out what really happens and how easy it is for promoters to manipulate their Bill so that it comes in such a position in the queue that they get a Chairman who might be sympathetic to their case. That is another of those mysterious processes that go on in the House. I shall not go into that, but I want to know what will happen if we move from four to five members. Will there always be three Government and two Opposition members or will selection still be on a fairly random basis, and who will be the Chairman? If the Government have an in-built majority and always provide the chairman that would be going a little further than I would wish. I want more information on that.
I welcome most of the other proposals, but I want to reiterate the point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on behalf of the ramblers who object strongly to the proposal for the closure of public footpaths on the basis of safety. At present, under highways legislation and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, people can move for the diversion of a footpath where necessary on safety and other grounds and for closure where a footpath is not used. It is a little much for British Rail to say that it wants to close footpaths on the basis of safety. I do not want people to be injured, but since British Rail is creating the problem it is reasonable that it should find some way of getting under or over a crossing by an underpass or a bridge unless it can demonstrate that the crossing is not used. If people do not use it, legislation exists to close it and British Rail does not need this statutory power. It is not an acceptable ground for British Rail to argue that, because it has speeded up trains or carried out other engineering work on the line, a crossing is not safe. That is my one strong caveat.
I end by emphasising that if all the measures are recommended by the Government for implementation, I will go along with that. But if the Government want to pick out only one or two measures which further swing the balance in favour of the promoters, I shall ensure that those proposals are fought line by line.
8.11 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: Thinking about the debate today reminded me of some lines that I always remember with pleasure, although perhaps I should not, spoken by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was the newly appointed Secretary of State for Employment:
"I seem to recall that the right hon. Gentleman was the father of the Industrial Relations Act. The Queen's Speech proposes to repeal that Act. Never was a father so impassive in the face of the prospective slaughter of his pride and joy."—[Official Report, 18 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 688.]
Many of us remember that debate with pleasure.
I had feared that today something which many of us feel some pride in might be slaughtered, perhaps not openly and blatantly, but by some subtle parliamentary means. I have a sense of parentage, albeit with a large number of other strange bedfellows, and a sense of pride in the report that emerged.
I do not wish to be repetitive or platitudinous, but this is the only chance that we have to put on record our appreciation. I want to record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), the Committee's Chairman, who was outstanding and to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to place on record my compliments to the Clerks of the Committee, particularly Mr. Andrew Makower and Miss Elizabeth Baker. It allows one to say again just how well served we are in this House by the remarkable Clerks. Mr. Makower and Miss Baker were of the highest standard, combining a great deal of knowledge and intellect with charm. They had a skill of pilotage without appearing to do the steering. Those are remarkable qualities that are not always present in all one's colleagues, at least until they reach the Chair or become Patronage Secretary.
It was a great pleasure to serve on the Committee. Many hon. Members have said that it is a pleasure to serve on private Bill Committees. That is true and it was a privilege and pleasure to serve on this Committee. It has been fascinating to hear how many other people have brought an expertise and objectivity to our discussions today, and that is the point that I want to begin on.
The Committee was as impartial and objective as such a diverse Committee could be. We did not start off with any preconceptions and many of the conclusions that we have put before the House were arrived at by a logical process of listening to the witnesses. We came to some major and radical conclusions which have received almost overwhelming support from the House, and I hope that they will be accepted in that light.
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was somewhat negative, but that is not fair. He expressed an open-minded approach to some of the major propositions. He said that he would listen to the debate, and it is significant and heartening that virtually every contribution, coming from some significant sources, has virtually endorsed the whole range of the proposals. By significant, I certainly mean the shadow Leader of the House. Endorsements from the Opposition Front and Back Benches are of great importance. It is even more significant to have the immensely welcome contribution of the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, which was encouraging, positive and helpful and should give a fair wind to many of the proposals.

529
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had any doubts beforehand about the fundamental issues, I hope that he will take on board the opinions that have been expressed and come back with positive action, which means votes, much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. My right hon. Friend was most open-minded and helpful. Nevertheless, we are making some radical proposals.
I do not wish to go over the whole report. Other hon. Members can pick out individual matters. I want to restrict myself to the key issues. The first objective is the need to remove from the House many matters which, in the light of modern planning procedures, should not be in Parliament at all. Secondly, I want to deal with some of the more procedural matters and, thirdly, to deal with the tantalising matter of King's Cross and the rail link which is so crucial to our debate. In some ways it is regrettable to relate such general procedural proposals to highly controversial issues. It is said that hard cases make bad law and we should be careful. On the other hand, it is useful to test what we are discussing against real life issues which bring home to our constituents and hon. Members who might not otherwise be listening to our debate the realities and importance of the private Bill proposals.
Let me start with the objective of removing from our parliamentary procedures matters that we describe as public works Bills which would be better dealt with outside the legislature. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) exposed the real nature of the argument. The Committee came down clearly in favour of the public inquiry procedure. My position on that is clear, particularly in relation to the Kent problem of today. We said that the public inquiry route is better than the parliamentary route; that applies to those highway matters which come before Parliament, railway matters, harbour matters and tramways and other related matters.
The hon. Member for Newham, South clearly expressed his anxiety that Parliament would be losing some power over major planning decisions. We do not try to control through the legislature most of the major planning decisions that affect our constituents, and none of us would want to. Logic says that we should apply those planning rules to other matters, such as the railways, and in our report we produce a clear, precise and practical set of proposals that would take those matters back into the planning domain.
That would require primary legislation. I accept that there is always a queue for such legislation and that it is not a small commitment to ask the Government to introduce legislation of that sort, the ramifications of which could be considerable. But I am encouraged to believe that my right hon. Friend implied that it would be introduced at some stage. He seemed to accept the principle of our suggestions.
We must accept that there will be a loss of parliamentary control over some planning matters; a sacrifice will be made by certain hon. Members who will no longer be able to debate issues into which they used to enjoy getting their teeth. Those matters will leave the House.
The next point to be understood by objectors is that it will not necessarily produce a different or better result, but I believe that the planning inquiry route is the right route and is a better system for objectors. It is certainly a more congenial way of putting one's case. There are not strict rules of locus, so more people can put their cases; it is more
530
democratic. Nevertheless, they will put their cases before just one inspector. He or she will make a report to the Secretary of State and there will be a reasoned explanation of the decision. That will be taken as an Executive decision.
Mr. Wolfson: It is said in the report that going down the planning route, as the Committee proposes, is likely to be a much slower process than the present procedure. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Moate: I will come to the question of speed. While I believe that the planning route is not only the right but the better route, I do not want people to think that our present procedures are all bad or that private Bills that are going through or will go through before we have changed the system are necessarily prejudicial to the petitioners or opponents of Bills, because there are advantages.
To pursue the point of the King's Cross or Channel high-speed rail link proposal, it is not impossible—we are all speculating—that hon. Members and others who are opposed to the King's Cross proposal might be able to achieve an instruction to the Committee that could change the nature of the Bill. Indeed, they might be able to defeat the Bill. They might certainly be able, through the usual parliamentary tactics, to achieve major amendments to the Bill. It could be argued that none of those would have been available through the planning system.
Equally, if by chance the King's Cross Railways Bill were defeated by the opponents, they might say, "We prefer the parliamentary procedure to the planning system." At the same time, British Rail and the Department, if they were backing it, might say, "What a pity we had the parliamentary procedure. We would have preferred the public inquiry route." It all depends on the ultimate decision, and the sheer satisification of being able to take up more time at a public inquiry is not the be-all and end-all of the system.
Our present system is fair, but it is illogical and these matters should be put into the planning system. The Joint Committee, having examined it, came down clearly and firmly in favour of that proposition. On balance, it would be better for all the relevant organisations outside, as they argued strongly, to go to a planning inquiry.
I have no hesitation in sticking firmly to that proposal and I have no doubt that, had we considered these proposals a year or two ago in relation to, say, King's Cross and the high-speed link, we would now be considering them in the context of the planning system.
The Leader of the House attached great importance to the question of speed and said that the planning procedure would be slower and that would be the price to be paid. I do not think that that is necessarily the case and it seems that the point has been exaggerated. The delays in the planning procedure are not created only by the length of the public inquiry. They are caused as much by the bureaucratic processes before and after it. The inquiry need not be lengthy.
We have new rules that should curtail the excesses that have been experienced as some planning inquiries. There is no fundamental reason why a planning process should not be relatively quick. Who, anyway, is assuming that the parliamentary process will be quick? Judging by the remarks of some opponents, there is no guarantee that the

531
King's Cross Railways Bill will whistle through at a rapid rate. It would not surprise me if that takes as long as any alternative planning inquiry would have taken.
Mr. Spearing: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the advantages of the planning inquiry procedure, and I made that clear in my speech. What would he say to the concept that clearing the ground, from the point of view of strategic implications and possibly choice of route at the normal planning stage, should be a precondition of any preliminary procedures in this House, except in the case of a more detailed Bill, the details of most of which would have been thrashed out before it arrived? Would that not achieve the best of both worlds?
Mr. Moate: I would have to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal carefully before being able to respond. Perhaps he will forgive me, therefore, if I do not respond now.
The report says that, whatever is recommended, nothing can detract from the Government's power to handle big planning matters of national importance in any way they choose. I stress that, because whatever procedures are laid down in this House, the Government of the day, of either complexion, might say that a power station, an airport or a railway line is of such significance that—whether it be by hybrid or private legislation or by special development orders—there are various other routes open. In other words, at various times a Government could decide that matters of such strategic importance should come before the House. Had these recommendations been in place, even on the high-speed link, the Government might have said that the only way to get it through would be to bring it to Parliament.
We have produced a practical and logical set of proposals. They will be for the benefit of the House as a whole and I hope that hon. Members will grasp this nettle, to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). If we do not grasp it now, in years to come Parliament will bitterly regret not having taken an opportunity to reconstruct our approach to private Bills that should last us well into the next century.
I will deal briefly with some of the procedural points that are part of the package. I agree with those who have said that it would be wrong to expect hon. Members to give up some of their powers—the opportunities for guerrilla tactics to stop Bills that they do not like—unless they are satisfied that the package adds up.
I hope that the Government business managers will see this as a package—it cannot all be delivered in one piece of legislation—will accept the general objectives, and will introduce primary legislation and the necessary procedural changes to allow what we propose to take place. Only then would it be right to expect hon. Members to give up, for example, the verbal blocking and the need for 100 hon. Members to vote for the closure. I agree with the hon. Member for Den ton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that, if we took away that need to obtain 100 for the closure, particularly if, at the same time, we made it harder for proposers to carry over a Bill, we might get a genuine debate, because the only requirement would be to achieve a clear majority with 40 hon. Members being present and voting. It would remove an obstacle, but let us not pretend that it would be easy for the proposers.
532
I welcome the statement by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means that he thoroughly recommended not the option of a Joint Committee of both Houses for an experimental period but that he thought that it should be a requirement. Having taken a Bill through a Select Committee of one House, it does not make sense to repeat that procedure in the other. That practice was described by one witness as boiling one's cabbages twice. Another referred to it as taking two bites of the cherry. It does not make sense to have a duplication of Select Committees. The Joint Committee proposal is logical and makes sense, and I hope that it will be accepted. If one makes the Joint Committee only an option, it is unlikely to be used by anyone to whom it is inconvenient. I hope that we can, for an experimental period, make a Joint Committee a requirement. I feel sure that we shall benefit as a consequence.
As to the Kent high-speed rail link, I declare an interest as a Member for a Kent constituency. However, I am not directly affected by British Rail's proposal, although I could be directly affected by the proposal for an alternative route through my constituency. Come what may, we are going to have the private Bill procedure in respect of that rail link, the Joint Committee's proposals were brought out without a specific route in mind. Ironically—this makes one realise how quickly events have caught up with us—the report comments:
"In any case, long stretches of new railway line are at present uncommon."
It is ironic that that statement was made, but that we are now confronted by one of the most highly controversial rail routes of all time.
Whatever our preference may have been, we are on the private Bill route. Speaking personally, my preference was for a public inquiry that embraced the Channel tunnel itself, the rail link, and the link's termini. I wish that some of those who are now complaining the loudest had voted against the Channel tunnel when it was proposed. They did not say then that we should think of the environmental consequences and of the rail link that would be a consequence of the tunnel. However, that is history.
Today I cannot see any conceivable way of persuading the Government to hold a public inquiry. Therefore, we must make the best of the existing procedures, which offer immense opportunities to petitioners to bring their protest to the House and to secure major changes to the Bill. One should also remember the disadvantages of a public inquiry, which generates options and blight across a much wider area. A public inquiry might be presented with four or five main routes, as well as a range of alternative routes, that would be under consideration for six months, a year or even two years. We currently have the advantage that there is only one proposed rail link route, that the whole county is not blighted—and neither are other areas, if one extends the argument—but we have certainty instead. An extended inquiry would delay a decision, and cause massive uncertainty and a great deal of anxiety.
We are, I hope, moving towards the public inquiry system. Assuming that it has the Government's support, that system must be better. The sooner that we adopt it, the better it will be for all concerned. However, for the moment we must make the best use of the procedures that we have.
8.35 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The first part of my speech will not strike a discordant note, but its conclusion may do so. I begin by joining the tributes paid to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and to his Committee. The House is indebted to them for their substantial work. I also listened to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) with great interest. I do not intend remarking much on Kent or on the Channel tunnel, although I suspect that we shall have substantial opportunities to discuss the line of route soon, and at rather greater length.
I am, in common with my hon. Friends, eager to see the proposed changes and the implementation of the whole package in the Joint Committee's report. However, I have reservations about three recommendations. Unlike the hon. Member for New Forest, I am anxious about the question of the simple majority. My belief is that the basic motive behind that proposal is a desire to accelerate consideration of private Bills.
The House is not always wise to accelerate its consideration of Bills. The Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill lasted for an unconscionable time between 1985 and 1987. I made long speeches on that Bill, as did several of my hon. Friends, at peculiar hours in the early morning. But as we neared the 50th hour of debate, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who sponsored the Bill, began offering concessions. They may not have amounted to a great deal, but had we not kept the debate going, we should not have obtained them. It is possible that the Orwell estuary would be a poorer place if excessively speedy progress had been made with that Bill.
The House must take care, and right hon. and hon. Members give up hours of their time when they would probably be better off in bed. We must bear in mind the fact that, in addition to the convenience of the lawyers and the interests of commercial undertakings, we are under an obligation to care for the individual who may not have adequate resources to care for himself. We ought to care also for the environment, and I am particularly pleased with the report's reference to environment impact assessments, which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome.
Environment impact assessments have been undertaken in recent years in respect of a number of private Bills. The hon. Member for New Forest will recall that a considerable amount of environmental information was available to right hon. and hon. Members concerned about the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill. I even knew how many species of insects there are to be found in the 32 acres plot in contention. As to the Orwell estuary, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds identified not only the breeding species to be found there, but their numbers, together with a considerable amount of other information that was purveyed to the House at rather greater speed than some right hon. and hon. Members would have liked.
We have been given a great deal of environmental information about certain private Bills. All we have now is a promise that assessments will be made. There is no commitment to ensuring that environmental interests notified and presented in assessments will be reflected by the Bill. No guarantee is given that adequate compensation will be paid for any damage that is done.
We welcome the insistence that environmental assessments will be made, but in the absence of a guarantee
534
that any assessment will be made meaningful, a number of right hon. and hon. Members remain justifiably suspicious.
My final anxiety relates to the obligation of a right hon. or hon. Member to attend a Private Bill Committee. A few years ago, such an obligation would have been very reasonable. I shall not labour the point, but some right hon. and hon. Members represent constituencies suffering appalling economic needs, and they could not honourably give a commitment to attend a debate or Committee of the House that is to take place several weeks or months hence. Right hon. and hon. Members do not know whether there will be yet another industrial or colliery closure, or some other form of bankruptcy and ruin in their constituencies. I would not be prepared to enter into such a long-term obligation, and I feel certain that many right hon. and hon. Members representing the industrial areas of the north of England will be anxious about giving such an obligation when the crying need of their constituents, as of mine, may require them to devote their energies, and to ensure their presence, elsewhere.
I shall mention an issue that may not be mentioned in the report. Some of us have expressed concern about two controversial Bills—the Associated British Ports Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—who may seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) who served on the Committees on the two Bills. They were unable successfully to introduce an amendment to the Associated British Ports Bill, even though the matter—as I think all Conservative Members recognise—was very contentious. It was so contentious that the European Community would not give grants for the project.
The matter was contentious because it meant that large numbers of jobs in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire would be lost. It was also contentious because it seemed to embody an idiotic approach to energy policy and to destroy industrial capacity, making our balance of payments deficit much greater. However, my hon. Friends were unable to amend the Bill in Committee because they were in a minority. Therefore, the Bill would not be debated on Report. A number of us were very concerned about that.
I raised the matter in the House some weeks ago, because I had a large number of amendments to table in my constituents' interests. However, when I looked at "Erskine May" and checked with our Clerks, I found that there could be only a Third reading, at which hon. Members would be able to present insubstantial verbal amendments. We would not be able to present written amendments, which might have protected thousands of jobs in our area, allowed us to talk about the problems of the unsafe mining industry in South Africa and maintain our saner energy courses. None of those amendments would have been, or will be, possible. That is the single extra rule which needs to be changed, in addition to the commendable ones that are already proposed in the package.
The North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill will proceed to the Report stage because, due to the efforts of my hon. Friends, one amendment was accepted. It is interesting that there are two Bills for two closely adjacent ports, but one will be subject to detailed and lengthy debates on amendments, and the other will not. The promoters of one of those Bills will feel badly done by. I

535
am not actually suggesting that we should have a great deal of sympathy with the Bills' promoters. I have very little sympathy with them because it was an abuse to send hon. Members on free trips to South Africa to ensure that they took a slightly rosier view of the Bill than they otherwise might have done.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his detailed exposition of the importance of the two Bills. As both Bills contained matters of great public importance, were they not unsuitable for private legislation?
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. I do not dissent from the view that the private Bill procedure was inappropriate in those cases. I made that point clear in a long speech during the debates on one of the Bills. Unfortunately, we have got them, and one of them may not have been properly considered as a consequence of the inadequacy of the present rules.
I shall not take up much more time because several other hon. Members wish to speak and I have made my point. I shall end with another tribute to the hon. Member for New Forest, who has brought to the House a valuable report, which will serve Parliament well for a long time to come. In the interests of the community as well as the individual, the Government must accept the report in its entirety and ensure that the changes that it produces are not embarrassed or blocked by party calculation. On this matter, the will of the House and the need of the nation are similar.
8.45 pm
Sir John Stanley: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) with my own broad and warm support for the conclusions of the Joint Committee—that is no mere formality on my part as I am sure it was not for other hon. Members. I join other hon. Members in expressing my warm appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the members of his Committee on a job extremely well done.
The private Bill procedures as has been clearly shown in today's debate, are much in need of a radical overhaul. This is a timely moment for that to be done, given the major and controversial private Bills which are with us and are likely to be with us soon. The House owes a considerable debt to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest and the members of his Committee.
Hon. Members are divided on this matter but the division does not run between the red stripes on the Floor of the House but between those hon. Members who have practical, first-hand experience of the use of private Bill procedures to drive through controversial or unwelcome developments in their own constituencies, and those hon. Members for whom that particular experience is purely theoretical.
We very much appreciate the open-mindedness of the Leader of the House in his opening speech. If his constituency of Colchester, South and Maldon was threatened with having a private Bill being driven through by the private Bill procedures, to dump nuclear waste in landfill sites, he might be a trifle more sceptical about the rights of objectors under private Bill procedures than he was in his opening remarks. Those of us who have such
536
direct constituency experience know that these procedures leave a lot to be desired in giving proper rights of objection to our constituents.
I shall focus on an area which is of concern to us in Kent, south-east London and my own constituency of Tonbridge and Malling—the crucial interaction of private Bill procedures with the planning process. Although we all have planning decisions which we do not like in our own constituencies from time to time, most of us would accept that, by and large, the planning procedures operate well. They are generally perceived to be operated fairly because they have a strong local content, a strong devolution locally to elected representatives and a strong and easy means of participation and consultation with the people who are likely to be most closely affected by them on the ground.
The great weakness of the private Bill procedures, and the scepticism and fear of them locally, is that for major and highly contentious developments such as a high-speed railway line through green fields, those local people who would most expect to be consulted, have procedures explained to them and be given a genuine opportunity for making their objections felt, find that the traditional means of their involvement in the planning process have been taken away from them. Instead, they are left with a new process, removed from them locally, which makes it difficult for them to participate practically in the process. That is the nub of the problem. I believe that the Committee is entirely right to try to ensure that that does not happen in future, and that for major controversial applications we revert more to the normal planning processes.
It is an illusion that the private Bill procedure gives local people the same rights that they would have in the normal planning process. I do not think that those affected by controversial decisions made in the private Bill procedure would endorse such a view. A Select Committee charged with such a responsibility is bound not to be able to provide as much time as an inspector working full time in a public inquiry; it will not be able to go into the same detail.
Opportunities to object directly to Select Committee members are very limited. Elected local representatives have no direct involvement in the decision-making process: they are cut off from it completely. As for parliamentary representatives, although those with direct constituency interests can make their views known on Second Reading and on the Floor of the House, they are debarred from participation in the Committee's proceedings.
On 13 April, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport answered a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) about the possibility of British Rail's promoting a private Bill for the high-speed line. He said:
"Objectors have the opportunity to petition against the Bill to Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, who have the power to amend the Bill in response to the petitions received. This provides an appropriate mechanism for objections to British Rail's proposals to be considered if they have not been resolved in consultations prior to the Bill's introduction."—[Official Report, 13 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 648.]
I disagree. In my view the Select Committee procedure is far from being an appropriate mechanism for the hearing

537
of objections, and for giving people confidence that their views are being seriously assessed. I strongly endorse recommendation 5, which states:
"In principle, in cases where planning considerations are dominant, all works proposals for which private Bill approval is presently required should instead be authorised through non-parliamentary procedures involving the holding, where necessary, of a public local inquiry into objections."
Our sceptism in Kent about the private Bill procedure is reinforced by our experience with the Channel Tunnel Bill. Let me make it clear that I am in no way criticising Members on either side of the House who served on that Bill; they undoubtedly did all that they could to assess the project. The fact remains, however, that the Bill went through the whole private Bill procedure and was ultimately approved by the House on the basis of one totally fundamental and incorrect statement made by British Rail. That statement was that there were no plans to build a new railway line through Kent. As a result the Bill was passed with little difficulty, but had there been a public inquiry I do not believe that British Rail's bland statement would have withstood the rigours that such an inquiry can involve.
I very much hope that considerations will be given to a public inquiry procedure in future for such Bills, particularly for a high-speed line Bill, and that in that instance the inquiry could be held in Kent and south-east London. The Bill would be presented in the normal way: I accept that British Rail could not obtain all the statutory powers that it would need to construct such a line through the normal planning process, and would need wider powers which can be conferred only through parliamentary legislation and the private Bill procedure. I feel, however, that British Rail—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport—would be well advised to dovetail with the normal private Bill procedure a means of holding a full inquiry in Kent and south-east London.
The process will not be credible locally if the Select Committee members hold a few meetings in Kent and a few in south-east London—as happened with the Channel Tunnel Bill—return to Westminster and then produce their report. The fact is that, with the best will in the world, Members of Parliament cannot devote enough time to performing the sort of local inquiry job that is necessary on such occasions. A properly staffed inspector is needed, who can provide a service eight hours a day, five days a week, listening to all objections and evalutating them.
I believe that a Select Committee should be empowered to establish such an inspector to carry out a public inquiry, within a period defined by the Committee. Such an inspector must have the time and resources to report back to the Committee. That, I believe, can be done without prejudicing the basic timetable for a high-speed line Bill. I have taken to heart what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). There can be no question of giving an inspector the opportunity to hear representations on a variety of alternative routes: that would bring back the serious blight problem from which we in Kent have escaped. There is, however, a sensible role for such an inspector to play.
In the case of the high-speed line, the inspector would make his report only in the context of the particular route that British Rail proposes. That would not only ensure that the House carried out its proper functions in relation to private legislation, but provide a new dimension in
538
which those affected by such proposals could have their objections heard in a local framework. They would present oral or written evidence, and the report would be submitted to the Select Committee here. Such a combination of procedures could, I think, deal with the deficiencies highlighted in the Joint Committee's report.
A specific feature of the high-speed line proposal directly affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who was here earlier in the debate. That is the possibility of the construction of a new station on a green-field site in the mid-Kent area, the so-called Mid-Kent Parkway station. That is solely a planning matter; it is not integral to the high-speed line. It is a straight development proposal, not very different from any other large development proposal—for instance, an industrial or commercial proposal for an out-of-town shopping centre or an industrial trading estate, the kind of proposal that is dealt with every day of the week by planning authorities.
I would go further than the Committee: I think that such proposals should be dealt with very firmly, and always, through the local planning system. There is no case for a Committee of the House to be involved in a development which would be an optional extra for this high-sped line. I hope that it will not form any part of the British Rail Bill and that it will be dealt with exclusively through the normal planning process.
I was heartened by paragraph 21 of the memorandum that the Lord President presented to the Joint Committee, which it considered in its proceedings of 16 December 1987. He said:
"The Government recognises however that on occasion the planning aspects of schemes of the type described in paragraph 19 can be very significant and controversial. In one or two exceptional cases over the years, the Government has used its influence, directly with the promoter, to secure the consideration of the planning aspects of the scheme at a public inquiry under the Planning Acts. In appropriate cases, it would be prepared to do so again, or in extremis to ask Parliament to block the Bill".
I very much welcome that statement. The Government should regard the high-speed line Bill as an appropriate case. They should recognise that such a Bill will be a uniquely controversial and contentious piece of legislation, and they should use their influence with the promoters to ensure a public inquiry, within defined limits, on certain aspects of it.
9.1 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: This take note debate on the Joint Committee's report on private Bill procedure is very much a matter for old parliamentary hands and for those well versed in the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, so it is with some trepidation that I intervene in the debate.
I welcome the general content of the report. I can see the problems arising from the growing number of private Bills before the House. I am also aware of the controversy among hon. Members and the public in general over the amount of lobbying and the number of consultants in the House at present. As has already been demonstrated, the vast majority of private Bills are concerned with private interests and, although I accuse no one of anything, they may lead to many attempts to influence hon. Members on behalf of commercial interests.
As a member of a Committee considering a private Bill from October to the beginning of February, I could see

539
that problems caused for ordinary petitioners on private Bills when it came to the cost of travel to London, the expense of overnight accommodation and, above all, the time taken up.
I would like to speak from my own experience of a Committee considering a private Bill and to begin with a quotation from the report of the Joint Committee in paragraph 32 at the top of page 14:
"Private bills are not in the opinion of the Committee an appropriate system for authorising works of purely local significance. The Committee would regard the transfer of power from Parliament in these cases not as a substantial constitutional shift, but as a logical step in a pattern of historical development and a necessary response to modern requirements."
While I agree with that statement, it does not necessarily follow that anything that is of much wider national significance ought to be the subject of a private Bill. I was a member of the Committee that considered the opposed private Bills, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Such was the complexity and political nature of the Bill that, at the conclusion of its consideration of the No. 2 Ports Bill, the Committee felt it necessary to present to the House a special report.
I would like to read from that report—it may unfortunately be a little boring—two paragraphs to make my point. The first is paragraph 20:
"The Committee decided unanimously that if the petitioners' assessment of the amount of coal likely to be imported through Immingham proves correct, then the consequences for the British coal industry could be, to use the word employed by Counsel for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 'horrendous.' Those consequences might include the closure of as many 15 collieries, the loss of 15,000 jobs, the permanent sterilization of energy resources, and 'knock on' effects on local communities across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. The Committee is aware of the dangers of allowing the import of coal on this scale, and is very sympathetic to the petitioners in the case they made concerning this".
I have read that not because I want to go into the details of the Committee's discussion, but to emphasise that this private Bill Committee of four hon. Members was concerned with issues of enormous national significance. It was concerned with the not insignificant effect of imports on the balance of trade. It was concerned with the whole question of energy policy, which has been the subject of great debate in Select Committee. It sat at a time when the privatisation of electricity generation was being discussed. The Bill has also markedly affected the long-standing agreement between the nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal on contracts for coal-fired power stations. It has greatly affected the job prospects and economies of a large part of the Midlands and Yorkshire.
These are tendentious national issues and, when it comes to the relationship between the Government and the mining communities, issues of real passion.
I was struck by the fact that the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means said, correctly, that hon. Members who serve on private Bill Committees must do so in a completely disinterested way. It is impossible for any hon. Member coming to the House as a political animal,
540
representing a political party, to be completely disinterested when debating national policy and controversies of such a nature. It shows that this sort of matter should not be the property of a private Bill Committee.
This was the feeling of all four members of the Committee on which I served, two Conservative Members and two Labour Members, and I would like to quote from the report because it makes the point a little more clearly:
"The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting United Kingdom energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench MPs, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private Bill committee. There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government."
We had two Bills before the one Committee. As the procedure is that the chairmanship of Bill Committee goes alternately to the two major parties, it meant that both Bills were considered under one chairman, who had a casting vote. This meant a built-in majority for the Government in the Committee. There were no objections. I am not suggesting that there was any impropriety, but it is regrettable that such a controversial issue was handled in that way.
I have been a Member of Parliament for about 22 months. When I reached the third month of sitting for three days a week on the Bill—representing, as I do, a constituency with the lowest rates of pay in Britain and with more than its fair share of social deprivation, which involves a large burden of correspondence and case work—I began to feel that my initials were "M.U.G." and that my surname had been changed to "Naive." I understand now why so few hon. Members volunteer to serve on private Bill Committees, particularly Members with large caseloads.
Only four Members serve on those Committees. The quorum is three. I am glad that one of the recommendations is that the quorum should be changed. It meant, in my case, that if one member of the Committee was not present I could not indulge my craving for nicotine. That may have been good for my health, as a nicotine addict. However, it also meant that the normal human function of going to the lavatory became a major issue if one member of the Committee was absent. Bewigged ladies and gentlemen were being paid enormous sums of money an hour. Even a five-minute visit to the gents meant that one was probably depriving them of several hundreds of pounds in fees. That is nonsense.
I support the increase in the number of members to five. Enormous pressure is put on the Chairman. He has the casting vote, in certain circumstances. A Committee of five members would be much fairer and much more reasonable. However, I should be prepared to support the recommendation only if it meant that the 3:2 majority, particularly on controversial Bills, alternated, just as the chairmanship alternates now. If it meant a built-in Government majority, few Opposition Members would be prepared to sit on such Committees.

541
We sat for the longest time for many years on a private Bill. At the end of our deliberations we thought that we might get into "The Guinness Book of Records." However, I foresee that the King's Cross development and the Channel tunnel will lead to the deletion of our names from that book, even before it is printed.
9.12 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I support what all hon. Members have said about the main thrust of the report. It is comprehensive and detailed. It highlights the fact that our present methods of handling legislation have become increasingly out of date and unsatisfactory. That is not surprising, bearing in mind historical development of the private Bill procedure at a time when few, if any, of the present planning procedures were in place. I hope that the fact that the recommendations have been so strongly supported will encourage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to seek their rapid implementation.
Recommendation 1 reads:
"Promoters of a private bill should be required to prove before the committee on the bill that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the bill."
It is important that we should limit the number of private Bills and that on Second Reading greater attention should be paid to whether it is correct that the Bill ought in fact to be before the House.
I support those hon. Members who argue strongly in support of recommendation 5, which relates to planning considerations. There is a strong argument for taking private Bills, where there is a dominant planning element, out of the planning procedure.
I also support the view that an easily digestible handbook on private Bill procedure ought to be made available. It is difficult for the general public to understand parliamentary procedure. The report suggests that Members of Parliament need a handbook. It should also be made available to the public. It must be written in plain English that can be easily understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) referred to the fears of the public if they come as petitioners before a Committee on private Bills. The aura of this place, the limited facilities for doing any work here as petitioners and the difficulty of coming to Parliament are obstacles in the way of petitioners making their case adequately, compared with their position at a public inquiry that is held locally, in familiar surroundings and on familiar ground. People feel more confident in those circumstances.
That is not to imply that our current procedures cannot be turned to good account. I do not intend to refer to Kent in great detail, since other hon. Members have referred to this. I accept that we shall have to deal with the high-speed link within the present legislative framework. There are many ways in which the Bill could be delayed. Hon. Members can put pressure on the promoter of the Bill, British Rail, to make concessions so as to meet the general concerns of our constituents.
The radical proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing deserves to be fully considered by the Government. He has suggested that the Committee that deals with petitions against the high-speed rail link should be provided with greater resources. The final decision will ultimately be made by the House. However, my right hon. Friend has suggested that an inspector should conduct a public inquiry within a time
542
scale established by the Committee. That would go a long way towards providing a better opportunity for petitioners to air their concerns and for the very real worries of all those who are likely to be affected by the high-speed rail link, and by similar important legislation, to be expressed with confidence.
The public demonstrations against the rail link in Kent and the problems that will arise because of people's fears are partly due to the fact that the public are not familiar with the private Bill procedure. Very few Members of Parliament are familiar with the procedure. That point is clearly made in the report, and it has been referred to in the debate. The existing framework allows the fears of the public to be well aired, but it does not inspire confidence. In supporting the thrust of the Joint Committee report, I realise that such changes will take time, but they need not take very long if the Government and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are prepared to put their full weight behind the changes which I believe to be long overdue.
9.19 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I apologise for having been unable to be present for much of the debate this afternoon, but I listened very carefully to the speech of the Leader of the House, and I was disappointed in the Government's apparent lack of sympathetic response to many of the recommendations in the Joint Committee report.
The Joint Committee report addressed a number of problems which are evident in relation to private Bills submitted to the House, especially private Bills of a highly controversial nature. I am becoming ever more familiar with the niceties of private Bill procedure. For the first time in a number of years, a private Bill relates to very specific matters which will have an enormous impact on my constituents—the King's Cross Railways Bill. The forces ranged against local people in voicing their protest against British Rail's plans, in trying to understand private Bill procedure and find out how to petition against British Rail's proposals, in facing objections to their locus standi as petitioners and in trying to find their way around the current complex and daunting private Bill procedures have been something of an eye-opener.
I wish to pick up a point on which I had a brief exchange with the Leader of the House. He seemed to imply that in his view the present procedure was fair between petitioners and promotors, but I cannot agree with him. The present system is heavily biased in favour of the promotors of a Bill and against the petitioners. I ran provide one or two examples that relate specifically to the King's Cross Railways Bill.
That Bill will destroy an entire neighbourhood in my constituency. If implemented, it will demolish a considerable number of homes and destroy a considerable number of businesses. It will knock the stuffing out of a community that has been under threat for 10, 15 or 20 years and has been painstakingly rebuilt by local residents. It is a precious flower that is about to be trampled, and the people of King's Cross do not want that to happen.
Quite justifiably, they are anxious to make their views known in the most effective way they can about British Rail's absurd proposals for a vast underground international station at King's Cross. Understandably, many of them decided to petition. Leaving aside the sheer

543
difficulty of petitioning—the petition has to be in a particular form of words in a particular format and it has to be submitted on a particular day—there is a specific deadline which is not publicly advertised and which they have to find out by contacting their Member of Parliament or the Private Bill Office. Having submitted their petitions against the Bill, many of them have encountered objections, not directly from British Rail, but from the agents acting for British Rail who are challenging their locus standi as petitioners.
I shall give just one example of the absurdity of that. Many of my constituents who live in Northdown street, which is immediately adjacent to the site for the proposed railway station, have submitted petitions. It appears that the agents acting for British Rail have accepted the locus standi of virtually all the petitions from Northdown street, but they have objected to the locus standi of one petitioner who lives in the middle of Northdown street, surrounded by other petitioners whose locus standi has not been objected to by the agents acting for British Rail.
I do not want to trespass beyond the limits of the debate, but it seems to me that a private Bill procedure that allows petitioners to face that sort of difficulty cannot possibly be right.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Am I right in saying that this matter is already before the Court of Referees?
Mr. Smith: I understand that the matter will come before the Court of Referees in due course, but, as far as I am aware, the petitions to which I referred have not yet been before the Court of Referees.
Mr. Speaker: Although the hon. Gentleman can legitimately draw attention to this sort of thing, it is rather wide of the debate and he should not take us too far along this line.
Mr. Smith: Of course I shall accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I raised the issue merely to illustrate my point that the procedure for petitioning is extremely difficult, daunting and complex for people who wish to object to a private Bill.
In claiming that the private Bill procedure was even-handed between petitioners and promoters, the Leader of the House said that, in his opinion, the recommendations in the Joint Committee report would make life very difficult for the promoters of Bills. He said that it would be much more time-consuming, expensive and difficult for promoters if they had to go through normal planning procedures on planning matters.
Surely that is the nub of the point. It is my contention that if British Rail wants to carry out a considerable amount of work in the south-western corner of my constituency at King's Cross, if it wants to change the face of the neighbourhood and if it wants to decide a major transport issue about the best location for an international train station, those are matters that should be considered at greater length, in greater detail and by a more democratic procedure than is possible under the present private Bill procedure. If that means that British Rail has to take more time about it and has to do the job better than it has hitherto given evidence of doing in relation to King's Cross, so much the better.
544
For the Leader of the House to argue that we should not accept more proposals of the Joint Committee because they would make life more difficult for the promoters of private Bills is not good enough. In many respects, life should be made more difficult for the promoters of private Bills. Life is too easy for them. The sloppy way in which British Rail has hitherto made its decisions in relation to King's Cross bears out that point.
Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail has been sloppy, or devious, in that it has submitted to the House its Bill to dig rather than build a station at King's Cross in such a way that it can successfully challenge the locus standi of Members all along the line intended to connect that station with the Channel tunnel, and also in such a way that it has even excluded works at King's Cross associated with the Euro-tunnel, which means that those works will have to be the subject of part of its second Bill? Does he agree that that salami tactic would be impossible at a public inquiry?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that he and I will shortly be making common cause on that Bill. He will know better than I, because it is on his side of the constituency boundary, that the residents of Acton street and Swinton street in the immediate vicinity of King's Cross have already received approaches from people acting for British Rail, seeking to prepare material for another private Bill which is due to be tabled in the House in six to eight months' time, and which will relate to work directly relevant to the works contained in the private Bill currently before the House. As yet, we do not know the details of those works. It is absurd that we are talking about a private Bill whose ramifications we cannot discuss until another Bill is tabled in the House, some 12 months after the initial proposal.
The inadequacies of the private Bill procedure when addressing such detailed and important planning matters are all too clear. I cannot agree with the argument of the Leader of the House that we cannot accept that part of the Joint Committee's report because it would make life more difficult for the promoters of private Bills. It would make life more difficult for them, but it is important that that happens, because life is too difficult for petitioners and too easy for promoters at present.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks. He can correct me if I am wrong, but is he saying in effect that, if the second part of the report is not accepted, the gross inequality because of resources between promoters and petitioners will continue, and that in some way it is fair that that gross inequality should continue to exist?
Mr. Smith: The Leader of the House seems to be saying that he is not prepared to accept some of the earlier recommendations in the Joint Committee report, which would take out of the private Bill procedure many of the planning issues that I object to being included in the procedure—the Joint Committee agrees with me—but he is prepared to accept some of the later recommendations which will make the procedure in the House for private Bills smoother, quicker and easier. By saying that, the Leader of the House has dangerously unbalanced the careful package that the Joint Committee put together.
The Joint Committee wants to exclude the planning issues from the private Bill procedure in the House, but as

545
a counterweight wants to make it easier to get the things that should be part of private Bills through the House in a more shipshape fashion. The Leader of the House seems to be saying, "Let's drop all the proposals for taking planning issues out of this procedure but let's speed up the procedures none the less"—which, to my mind, might result in the worst of all possible worlds. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has raised an extremely interesting point.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the essential balance incorporated by the Committee—and by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson)—to which I accede, but does he agree that, even if that balance were incorporated, Bills such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)—such as the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Associated British Ports Bills—might still get through because, while they do not necessarily involve planning, although they might incidentally, they involve matters of considerable public policy that should be dealt with in another way than through private legislation?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the moment, two major issues that can come within the content of private Bills are not appropriate for private Bill procedures. The first are planning issues, which should be dealt with by public local inquiries, and the second are issues of public policy, such as those relating to the energy policy of the country, or to whatever else is relevant to the Bill. Such issues should not be subject to the private Bill procedure. Instead, they could be subject to primary legislation in this House and be preceded by a Select Committee report. There are other and better ways of addressing major public policy issues than the private Bill procedure.
The initial response of the Leader of the House to this excellent Joint Committee report—I congratulate all those involved in producing it—has been deeply disappointing. He has missed the considerable number of good points in the report, and he believes too much in the fairness of the present system. He has failed to take account of the inadequacies of the private Bill procedure to deal with planning matters or with major public policy issues and he has failed also to take account of the desperate need for this House to sort out better ways of dealing with such matters than those we have at the moment.
9.37 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: Next month, I shall have been a Member for 10 years, during which time I have taken a close interest in private Bills for various reasons. Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have found myself at various times passionately seeking to oppose private Bills and in recent times I have found myself passionately seeking to sponsor two private Bills which are currently before the House in one form or another, and which have been referred to several times in the debate.
In addition, although I have not had the opportunity of serving for as long as the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), I have served for a considerable time as a member of a Private Bill Committee. In fact, I have served on two such Committees. Therefore, I come to the debate from every angle and you will recall, Mr. Speaker,
546
that in previous debates on private Bills you will have seen me rise and then sit down an hour or two later when I have been seeking to oppose certain private Bills.
I hope that my few words will bring to bear the benefit of some experience and, at the outset, I should declare an interest because I am seeking to promote the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill.
The private Bill procedure has served reasonably well during the 10 years that I have been a Member of the House. I have lost some and I have won some. I have opposed some private Bills that have subsequently received the Royal Assent. I may have the opportunity of being able to move the Third Reading of one private Bill but it may be that I will be unable to move the Third Reading of the other. Obviously, it will be for the House as a whole to decide whether the Third Readings are given and it will also be for the other place to decide whether the Bills should be proceeded with.
I do not want to dwell too much on the specific Bills for which I have a responsibility, except to say that I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, North. It is a great stress and strain on any hon. Member who is selected by the Committee of Selection to serve on a private Bill. I have been in the hon. Gentleman's circumstance, but not for the same length of time.
I was unable to participate in the Private Bill Committee, because I had an interest, but I sat in the Public Gallery for many of the deliberations and I readily place on record the fact that it must have been a considerable strain to the four hon. Members who served from October last year until March of this year on the two Bills concerned. I accept that there is probably a case for considering the Joint Committee's proposals regarding the quorum and the size of the Committee. I imagine that it must have been difficult for the hon. Member for Bradford, North and his colleagues who have demanding constituencies, and who are active in the House in other ways, to give all the time that they would wish to all their other duties.
I am worried about one approach that appears to be envisaged by the Joint Committee, which is the feeling that there should be a transfer to ministerial control of some of the policy decisions that are sometimes implicit in private Bills.
One of the great joys that I relish as a Back Bench Member is the opportunity, when considering private legislation, to play some direct role in the outcome of that legislation. I am concerned about the prospect of transferring yet more decisions to ministerial control, with all that that implies in terms of party discipline and votes. I am not sure that there is much pressure to curtail parliamentary involvement or transfer subjects that have been handled in Parliament to ministerial control. I do not believe that there would be any obvious advantage in doing so or that there would necessarily be any greater safeguards. I would argue that Back Benchers with an assiduous ability and knowledge of parliamentary procedure can do a great deal either to promote or frustrate the passage of a private Bill. There is a strong argument for keeping such matters within the direct scrutiny of Parliament, rather than leaving them to Ministers and local authorities.
For the two private Bills in which I have a direct constituency interest, I would submit that, if the proposals of the Joint Committee were to be accepted in full, it would

547
have been possible for the projects to come to fruition much more easily. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made clear in an intervention in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) if only local authorities had been involved in giving planning permission for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill projects, the procedures would have been easier. I know that both the Humberside county council and the Glanford borough council were in favour of the proposals that had been submitted to the House by the promoters of both those Bills.
Recommendation 9 says:
"The permitted scope of Harbour Orders under the Harbours Act 1964 should be broadened, so as to allow general powers to be included and a wider range of development to be authorised. S.62 of the 1964 Act should be repealed."
The Joint Committee refers the House to paragraph 60 of its recommendations.
I argue that that recommendation, coupled with the suggestion that, where possible, local authority planning powers should be used more, would, in the instance of the two private Bills I have mentioned, have enabled those proposals to be put forward by the promoters much more easily. Hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and his colleagues, have legitimate and genuine concerns about those two Bills.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the local authority might have been inclined to give planning permission easily, the Secretary of State always had the power to call in those projects and, therefore, to set up an inquiry? Had a proper public inquiry been held, it would have probably taken as long as consideration of the private Bills in Committee.
Mr. Michael Brown: I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Those private Bills were deposited before the House in November 1987. On the assumption that the Chairman of Ways and Means might name the day for the Third Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill during this Session, it is more than probable—even if the House grants the Bill a Third Reading and even if it gets a Third Reading in the other place—that it will be 1990, at the earliest, before the Bill is given the Royal Assent. I would be distressed if a public inquiry procedure took three years.
In the case of the two Bills mentioned, I believe that recommendation would lead to the House being bypassed to a greater extent. That would reduce the ability of the hon. Member for Wentworth and his colleagues, who have a legitimate interest in following the passage of those Bills, to raise relevant matters in public debate. It would also deny them the chance to delay and scrutinise those Bills.
Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even if the planning inquiry had been called in—that would have been wise and necessary before a short-circuiting Bill was presented; I deplore that procedure—the second element of public policy and purpose, which is of even greater concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), would not have been covered? Therefore, does he agree that, because of that, even if the planning matters had been dealt with sufficiently—they were not—it was inopportune to produce the Bills?
Mr. Brown: There is a philosophical divide between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
We are entering an era in which private enterprise will have a much greater role to play in our national economy. In the 19th century, at the height of the industrial revolution, private projects were the engine of industrial development. Private capital was the driving force behind the creation of the railway system. Therefore, it was inevitable that the private Bill procedure grew and grew in the 19th century.
During the latter part of the 20th century, more private ventures are being launched and they are the engine of further industrial development. As industrial development is underpinned by private enterprise, which is responsible for the new great development of our industries, docks, harbours, railways and the light transit projects, it is natural that more private Bills should be put before the House. They are a natural reflection of the industrial development currently taking place and they are no more than a repetition of what took place in the 19th century.
Mr. Wall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his kind recognition of the work carried out by the hon. Members who sit on the Committees on the Bills which he is sponsoring. The general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that a private Bill should be seen as an opportunity for a Back Bencher to make a major contribution to issues relating to national policy. Can that not be seen from the opposite point of view? The Government have an opportunity through the back door with the private Bill procedure to extend their legislation, particularly with regard to the two Bills referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the privatisation of weights and measures and other Bills relating to local transport systems.
Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether I would argue that. I can think of many examples over the past 10 years where I have been on the other side of private Bills when it has been possible to frustrate a private Bill's passage.
Much of the Joint Committee report is commendable. However, it would involve our giving up many of the powers available to hon. Members to play a part in the decision-making process of the economic and industrial activities of this country. We should be cautious before we give up that valuable procedure.
9.50 pm
Mr. Wakeham: I said at the start of this debate that I wanted to hear the views of the House, and I have not been disappointed. I mentioned the complexity of the subject, and that too has been demonstrated. I am grateful for the comments by right hon. and hon. Members. They have been thoughtful and helpful. Apart from the difficulty in responding to them all in the time available, they require more detailed and considered reflection. In particular, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for his masterly exposition of the Joint Committee's thinking. I want also to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, for giving us his views.
Several hon. Members stressed the need to consider the report as a total package, not as a menu from which a selection might be made. I expressed our reservations about several of the major recommendations, but I also

549
indicated the willingness of my right hon. Friends to consult on the issues which would involve primary legislation. I know that they will study the report of this debate carefully. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has heard much of this debate and I am grateful to him for that.
However, with the best will in the world, even if that leads to legislation, that legislation could not be brought forward in the near future and if the House wished to treat the recommendations as a package, the procedural recommendations for which there is general support would have to await that legislation. I am not sure whether the streamlining of procedures is necessarily for the benefit of promoters. It is also for the benefit of the House. I note also that some hon. Members share our reservations about certain of the procedural recommendations, such as those concerned with blocking Bills and carry-over motions. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was among those who appreciated the problems which could arise if control over rail schemes were removed from Parliament. In brief, I think that it will be very difficult for the report to be taken as a total package.
There are some procedural matters on which there would appear to be general agreement. If, after studying this debate, there seems to be a reasonable package of measures which can be put together, I will discuss that through the usual channels and with the Chairman of Ways and Means and see what might be done in time for the next Session. I cannot give the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) a date on which the House will be able to vote on these issues until those discussions have taken place. I am sure that in this, as in so much of our procedure, it is best to try to proceed on the basis of agreement.
Many hon. Members have espoused the cause of the petitioners and have made great play of the complexities and costs of the present procedure. They have even gone so far as to suggest that the balance of advantage lies unfairly with the promoters. That was the theme of a number of speeches, but several of the procedural recommendations—I am thinking particularly of those relating to costs and guidance—will help. I have already spoken of our reservations about other recommendations which would have worked against petitioners' interests. A specific point was that petitioners were disadvantaged by having to travel to London. But Private Bill Committees do have power to sit locally. Indeed, that was done in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill. At the end of the day, the remedy lies in the hands of hon. Members who sit on those Committees.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the case of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which is in the House of Lords at the moment, clearly it would be in the interests of many people in Cardiff who want to make representations about that Bill if the Committee were to sit in Cardiff. Bearing in mind their Lordships' other duties which have to be carried out in this building, that would be extremely difficult. In the case of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill, it would have been very difficult for the four members to spend a great deal of time taking evidence locally.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not saying that it would be easy or that it would be appropriate, and I am certainly not commenting on what goes on in the House of Lords—I have more sense than to begin to do that. I am saying simply that there is power to sit locally and that, on some occasions, that could be helpful. It is a factor that was not mentioned earlier in the debate, and it is right that I should mention it. I am sure that, even within the existing procedures, petitioners could be helped better to understand the processes and to present their case more effectively.
Much has been said during the debate about the superiority of the planning process over the private Bill procedure. On the face of it, the arguments sound attractive, but I am not convinced. The inquiry process on a major project involves the preparation and submission of a packaged scheme to a planning authority and thence to a Government Department, as a precursor to the inquiry stage of consideration. Once an inquiry has been arranged, voluminous evidence is produced and exchanged between the parties prior to the inquiry, but once the inquiry has opened, there is subsequently little if any room for negotiation leading to amendment of the proposals. The system is far less flexible in respect of precisely those major schemes where maximum scope for negotiation and compromise ought to be in operation.
Moreover, an inspector, in considering what evidence is relevant to the eventual decision, is heavily constrained by existing Government planning and related policies. These are not matters which he has discretion to override in his recommendations. If he were to attempt to do so, it is unlikely that the relevant Minister would be happy to agree to it.
Several hon. Members—perfectly understandably—took the opportunity to refer to King's Cross. I do not quarrel with that at all. I do not intend to consider the merits and issues of this particular case, nor would it be right for me to do so. However, I recognise the passion and force with which hon. Members have pursued it. My right hon. Friend has heard much of the debate and will, I know, read the report with great interest and close attention. I think that this debate has shown that this is an important subject, and not one to be dismissed as an obscure procedural matter on the periphery of matters of real concern. The topics with which private Bills deal are matters of real concern to those who promote them and those who object to them. They are matters of concern to Parliament, and we shall return to the subject.
Mr. Alan Howarth (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUILDING SOCIETIES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c).
That the draft Building Societies (Money Transmission Services) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

General Commissioners of Income Tax
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
9.59 pm
Mr. Michael Marshall: My reason for putting forward the case for drawing up comprehensive rules of procedure for the general commissioners of income tax is twofold. First, I have been seeking to meet the justified complaints of a constituent in his dealings with the general commissioners. Secondly, it it evident that this is not an isolated case and I intend to refer specifically to the appropriate recommendations of the Council on Tribunals on the matter.
The complaint made by my constituent, Mr. P. H. J. Palmer of Bognor Regis, first reached me nearly three years ago. Mr. Palmer, who was then 74 years of age, wrote to me as a result of his experience in an appeal to the commissioners of taxes, Chichester division, in May 1986. The appeal was for an allowance on his income tax for expenses and legal fees in revising the level of his pension through negotiations with a former employer.
However, it is important to grasp that Mr. Palmer's principal objections—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Mr. Marshall: It is important to stress that neither then nor subsequently did my constituent argue with the fact that his appeal was refused, but rather with the manner in which the decision was made. Among the complaints that he made were that a large number of persons attended what was supposed to be a private hearing with commissioners and those persons clearly had no involvement with his case; that the chairman gave no reasons or explanation for the decision; that he was refused permission to ask questions or make a statement after the decision was announced; that the general commissioners did not have the necessary professional expertise to understand the detailed submission made by the tax inspector, and that the clerk to the commissioners failed to respond to written questions on the basis for the decision or to suggest any other authority to whom he could turn by way of appeal.
At that stage, Mr. Palmer approached me and I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He advised me that the commissioners' decision was final and took the view that it would be improper for the Treasury or the Inland Revenue to comment on decisions of the general commissioners or the conduct of their meetings because of their function as an independent appeal body and given the Inland Revenue's own need—and, by extension, that of the Treasury—to accept a ruling in a case in which it was one of the competing parties.
I could not believe that there could be a total lack of accountability for the general commissioners and the clerk whom they appoint. Approaches to the ombudsman confirmed that the general commissioners were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and their allowances, as well as the salaries for their clerks, were met from the Inland
552
Revenue vote. The ombudsman also recommended an approach to the Council on Tribunals which monitors the activities and efficiency of such bodies.
Correspondence between my constituent and myself with the Council on Tribunals over a period of many months revealed that a number of options were open to Mr. Palmer. Although it is correct that the commissioners do not have to give reasons for their decisions, those could be obtained by asking for a case to be stated in the High Court as part of an appeal. In the light of that advice, Mr. Palmer contended, almost a year after the initial hearing, that the chairman's refusal to answer questions and the clerk's unwillingness to provide information by subsequent letters all ruled out his opportunities for a prompt appeal. He also objected, as many would, to the necessity and expense of going to law for the purpose of unearthing the commissioners' reasons for rejecting his case.
Meanwhile, I had kept my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary informed, and in a letter of 23 March 1987 he advised me—this is particularly significant—that the Inland Revenue felt that it was arguable that the procedures at the original hearing were inadequate. He added:
"The Inland Revenue agree that they would not want to deprive Mr. Palmer of the opportunity to air his views properly and accordingly they proposed to approach the matter afresh."
Unfortunately, the meeting which followed produced only a further agreement to disagree on the details of the claim. Meanwhile, the Council on Tribunals had taken up Mr. Palmer's complaints with the clerk to the general commissioners. In a letter to Mr. Palmer of 5 May 1987, the council, acting on information received from the clerk, criticised a number of aspects of the procedures followed at the original hearing. They included the number of income tax inspectors attending the case, with which they were not concerned. In addition, they said that the clerk should have explained in response to subsequent letters why no reasons had been given for the decision, and he should also have provided information on how to appeal. However, it is fair to add that the clerk, himself a solicitor, subsequently said that he advised Mr. Palmer to seek legal advice.
Arising from all this and from later correspondence—we are now about 18 months away from the original hearing, which illustrates the sort of difficulty that members of the public, and even Members of Parliament, have in unearthing the detailed opportunities that exist to pursue such matters—it became clear that both the Treasury and the Council on Tribunals recognised the problems caused by a lack of procedural rules for the general commissioners, and indeed the Treasury had put forward a consultation document in response to the Keith committee's recommendations, with a deadline of 31 October 1987.
The scene in this long-running detective story now shifts to the Lord Chancellor's office. It was clear that my constituent still felt that his complaints should be considered by a responsible person. Accordingly, on the advice of the Council on Tribunals, I took up the case with the Lord Chancellor. In letters of 31 March and 10 June 1988, he replied to a number of letters in considerable detail, and I pay tribute to his part in this in responding in the way he did, although, as I shall show later, that highlights one of the problems in the present procedures.

553
In the interest of time, I will comment only on a number of points that arose from correspondence with the Lord Chancellor. First, it seems ridiculous that complaints against the general commissioners and their clerk, particularly in cases not involving massive matters of principle, and possibly involving even relatively small complaints, should have to involve the highest Law Officer in the land in pursuing complaints about procedure.
Secondly, if he wishes to consider complaints against an individual commissioner, the Lord Chancellor has powers to ask his advisory committee to investigate and make recommendations. Thirdly, in the case of the clerk, his powers are those of outright dismissal.
All those powers constitute using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is typical of the problems that I have highlighted—the delays in finding out who could do what—that the clerk concerned had retired before the Lord Chancellor had an opportunity of considering the matter and deciding whether dismissal would be appropriate in such a case.
To summarise, I can do no better than to draw attention to the annual report of the Council on Tribunals which was laid before the House on 16 January 1989, and which I hope that the House will find an opportunity to debate before long in its wider context. In paragraph 2.21 of that report, the council says:
"The need for change is clear from the visits made by our members to hearings, from representations that have been made to us and from complaints we have dealt with. We urge the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Inland Revenue to consider our proposals as a whole and to introduce a comprehensive range of reforms. In particular, we stress the need for—

(1) an early change of departmental responsibility for General Commissioners from the Inland Revenue to the Lord Chancellor's Department;

(2) establishment of a central body capable of representing General Commissioners, whether by introduction of a presidential system or of a national consultative body;

(3) early provision of procedural rules for conduct of tribunal proceedings; and

(4) introduction of proper training and the provision of adequate resources for this to be undertaken."

I understand that at present, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Inland Revenue accept the need for change in departmental responsibility to overcome any doubts about the impartiality of the commissioners as a result of their close working relationship with the Inland Revenue.
The problem here seems to be one of time and other commitments, and the council has already expressed its concern at what it sees as delays in making a vital change. But on the question of rules of procedure, I understand that consideration was to be given to the possibility of including such proposals in this year's Finance Bill. I hope that the Solicitor-General will give a clear indication of the Government's intentions in that matter.
Training is a key element in ensuring that the procedural rules can be implemented effectively. That bears directly on my constituent's concern and that of the Council on Tribunals about lack of technical expertise. I understand that training will be undertaken in future by the recently established tribunals committee of the Judicial Studies Board. Will the Solicitor-General comment on that?
To sum up, my constituent is clearly not alone in feeling that there is too much of "a law unto themselves" about the procedures of the general commissioners. I join the
554
Council on Tribunals in expressing admiration of the substantial amount of work done by the commissioners on an unpaid basis, which is a measure of their dedication of public service. I recognise the value of the important work that they willingly undertake in communities throughout the country. However, it is equally clear that the problem is not with the commissioners but with the lack of procedural rules and the training that goes with them. Together with an over-dependence on the Inland Revenue, those are all factors which require early change if my constituent and others are to feel that they have not suffered injustice.
10.10 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for raising a number of interesting and significant points on a subject of considerable importance relating to the general commissioners of income tax. I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives to meet his points and to outline for the benefit of my hon. Friend and of a wider audience the considerations that lie behind our present policy and our proposals to meet some of the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed.
I shall concentrate, as my hon. Friend expects me to do, on matters of principle and practice rather than on the case of his individual constituent. That case is not itself the subject of a complaint as to the decision reached, which was fully and fairly dealt with at a number of levels, concluding with a long and detailed letter from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor himself.
The starting point to any understanding of the role of general commissioners is the Taxes Management Act 1970. In England and Wales, and recently Northern Ireland, the Act places responsibility for the appointment of general commissioners upon the Lord Chancellor. Scotland has different arrangements. At the last count, there were 4,081 general commissioners in England and Wales, and to that number must be added the 55 commissioners appointed in Northern Ireland. General commissioners are appointed to sit in a division, and the country is divided into 417 of those.
It is important to emphasise one of the safeguards for the general public, which is also a ground for reassurance. The general commissioners are lay people who volunteer their service. I express my thanks to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the enormous bulk of good work that the general commissioners perform. Their names come to the Lord Chancellor for appointment through 80 advisory committees that he established for that purpose. The general commissioners have a clerk—and if needs be, an assistant clerk—to assist them in the discharge of their duties. It is for the clerk to make the necessary arrangements for the disposal of work, including notice of appeal hearing dates, and to advise the general commissioners on procedural matters and on any questions of law that may arise.
A distinction must be drawn between general and special commissioners. The latter are full-time, legally qualified appointees who deal mainly with more complicated cases—and I know from my limited experience that some cases are very complicated—or those likely to last for some considerable time. The jurisdiction of general commissioners covers income tax, corporation

555
tax, capital gains tax, and certain aspects of class 4 national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed.
The bulk of their work is devoted to dealing with delay appeals. That may explain some of the complaints in the individual case that my right hon. Friend mentioned, the number of cases that must be dealt with on a particular day can be very high.
For those who do not appreciate it, a delay appeal is generally one in which the taxpayer—usually a trader or trading company—has lodged an appeal against an estimated tax assessment, but has taken no further step, by submitting his business accounts or other relevant information, to show that the assessment is incorrect in principle or excessive in amount. There must be few hon. Members with any business experience who have not experienced this procedure—at least through their accountants. The latest available information—and this shows the weight of work—reveals that 591,486 delay appeals were referred to the general commissioners in 1987, although most of these were subsequently determined by agreement with the inspector.
The Lord Chancellor regards it as important that the general commissioners should acquire and maintain experience and consistency in their determination of these appeals, and as a general rule, it is expected that each general commissioner will sit for a minimum of six sessions a year. The private affairs of taxpayers are recognised to be confidential and therefore a general commissioner on appointment is required to sign a form of declaration of secrecy before he can act. In general, three general commissioners are present at each sitting.
It is also important to note that general commissioners must act impartially, and section 5 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 provides that no general commissioner shall act as such in relation to any matter in which he has a personal interest, or is interested on behalf of another person, except with the express consent of the parties to the proceedings. The commissioners are instructed to seek advice if they are in any doubt about whether they have any connection with the proceedings that might be seen as bringing the commissioners' impartiality into question. They are also instructed that they should take particular care to treat appellants and representatives of the Inland Revenue in a like manner. That is important because it is not merely enough for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I entirely accept what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said. Does he agree that this gives even greater force to a point which, in the interests of time, I omitted—the Council on Tribunals' recommendation that Inland Revenue officers concerned with cases should come into cases at the same time as members of the public? The idea of coming in to see members of the Inland Revenue and the general tax commission sitting, as it were, at the top table, gives the wrong impression in terms of treating each even-handedly.
The Solicitor-General: There is force in what my hon. Friend says. Whether exactly the right way to deal with it is for the two parties to come in separately or whether the matter should be handled so that it is more like what, in some ways it is—a crowded court—I know from my own
556
experience that courts dealing with large numbers of matters in one morning always have large numbers of counsel. I appreciate that one of his constituent's concern was that he seemed to be in a room in which there were an awful lot of people with a precise purpose. It would have given a better impression if, at least, their respective functions had been clearly delineated. We shall look carefully at that matter and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks.
As part of the necessary background to an appreciation of the role of general commissioners, I draw attention to certain relevant provisions of the Taxes Management Act. First, in an appeal against an assessment, the initial burden of proof is normally—as hon. Members will realise—on the taxpayer, unlike most other cases, where the burden is on the prosecution or the plaintiff. Secondly, the decision of the general commissioners is normally final. However, if aspects of difficulty arise before the decision is reached, the matter may be referred—either at the request of the taxpayer or on the initiative of the commissioners—to the special commissioners.
Once made, the decision of the general commissioners is final and conclusive unless the appeal is taken further by way of case stated or, in unusual circumstances, by judicial review. In this context it is understandable that, once the decision is taken, it would not be appropriate for a taxpayer to ask questions. It is important to stress that, in this particular case, there was plenty of opportunity to ask questions and present the case before the decision was reached.
Having sketched in outline the background to the general commissioners, let me now address some of the other points made by my hon. Friend. He emphasised the case for drawing up comprehensive rules of procedure for the commissioners. The Lord Chancellor and the Treasury are indeed considering carefully the proposals of the Council on Tribunals, but—as my hon. Friend would be the first not only to recognise but, I believe, to urge—a balance must be struck between the formality of procedures which, in other respects, are often criticised for being over-formal, and the need for a speedy, effective and common-sense process.
Treasury Ministers have decided to seek further views on that difficult question, and it would be unwise to form a concluded opinion until the results of the exercise have been received. Thorough consideration, however, will be given to the various advantages and disadvantages of moving away from the present relatively informal system to what would inevitably be a rather less flexible one. No doubt attention will be given to the fact that the vast majority of appellants are not represented by someone legally qualified.
My hon. Friend also stressed what he perceives as a lack of accountability on the part of the general commissioners. There is no doubt, however, that the commissioners play a responsible and invaluable part in dealing fairly and efficiently with a large number of appeals. The Council on Tribunals has joined my hon. Friend in paying tribute—in its recent annual report—to the substantial amount of good work that the commissioners do.
If, however, my hon. Friend is concerned about the lack of a proper chain of command, I can make some observations. The general commissioners are lay people drawn from the community—this cannot be emphasised enough—and for the most part their duties involve a common-sense approach. Where there is an issue of law, a

557
Commissioner will rightly turn to his clerk for guidance and will act accordingly. If a mistake is made, the appellant has the right to take the case to the High Court by the case stated procedure.
Let me put the matter into perspective. To the best of my knowledge such cases are few and far between. If the appellant is aggrieved at the method by which the Commissioners have reached a decision on the facts, it is open to him to consider seeking redress through judicial review. Should his complaint relate to the conduct of a commissioner—this was raised at one stage in the case in question—and if there appears to be a case to answer, the Lord Chancellor will require his advisory committee to investigate and make a report to him before deciding on the appropriate course of action.
My hon. Friend also had in mind the criticisms levelled at the general commissioners in the 1987–88 annual report by the Council on Tribunals. In particular, the council expressed disappointment that the Lord Chancellor had not accorded a higher priority to his Department's assuming overall control of the general commissioners. The Lord Chancellor, while recognising and accepting the case for his Department to take over full administrative responsibility, is engaged in a wide-ranging consideration of a number of his responsibilities, which need to be sensibly dovetailed. He wishes to reach a conclusion on how to deal with a number of matters in the legal and quasi-legal sphere, and he needs to balance the competing demands on resources before deciding on the order of priorities for action.
Let me counterbalance that by mentioning some of the other actions that have been taken. An association of general commissioners for the London area is well on its way to formation and it is hoped that other areas will join
558
in. Revised interim notes for the guidance of general commissioners have been prepared and issued in Northern Ireland. They will be issued in England and Wales in the near future. These notes stress the importance of not only being independent but being seen to be independent. They also stress the need to give an appellant full opportunity to put his case. A copy of these interim notes will be placed in the Library.
With the introduction of general commissioners in Northern Ireland, a training programme for them has been set up involving sitting in with a special commissioner, attendance at seminars, shadow meetings when cases have been put up for consideration and visits to meetings in this country. The Judicial Studies Board has been invited to consider training for general commissioners and will do so through its tribunals sub-committee when time allows. The Association of Clerks to Commissioners is to consider a code of good conduct for its members. The Lord Chancellor is also giving thought to other means whereby he can be satisfied that the independence of general commissioners is safe and apparent.
As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have not commented in great detail on the individual case that is the background to the debate, but I have dealt in some detail with the matters of general principle. With regard to the specific case, the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that there were insufficient grounds for him to intervene in the case. He has set out his reasons, however, in considerable detail in a private letter to my hon. Friend and, through him, to his constituent.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Gibraltar (Incident)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the Spanish Government informed the British authorities that the Renault car parked at Main street, Gibraltar, on 6 March 1988, was followed by surveillance officers of the Spanish authorities to the frontier of Gibraltar on 6 March; and if it was then followed by British authorities until it was parked;

  (2) whether the Spanish authorities have confirmed to him the statements of Tomaz Rayo Valenzuela and Manuel Gimenez that the Spanish police discovered D. McCann and S. Savage staying at the hotel Escandinavia, Torremolinos, on 5 March 1988 and informed the British authorities;

  (3) why the Spanish police were requested not to follow D. McCann and S. Savage on 6 March 1988.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Trefgarne in another place on I March at column 1124.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Payments (Interest)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Inland Revenue charge a higher interest rate on moneys owed to it by taxpayers than the rate that it applies to moneys repaid by it to taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The present rates of interest charged by the Inland Revenue on unpaid tax and paid on overpaid tax are the same (11·5 per cent.).

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to(a) the number of employers involved in, and (b) the total annual cost to the Exchequer of, the current take-up of relief available for the establishment of workplace nurseries by employers, under (i) the 4 per cent. per annum relief scheme and (ii) the special provision for enterprise zones.
  232
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  P11D Form (Limit)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to raise the limit for the P11D form and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the limit for the P11D form was raised to £8,500; and what would be the equivalent figure in current monetary terms.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Employees whose earnings, including the value of benefits, are at a rate of £8,500 or more per year are liable to tax on benefits in kind. All directors are liable regardless of the level of earnings. The earnings threshold—also known as the P11D limit—was set at £8,500 in 1979–80 and, if it had been indexed in line with inflation according to the statutory formula for increasing personal allowances and thresholds, the threshold in 1989–90 would be £18,100.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards indexing the limit for the P11D form in line with inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government have at no time sought to increase the threshold at which employees pay tax on benefits in kind, since in principle all employees should pay income tax on the whole of their earnings whether received in cash or in kind.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers currently receive dispensation from the Inland Revenue from completing the P11D form; and how many employees benefit from such dispensations.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that, at December 1988, about 23,000 employers had dispensations from reporting employees' expenses payments on forms P11D, an increase of 29 per cent. on the number at October 1987. When a dispensation exists in relation to expenses payments P11Ds may still need to be completed in relation to benefits in kind.

  The number of employees covered by dispensations in 1985–86 is estimated to be about 2·7 million. Figures for later years are not yet available but, as there has been a substantial increase in employers receiving dispensations, it is estimated that over 3 million employees are now covered by them.

  Student Covenants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received, since 15 March 1988, about the withdrawal of tax relief on increases in parental contributions to covenants for students; whether he plans any changes in these arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Treasury Ministers have received some 200 representations about various aspects of the changes introduced last year to the tax treatment of student covenants. No separate record has been kept of those which relate to increases in parental contributions for students.
  233
  We have no plans to make any further changes in the tax treatment of student covenants. The changes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced last year greatly simplify an unnecessarily complex part of the tax system.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to reform or abolish stamp duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer, 19 April 1989]: In my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Budget he proposed both to abolish stamp duty on life policies and to adapt the charge on share transfers to forthcoming developments in methods of share dealing.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the money taken by the purchase of premium bonds is spent on(a) administration and (b) prize money.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply 7 March 1989 c. 493]: I regret that there was an error in the reply. Premium bond prize money is a charge on the National Loans Fund not the Consolidated Fund.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to reduce the risk of mortgage fraud arising from delays in the Land Registry; what is the current backlog; what is his target for the interval between receipt and completion of inquiries; when he expects this to be achieved; and how long he plans to maintain that performance once achieved.

  The Attorney-General
  There does not appear to be any evidence that mortgage fraud occurs because of delays in completing applications at the Land Registry. Such frauds occur in areas of the conveyancing process with which the Land Registry is not directly involved.

  The Land Registry has target completion times of 14 weeks for first registrations, 12 weeks for dealings with part of the land in a title and four weeks for dealings with the whole title. The present backlog of applications which have not been dealt with within these target completion times is 586,000.

  The targets referred to will be achieved within the next year if activity levels in the property and financial markets do not increase. Once they are achieved the chief land registrar will look to improve the service further.

  Magistrates (Advisory Committees)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General on what criteria the Lord Chancellor chose 1992 as the date by which local advisory committees on appointing magistrates should make their membership publicly known.

  The Attorney-General
  Advisory committees are reconstituted every three years. By the end of 1992 any serving members who do not wish their names to be disclosed will have had an opportunity to retire.

ENERGY

  Power Stations (Applications)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy not to consider future applications for power stations until after negotiations with affected local authorities have taken place.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Present legislation provides for the relevant planning authorities to be consulted about such applications when they are made. Similar provision is made in the Electricity Bill currently before Parliament.

  Furthermore, I understand that it is normal practice for an applicant to discuss a proposed development informally with the planning authorities before submitting his application to my right hon. Friend.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department owns no such properties.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill of 9 December,Official Report, column 373, he will state the error limits allowed in calculating the amount of plutonium produced by British civil nuclear power stations in the year ended 31 March 1988;

  (2) what criteria his Department uses in allowing error limits to be set for the calculations of the amount of plutonium generated by British civil nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department does not set specific error limits in the calculation of plutonium content, but expects the operators to achieve the highest possible accuracy in their estimates.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the population figures within a 100-mile radius for each nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Most of the population of the United Kingdom live within a 100-mile radius of a nuclear power station.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  EC Funding
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on additionality with respect to European Community funding as it applies to Northern Ireland.
  235
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We shall adhere to the additionality conditions included in the new regulation co-ordinating the EC's three structural funds.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the number of representations he has received for and against the Government's students loan plan.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Representations expressing a variety of views have been received from four Members of Parliament, two district councils, the Fair Employment Agency, local representatives of the National Union of Students and other student bodies.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he had received any representations from banking institutions in the last month with regard to the proposed introduction of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Devolved Government
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is taking action to secure devolved government in Northern Ireland, either within or outside the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  We are exploring the possibilities for political movement. I would not at this stage try to draw any conclusions from these exploratory discussions, which are still in progress, though all the main political parties have said they support devolution. I hope that responsible political leaders and interested groups will take this opportunity to convey their views on these important matters and they can do it either within or outside the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Security
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security position in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since 9 March, 10 people have died in incidents arising from the security situation. These deaths included two senior police officers, one UDR soldier and seven civilians. They also included the murder of a young girl killed by a bomb planted by the Provisional IRA without warning in Warrenpoint on 12 April. Thirty people were also injured in this appalling attack. The Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for five of these murders, whilst Loyalist paramilitary organisations are believed to have been responsible for the other five.

  The resolute efforts of the security forces have resulted in 74 people being charged with serious offences, including 12 with murder and 13 with attempted murder since the
  236
  beginning of the year. A total of 123 weapons, over 14,500 rounds of ammunition and 215 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered 39 weapons, 11,500 rounds of ammunition, and 230 lb of explosives.

  Education and Library Boards
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives from the education and library boards in Northern Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I met a deputation from the Association of Education and Library Boards on 21 March 1989 when resolutions adopted at the association's 1988 annual meeting were presented and discussed.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  Work is continuing on the review under article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of the working of the intergovernmental conference. It is intended that the review be concluded, and the results made public, at the next meeting of the conference to be held in a few weeks.

  Touring Arts Companies
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage the exchange of touring arts companies between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There has been, and continues to be, a healthy exchange of touring arts companies between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government, however, are not directly involved in these arrangements. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the support of artistic ventures is the responsibility of the Arts Council and the council and the arts organisations themselves encourage and arrange tours by individual artists and companies to and from Northern Ireland.

  Prisoners (Release)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the system for fixing release dates for prisoners serving sentences of indeterminate length.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next proposes to have discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters he will discuss.
  237
  Mr. Tom King
  I last met Irish Ministers on 5 April. No firm date has yet been announced for the next meeting of the conference, but I expect this to be done quite soon.

  Taoiseach
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met the Taoiseach in Dublin on 13 September prior to the intergovernmental conference on that day. The subjects discussed are confidential. I meet the deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Lenihan, regularly in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Community Policing (North Down)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide more funds to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to enable community policing in the North Down area to be fully restored.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Police Authority grant for 1989–90 is £415 million. This represents an increase of some £30 million over the previous year. It is primarily the responsibility of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to determine priorities and allocate resources.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives from the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Needham
  I met board representatives on 23 March. We discussed the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Slaughtering and Meat Trading
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce legislation to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain regarding illegal slaughtering and unfit meat trading.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland legislation on the slaughter of animals is already in line with Great Britain. Legislation governing trade in unfit meat is in line with England and Wales, but differs from Scotland. The Department of Health and Social Services is currently considering whether the Northern Ireland law on unfit meat should be improved by including some provisions equivalent to those applying in Scotland.

  Live Fish (Transport)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the exact procedure used and documentation required to transport live fish in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The movement of live fish, ova and fry requires a permit issued under section 14 of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Permits may be obtained by making application to fisheries division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Castle buildings, Stormont, Belfast.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were arrested, detained and subsequently released without charge under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in each of the years from 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  Persons detained under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Persons Arrested/Detained

  908

  938

  1,309

  1,459

  1,717

  Persons released without charge

  650

  691

  951

  11,116

  11,344

  1 Includes one person not charged with an offence but excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Medical and Nursing Profession
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives from the medical and nursing profession in Northern Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Needham
  I have discussed "Working for Patients" with a variety of interests including representatives of the medical, nursing and management professions and members of health and social services boards and I will be meeting several more delegations shortly.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Plastic baton rounds are used by the security forces in Northern Ireland only when their use is judged to be the minimum and reasonable amount of force necessary to protect life, property and to prevent serious crime. In certain circumstances, particularly during vicious and widespread rioting when lives are put seriously at risk, the use of plastic baton rounds is the most effective way of restoring order. This method of riot control is designed to ensure that the risk of injury or death is kept to a minimum.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to discuss the question of state subsidies with representatives of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no plans to discuss the question of state subsidies with representatives of Harland and Wolff. I can confirm, however, that following the signing of the heads of agreement discussions between my officials and the MEBO/Olsen team are continuing.

  Comptroller and Auditor-General
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to appoint a new Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.
  239
  Mr. Tom King
  Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the appointment of Dr. W. H. Jack CB, former permanent secretary at the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, to this office in succession to L.V.D. Calvert CB who is retiring.

  Young People
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider reintroducing income support to 16 and 17-year-olds who do not receive an offer of a YTS place at the termination of their period of bridging allowance or extended child benefit.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: In line with the policy of maintaining parity in social security provision, the rules for paying income support to 16 and 17-year-olds in Northern Ireland are kept in line with those for the rest of the United Kingdom. At present income support is payable under the normal rules to a number of 16 and 17-year-olds, for example, if they are incapable of work or have a child. Claims for income support under the "severe hardship" provision will be considered from any 16 or 17-year-old who is actively pursuing a place in the youth training programme.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 16 and 17-year-olds who remain unemployed after the ending of the bridging allowance payments or extended child benefit (1) applied for severe hardship grants from the social fund or (2) received severe hardship grants from the social fund for each month, October 1988 to March 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: Severe hardship payments are made under the income support scheme rather than the social fund and the available information is set out in the table below:

  Income support severe hardship applications

  Applications received

  Admitted for payment

  October 1988

  2

  2

  November 1988

  3

  2

  December 1988

  7

  5

  January 1989

  5

  5

  February 1989

  7

  6

  March 1989

  13

  11

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Service Broadcasts
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will assess the likely implications of the transmission by Channel 4 of public service broadcasts emanating from his Department of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the 90s: Competition, Choice and Quality".

  Mr. Cope
  There is no reason to suppose that the proposals in the White Paper will alter the present arrangements whereby public service messages are broadcast by Channel 4.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of properties owned by his 240
  Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Cope
  The Employment Department group has title, either freehold or leasehold, to 36 residential properties. Of these, one flat in Morden, Surrey has been vacant for more than a year, while major repairs and refurbishment works are carried out. Two houses associated with Letchworth skillcentre, and intended for keyworker staff, have been unoccupied since December 1988.

  Sky Television (Work Permits)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department received applications for work permits from Mr. Pat Mastandrea amd Mr. Gary Davey of Sky Television; if the applications were successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Details of work permit applications are confidential between this Department and the applicant's employer or his accredited representative.

  Foreigners (Employment)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria have to be satisfied before a non-EC national can obtain employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Work permits are issued in respect of a specific post. In general work permits for normal employment are granted only in respect of jobs requiring professional qualifications or administrative, executive or high technical skills for which suitable resident labour is not available. The pay and conditions offered should be at least as good as those offered in the area for similar work and the overseas worker should normally be aged between 23 and 54 years.

  Workfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the subject of workfare schemes.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend receives, from time to time, representations both for and against the introduction of a workfare scheme in this country.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department and the Training Agency, respectively, or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: The current publicity campaigns and those planned by my Department for the first three months of 1989–90 are as follows:

  241

  Employment Department Group Publicity Campaigns

  The Training Agency

  Start Date

  Finish Date

  Small Firms Service

  April 1 1989

  March 31 1990 (on going basis)

  No television advertising

  National Training Awards

  March 20 1989

  April 23 1989

  No television advertising

  Business growth Training

  April 12 1989

  December 1989

  No television advertising

  Open Learning

  May 2 1989

  May 20 1989

  No television advertising

  Employment Training

  May 17 1989-July 2 1989

  Including Television advertising

  Tourism Training

  March 6 1989

  May 6 1989

  No television advertising

  YTS

  April 17 1989-May 14 1989

  Including Television advertising

  Health and Safety Executive

  March 6 1989-August 1989

  No television advertising

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present aid projects funded by his Department in the west bank and the Gaza strip; what have been the projects so aided in each of the preceding five years; and what has been the cost of each.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the past five years the Overseas Development Administration's bilateral assistance to the west bank and Gaza has been provided through contributions to projects undertaken by British nongovernmental organisations; by training awards for Palestinians to study in Britain; and by book presentations to educational institutions. Details are as follows:

  £

  NGO Projects

  Order of St. John

  Outreach programme based on St. John opthalmic hospital

  450,000

  (1984–85)

  Support for surgery, nurses training, clinical trials

  80,000

  (1987–88)

  Oxfam

  Mennonite central committee land reclamation and water system construction

  24,539

  (1988)

  Bethlehem arab society for the physically handicapped

  26,703

  (1988–90)

  Annahda womens association centre for the mentally handicapped

  17,800

  (1988)

  Oxfam (ex-progressive action for childhood education) Early childhood resource centre

  63,042

  (1986–89)

  Quaker peace and service

  Middle East placement programme

  38,194

  (1985–88)

  242

  £

  Action around Bethlehem, children with disability

  Water catchment project

  23,800

  (1987–88)

  Solar energy project

  31,300

  (1987–88)

  Save the children fund

  Resource centre

  57,000

  (1988–90)

  Physiotherapy training

  72,975

  (1988–91)

  Rafah sewerage project

  44,600

  (1987)

  Cooperation for development Small enterprise revolving credit funding programme

  576,700

  (1987–88)

  Women's education and training programme

  45,550

  (1985–88)

  Gaza enterprise training scheme

  28,816

  (1987–88)

  Universities educational fund for Palestinian refugees (UNIPAL)

  English language teaching project

  37,000

  (1984–89)

  War on want Zabadeh early childhood resource centre

  58,636

  (1988–89)

  Abasan biscuit factory project

  20,920

  (1988)

  Appropriate health resources technologies group (AHRTAG)

  Bir Zeit community health unit

  6,348

  (1988)

  Y care international Relief for victims of the uprising, dependants, and training

  53,000

  (1987–89)

  British Red Cross-ICRC Provision of tents for emergency housing

  38,000

  (1988)

  World vision of Europe

  Emergency relief to dependants of victims of the uprising

  24,000

  (1988)

  Requests from NGOs for additional funds amounting to over £1 million are under consideration.

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Training programe

  65,000

  110,000

  127,000

  285,000

  165,000

  Book presentation programme

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  The United Kingdom also provides support through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees. In each year from 1984 to 1987 £5 million was contributed directly, increasing to £5·2 million in 1988. £5·5 million is being provided in 1989.

  The United Kingdom contributes to the European Community programme for the west bank and Gaza. In 1987 and 1988 about £0.4 million a year was attributable to the United Kingdom. Of the Community's contribution to UNRWA about £3 million in each of the two years was attributable to the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Agricultural Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales were visited by his staff and advised about methods of controlling agricultural pollution in each of the last five years.
  243
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the number of farms visited to provide advice on pollution control is not available. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service takes every opportunity to discuss pollution control measures in the course of farm visits made for other purposes, and provides advice free.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights in Wales; and which organisations made these representations.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not available. The question of human rights can be interpreted as covering an extremely wide range of issues for which my Department is responsible. Some representations received from both organisations and individuals, may raise allegations of denials of human rights. No central record is kept of such representations or of the organisations making them.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how teacher salary costs are calculated in Wales for the local management formula for primary schools in the calculation of school budgets.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Under local management of schools primary schools budgets will be determined by a formula based largely on age-weighted pupil numbers. At least 75 per cent. of the resources so distributed must be in proportion to age-weighted pupil numbers. In deciding how heavily to weight each age of pupils, LEAs will need to make assumptions about teaching costs for each age group. These assumptions will be based on average teacher salaries. However, Welsh Office circular 36/88 recognises that in the case of small schools there may be variations between the actual teaching costs and the LEA's average costs, due to teachers' position on the main scale and the incidence of salary safeguarding. LEAs may therefore adjust schools' budgets to reflect this factor. In general, however, the degree of protection should be tapered according to the size of school, so that budget shares of larger schools are not adjusted.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Women

  Members of ethnic minorities

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade I

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  1

  20·0

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  51/2

  10·0

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  171/2

  19·0

  1

  1·0

  Grade 7

  13

  9·5

  1

  0·7

  Department total

  987

  46·0

  20

  0·9

  244
  Notes:

  1. As at 1 January 1989.

  2. The grade categories shown include equivalent professional grades.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department carried out a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees in May 1988. The ethnic origin of all new entrants is known and I have no present plans for another survey.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department is an equal opportunity employer. It gives equal consideration, regardless of colour, race, ethnic or national origins, to all candidates in its promotion and recruitment procedures. This applies to all levels of management.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were(a) working in local government in Wales, and (b) working in the different occupational categories in local government in Wales in 1979, 1985 arid each subsequent year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is published table 47 of "Welsh Local Governmental Financial Statistics No. 12, 1988", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Water Industry Staff
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were working in the water industry in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of people working in the water industry in Wales is not available in the exact form requested. Figures are available for the Welsh water authority's area of supply and those people employed by the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company and the Chester water company. These are detailed in the following table:

  Manpower (Full-time equivalent employees as at 31 March 1988)

  Welsh water authority

  Wrexham and East Denbighshire

  Chester Waterworks Company

  1979

  5,594

  150

  89

  1985

  4,709

  131

  85

  1986

  4,746

  121

  84

  1987

  4,845

  119

  80

  1988

  4,618

  113

  78

  Education (Staff)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were working(a) in education and (b) the different occupational categories in education in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information for the maintained! sector is given in "Welsh Local Government Financial
  245
  Statistics, No. 12, 1988" (table 47) copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Directly comparable figures for the independent sector are not available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were working(a) in the Welsh Office, and (b) in the different occupational categories in the Welsh Office in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year.

  Year

  Senior open structure

  Administration and clerical

  Professional grades

  Support grades

  Industrial grades

  Total

  1979

  17

  1,596·0

  345·5

  472·5

  168·0

  2,599

  1985

  13

  1,432·0

  297·5

  399·0

  127·5

  2,269

  1986

  14

  1,471·5

  288·5

  388·5

  120·5

  2,283

  Year

  Senior open structure

  Open structure

  Administration and clerical

  Professional grades

  Support grades

  Industrial grades

  Total

  1987

  17

  232·0

  1,319·5

  170·5

  387·0

  119·0

  2,245

  1988

  17

  235·5

  1,312·0

  166·0

  359·5

  114·0

  2,204

  1989

  17

  229·5

  1,298·5

  164·5

  349·0

  107·5

  2,166

  Baglan Road
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the design load of that part of the road from Baglan to the point of the road over the bridge at the roundabout for Swansea or Carmarthen; and whether it has been exceeded in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The existing road is heavily loaded, but no single traffic capacity figure is available since that depends on many factors, especially junctions. Delays tend to occur particularly at peak periods at Baglan roundabout, but work will start shortly on a scheme to alleviate this. Further relief will be achieved with the completion of the final section of the M4 in 1994.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sewerage outfalls from Wales into the Bristol channel, together with industrial discharges; and whether he has made any assessment of how many more outlets can be allowed before the water quality off south Wales and north Devon would require the European Community to take legal action over the failure of many beaches to meet European Community bathing water standards.

  Mr. Grist
  Sewerage outfalls from Wales direct to the Bristol channel are listed in the following table. Information on industrial discharges, which are the responsibility of the Welsh water authority, is not centrally available.

  Cardiff Western

  Baglan

  Barry East New

  Mumbles Head

  Barry West Town

  Bishopston

  Rhoose East

  Southgate

  Rhoose West

  Oxwich

  West Aberthaw

  Overton

  Llantwit Major

  Rhossili

  Penybont

  Saundersfoot

  Newton Point

  Tenby

  Irongate

  Manorbier

  Afan

  Stackpole

  No such assessment as suggested by my hon. Friend is needed. I refer him to my reply of 10 April at column 382.
  246
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of permanent staff working in my Department in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year and their occupational categories are set out in the following table. Direct comparisons between individual occupational categories after 1986 are however not possible since in following years they were affected by changes arising from the introduction of unified grading and the expansion of the open structure.

  Red Kites
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many red kites have been found dead in mid-Wales during each of the past three years; what has been the cause of death in each case; and how many prosecutions for the use of illegal poison have been taken out in the same period.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department is involved only if red kites are suspected of dying from pesticide poisoning. In 1986, there were three such incidents in mid-Wales, each involving one red kite. In one case the cause of death was not established. In the other two cases the insecticide Fenthion was indentified as the cause of death and although circumstances suggested its illegal use as a poison, this could not be cofirmed. There were no cases recorded in 1987 or 1988. So far this year there have been two incidents involving two and four birds respectively and these cases are still under investigation. There have been no prosecutions in Wales for illegal poisoning of red kites since the beginning of 1986.

  Post-Chernobyl Restrictions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of farms, number of sheep and number of acres subject of post-Chernobyl restrictions as at February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Approximately 416 holdings, 300,000 sheep and 210,000 acres. Restrictions will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising food safety.

  Housing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list(a) the number of dwellings owned, (b) the number of dwellings built, (c) the number of dwellings sold and (d) the number of dwellings purchased from the private sector, in each year since 1980 by each housing authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The information requested is given in the following tables:

  247

  (a) Estimates of local authority or New Town owned stock at 1 April1

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Aberconwy

  4,020

  4,151

  3,718

  3,420

  3,450

  3,270

  3,227

  3,139

  Alyn and Deeside

  6,135

  5,944

  5,730

  5,647

  5,658

  5,619

  5,573

  5,503

  Arfon

  5,998

  5,979

  5,643

  5,515

  5,422

  5,358

  5,304

  5,237

  Blaenau Gwent

  11,405

  11,673

  11,629

  11,629

  11,301

  11,123

  11,012

  10,871

  Brecknock

  3,838

  3,894

  3,509

  3,337

  3,264

  3,172

  3,095

  3,019

  Cardiff

  24,600

  25,238

  25,009

  23,644

  23,408

  23,189

  22,551

  21,776

  Carmarthen

  4,142

  4,116

  3,926

  3,827

  3,818

  3,779

  3,740

  3,711

  Ceredigion

  4,122

  4,119

  3,954

  3,751

  3,786

  3,758

  3,700

  3,662

  Colwyn

  3,128

  3,143

  3,092

  3,010

  2,998

  2,939

  2,877

  2,821

  Cynon Valley

  6,371

  6,521

  6,217

  5,815

  5,804

  5,763

  5,699

  5,596

  Delyn

  6,193

  5,896

  5,519

  5,285

  5,252

  5,161

  5,088

  4,992

  Dinefwr

  3,035

  3,104

  3,005

  2,880

  2,821

  2,846

  2,795

  2,755

  Dwyfor

  1,681

  1,710

  1,634

  1,562

  1,535

  1,510

  1,490

  1,484

  Glyndwr

  3,969

  3,977

  3,801

  3,501

  3,419

  3,343

  3,284

  3,217

  Islwyn

  8,988

  9,070

  8,804

  7,468

  7,148

  7,003

  6,858

  6,667

  Llanelli

  9,516

  9,504

  9,010

  8,375

  8,009

  7,702

  7,626

  7,529

  Lliw Valley

  6,020

  6,210

  6,065

  5,651

  5,607

  5,536

  5.547

  5,458

  Meirionnydd

  2,687

  2,732

  2,669

  2,388

  2,362

  2,320

  2,259

  2,203

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,389

  8,619

  8,356

  7,952

  7,808

  7,695

  7,541

  7,357

  Monmouth

  6,282

  6,034

  5,943

  5,641

  5,567

  5,452

  5,388

  5,351

  Montgomery2

  5,085

  5,248

  4,928

  4,688

  4,575

  4,624

  4,626

  4,503

  Neath

  7,454

  7,560

  7,014

  6,660

  6,508

  6,385

  6,190

  6,096

  Newport

  15,711

  15,685

  15,357

  14,989

  14,507

  14,340

  14,020

  13,839

  Ogwr

  12,916

  13,087

  12,820

  11,769

  11,376

  11,141

  10,892

  10,613

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  9,042

  9,014

  8,782

  8,260

  7,682

  7,381

  7,115

  6,834

  Preseli

  7,327

  7,335

  6,783

  6,544

  6,377

  6,278

  6,286

  6,200

  Radnor

  1,519

  1,548

  1,459

  1,370

  1,281

  1,286

  1,268

  1,262

  Rhondda

  5,255

  5,428

  5,395

  5,240

  5,217

  5,291

  5,234

  5,153

  Rhuddlan

  3,131

  3,201

  3,097

  3,016

  2,900

  2,897

  2,907

  2,905

  Rhymney Valley

  12,635

  12,895

  12,378

  11,667

  11,292

  11,089

  10,920

  10,641

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,677

  3,635

  3,487

  3,348

  3,216

  3,166

  3,112

  3,072

  Swansea

  19,863

  19,996

  19,630

  19,261

  19,164

  19,048

  18,788

  18,554

  Taff-Ely

  10,066

  10,058

  9,815

  9,405

  9,198

  8,932

  8,609

  8,3:56

  Torfaen3

  18,496

  19,014

  17,589

  16,074

  15,524

  15,092

  14,787

  14,5:59

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8,693

  8,405

  8,074

  7,701

  7,449

  7,203

  7,105

  6,927

  Wrexham Maelor

  17,949

  18,060

  17,556

  17,125

  17,017

  16,941

  16,857

  16,666

  Ynys Môn

  6,455

  6,659

  6,397

  6,196

  6,155

  6,180

  6,087

  6,037

  WALES

  295,793

  298,462

  287,794

  273,611

  267,875

  263,812

  259,457

  254,565

  1 Estimates for the years 1981 to 1985 have been revised since previous publication.

  2 Includes New Town dwellings in Newtown.

  3 Includes New Town dwellings in Cwmbran.

  (b) Number of dwellings built by local authorities or New Towns

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Aberconwy

  104

  19

  0

  38

  0

  20

  0

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  35

  35

  58

  78

  39

  30

  33

  49

  Arfon

  17

  29

  40

  0

  34

  3

  0

  18

  Blaenau Gwent

  230

  291

  60

  0

  73

  5

  0

  27

  Brecknock

  40

  0

  36

  32

  0

  12

  0

  25

  Cardiff

  482

  368

  213

  273

  353

  48

  0

  6

  Carmarthen

  85

  57

  80

  91

  65

  6

  35

  26

  Ceredigion

  90

  81

  76

  64

  101

  0

  41

  43

  Colwyn

  126

  40

  0

  50

  24

  0

  18

  0

  Cynon Valley

  24

  0

  14

  0

  40

  0

  0

  25

  Delyn

  48

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dinefwr

  57

  42

  17

  7

  71

  0

  34

  32

  Dwyfor

  17

  16

  6

  5

  0

  9

  4

  0

  Glyndwr

  27

  102

  51

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  26

  119

  44

  55

  34

  21

  40

  64

  Llanelli

  58

  54

  44

  24

  0

  67

  73

  37

  Lliw Valley

  155

  150

  40

  88

  115

  11

  34

  33

  Meirionnydd

  38

  45

  37

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  228

  96

  12

  11

  5

  0

  0

  4

  Monmouth

  93

  86

  0

  101

  99

  38

  74

  15

  Montgomery1

  53

  99

  67

  8

  95

  48

  16

  26

  Neath

  73

  40

  26

  57

  68

  16

  28

  38

  Newport

  167

  282

  83

  54

  154

  93

  93

  97

  Ogwr

  140

  218

  46

  22

  77

  109

  44

  55

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preseli

  64

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  39

  Radnor

  30

  20

  20

  31

  38

  10

  14

  0

  Rhondda

  155

  132

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rhuddlan

  57

  31

  59

  20

  51

  24

  44

  41

  Rhymney Valley

  183

  97

  56

  107

  51

  37

  0

  0

  248 249

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  South Pembrokeshire

  41

  0

  0

  6

  21

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  58

  93

  116

  20

  94

  57

  15

  14

  Taff-Ely

  173

  86

  69

  124

  39

  0

  32

  50

  Torfaen2

  274

  176

  121

  213

  199

  44

  106

  20

  Vale of Glamorgan

  119

  74

  73

  0

  38

  0

  36

  3

  Wrexham Maelor

  40

  104

  69

  62

  61

  70

  7

  55

  Ynys Mon

  200

  62

  36

  35

  91

  20

  25

  22

  WALES

  3,807

  3,185

  1,676

  1,701

  2,142

  798

  857

  864

  1 Includes New Town dwellings in Newtown.

  2 Includes New Town dwellings in Cwmbran.

  (c) Number of dwellings sold by local authorities or New Towns

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Aberconwy

  0

  297

  400

  145

  84

  82

  87

  81

  Alyn and Deeside

  253

  225

  141

  73

  65

  76

  103

  137

  Arfon

  4

  357

  176

  112

  93

  65

  72

  63

  Blaenau Gwent

  9

  340

  323

  160

  92

  108

  153

  171

  Brecknock

  0

  396

  152

  120

  108

  90

  99

  92

  Cardiff

  11

  475

  1,604

  651

  566

  611

  775

  591

  Carmarthen

  123

  263

  167

  103

  102

  59

  74

  79

  Ceredigion

  54

  221

  258

  128

  83

  57

  79

  74

  Colwyn

  75

  97

  77

  67

  54

  66

  74

  75

  Cynon Valley

  0

  249

  317

  104

  90

  76

  103

  124

  Delyn

  358

  326

  256

  76

  55

  65

  96

  129

  Dinefwr

  0

  128

  140

  64

  44

  52

  74

  76

  Dwyfor

  0

  85

  80

  37

  23

  27

  15

  13

  Glyndwr

  4

  229

  285

  99

  75

  63

  67

  63

  Islwyn

  0

  326

  1,304

  405

  212

  175

  233

  263

  Llanelli

  31

  618

  530

  479

  293

  159

  171

  206

  Lliw Valley

  0

  278

  447

  123

  79

  117

  129

  145

  Meirionnydd

  0

  116

  227

  109

  61

  57

  56

  52

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  317

  387

  165

  115

  167

  185

  216

  Monmouth

  147

  240

  251

  181

  166

  140

  129

  193

  Montgomery1

  0

  414

  267

  120

  74

  84

  133

  155

  Neath

  4

  603

  361

  125

  123

  124

  146

  200

  Newport

  98

  628

  489

  414

  355

  341

  275

  277

  Ogwr

  0

  440

  1,073

  401

  348

  318

  325

  382

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  14

  231

  537

  521

  293

  280

  281

  295

  Preseli

  33

  570

  281

  158

  111

  104

  100

  122

  Radnor

  0

  112

  114

  94

  29

  28

  23

  45

  Rhondda

  0

  127

  65

  40

  22

  55

  81

  59

  Rhuddlan

  3

  120

  139

  129

  61

  30

  46

  85

  Rhymney Valley

  1

  530

  820

  383

  246

  196

  274

  260

  South Pembrokeshire

  99

  62

  134

  136

  55

  45

  40

  67

  Swansea

  17

  336

  468

  219

  156

  207

  254

  381

  Taff-Ely

  15

  452

  457

  462

  261

  266

  293

  377

  Torfaen2

  331

  1,072

  1,561

  741

  694

  486

  334

  317

  Vale of Glamorgan

  452

  370

  422

  298

  212

  207

  223

  195

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  530

  497

  161

  138

  154

  199

  188

  Ynys Môn

  0

  277

  270

  89

  57

  96

  75

  65

  WALES

  2,136

  12,457

  15,477

  7,892

  5,695

  5,333

  5,876

  6,313

  1 Includes sales of New Town dwellings in Newtown.

  2 Includes sales of New Town dwellings in Cwmbran.

  (d) Number of dwellings purchased by local authorities or New Towns1

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  0

  2

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  2

  6

  5

  2

  3

  0

  0

  Arfon

  7

  0

  3

  11

  2

  5

  5

  2

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  12

  22

  Brecknock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  14

  15

  Cardiff

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  4

  3

  Carmarthen

  5

  1

  1

  2

  7

  3

  11

  3

  Ceredigion

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Dinefwr

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  2

  0

  1

  4

  1

  4

  5

  7

  Glyndwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  2

  2

  Llanelli

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lliw Valley

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  6

  5

  250 251

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Meirionnydd

  7

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  62

  0

  Monmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  18

  12

  Montgomery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Neath

  3

  8

  9

  9

  1

  22

  29

  25

  Newport

  19

  19

  2

  2

  1

  61

  68

  40

  Ogwr

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  16

  21

  47

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preseli

  7

  4

  5

  3

  2

  7

  3

  0

  Radnor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Rhondda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rhuddlan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Rhymney Valley

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  8

  79

  South Pembrokeshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  0

  5

  4

  0

  1

  4

  9

  Taff-Ely

  4

  0

  2

  3

  0

  8

  9

  1

  Torfaen

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  9

  3

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Ynys Môn

  4

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  WALES

  60

  43

  45

  64

  30

  157

  295

  287

  1 Figures since 1985–86 include re-purchases under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985.

SCOTLAND

  Vehicle Lessees (Protection)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to introduce legislation giving protection to lessees of motor vehicles in Scotland similar to that provided for lessees in England under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1983.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission recommended in their report on the sale and supply of goods (Law Corn. No. 160, Scot. Law Com. No. 104, Cm. 137) that the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 be extended to Scotland. This would give statutory protection to lessees of motor vehicles in Scotland, particularly in respect of implied terms as to quality and fitness for purpose. The Government have announced their support for the Law Commission's recommendations and the intention to legislate at an appropriate opportunity.

  Waste Disposal at Sea
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those operations for which sea disposal licences for the deposit or incineration of waste at sea have been granted under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of licences issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is as follows:—

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Marine Incineration

  0

  0

  0

  Liquid Industrial Waste

  0

  0

  0

  Solid Industrial Waste

  2

  1

  3

  Sewage Sludge

  2

  2

  2

  Dredged Spoil

  24

  32

  25

  All licences are issued on an annual basis. Details of licences issued are maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on a public register.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the total value to the latest available full year of public sector contracts in Scotland of a character which will make them open to Communitywide bidding as part of the creation of the internal market.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No assessment has been made because information is not held centrally on Scottish public sector contracts. The cost of establishing a means of assessing the value of public contracts in Scotland to be opened to Communitywide bidding would not be justified.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reasons why the sale of the electoral register is allowed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 provide for the publication and supply of the electoral register, including the sale of copies at a prescribed fee. These provisions reflect the fact that the electoral register is a public document which requires to be widely circulated for electoral purposes; and the conclusion that its use by commercial organisations could not effectively be prevented, but that a charge for such use should be made.

  Eggs
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that eggs imported into Scotland will have been subjected to equally rigorous egg production and hygiene regulations as eggs produced in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 4 April to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Eggs are not normally imported directly into Scotland from other EC member states.

  Fire Prevention (Cigarettes)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his response to the suggestion by the chief inspector of fire services for Scotland that the production of fire-proof cigarettes should be considered as an aid to reducing household fires.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I noted the comments made by Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services for Scotland in his 1987 annual report on the research that was carried out in the United States on safer cigarettes. That research took the form of a technical study which is the subject of further research.

  I welcome appropriate steps that can be taken to reduce the loss of life through fire in the home. At present my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose Department takes the lead in this area of consumer safety, is monitoring further research on the American technical study. I propose to review the matter when the results of this further research are available, probably in 1990.

  Post-Chernobyl Restrictions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of farms, number of sheep and number of acres subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions as at February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 69 farms, some 64,000 sheep and about 66,000 acres were subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions in February.

  Bute House
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what liability for poll tax exists in respect of his official residence at Bute house in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) on 5 April 1989.

  Preparatory Schools
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the names of the preparatory schools to be included in the assisted places scheme in the 1989–90 session and the amount of fee remission grant to be allocated to them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have decided to admit 16 preparatory schools to the scheme in the 1989–90 school session and details including the fee remission grant are shown in the table. The inclusion of these schools in the scheme widens significantly the type of school available to less well-off families who could not have previously contemplated sending their children to such schools.

  School

  £

  Aberlour House School, Moray

  17,000

  Ardvreck School, Crieff

  3,000

  Beaconhurst Grange School, Bridge of Allan

  12,000

  Belhaven Hill School, Dunbar

  6,000

  Blairmore School, Huntly

  9,000

  Butterstone House School, Dunkeld

  3,000

  Cargilfield School, Edinburgh

  17,000

  Clifton Hall School, Midlothian

  15,000

  Craigclowan Preparatory School, Perth

  11,000

  254

  School

  £

  Crawfordton House School, Dumfreisshire

  15,000

  Croftinloan School, Pitlochry

  14,000

  Drumley House School, Ayrshire

  14,000

  Lathallan School, Montrose

  15,000

  New Park School, St. Andrews

  14,000

  Park Lodge School, Helensburgh

  5,000

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  13,000

  TOTAL

  183,000

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any items have been accepted in lieu of tax since he last made an announcement to Parliament.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Further to my statement of 11 May 1988 at column 128 I am pleased to announce that the following items have been accepted in lieu of tax:

  Amount of lax satisfied

  Item

  £

  Two Marble Busts by Louis Francois Roubiliac

  353,855

  Two Portraits by Angelica Kauffmann

  34,100

  Painting by E1 Greco, known as "Fabula".

  947,136·88

  The Roubiliac busts have been formally allocated to the national museums of Scotland but will remain on public display in situ at Mellerstain house in Berwickshire. In accordance with the conditions upon which the other items were offered, the Kauffmann portraits and the E1 Greco "Fabula" have been allocated to the national galleries of Scotland. The acceptance of the E1 Greco, which was made possible by a call on the reserve in accordance with the arrangements agreed in July 1985, followed the precedent set by the acceptance of Picasso's "Weeping Woman" in that the national galleries of Scotland agreed to pay the owner the difference (£1,152,861) between the tax liability to be satisfied and the "special price" of £2·1 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Charles Powell and Mr. Bernard Ingham
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will transfer Mr. Charles Powell and Mr. Bernard Ingham to other posts in the Civil Service; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters she has received regarding the increases in petrol prices.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware I have not received any recent representations on increases in petrol prices. However, since the Budget the price difference between unleaded and leaded petrol has widened to reflect the enhanced tax advantage for unleaded introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Cynon Valley
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to visit Cynon Valley.

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

  President Gorbachev (Visit)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received following the visit of President Gorbachev.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received following the visit of President Gorbachev.

  The Prime Minister
  The visit of President Gorbachev has been widely and warmly received.

  Engagements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current grade of Mr. Charles Powell; and what is the salary attached to that grade.

  The Prime Minister
  The current grade of Mr. Charles Powell is grade 3 which has a salary range, inclusive of discretionary points and London allowance, of £39,600-£49,600 per annum.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister whether all speeches made by Cabinet Ministers during the course of the last four weeks on general economic policy represented Government policy.

  Firework injuries in Great Britain

  (Four-week period in October to November)

  Year

  1988

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Total

  877

  960

  846

  968

  778

  Place of accident:

  1. Family or private party

  300

  260

  286

  255

  231

  2. Semi-public display (eg scouts, cricket club)

  69

  88

  72

  76

  65

  3. Large public display

  123

  155

  119

  117

  108

  4. Casual incident in street etc.

  298

  364

  299

  435

  298

  5. Other place

  65

  73

  52

  64

  59

  6. Indoors

  22

  20

  18

  21

  17

  Type of firework

  1. Banger

  162

  163

  161

  241

  175

  2. Rocket

  164

  174

  159

  197

  115

  3. Roman candle, coloured fire etc.

  83

  96

  88

  90

  103

  4. Home-made or extracted powder

  17

  24

  14

  27

  21

  5. Other proprietary fireworks

  86

  109

  118

  73

  74

  6. Sparklers

  102

  95

  80

  67

  65

  7. Unspecified type

  263

  299

  226

  273

  225

  256
  The Prime Minister
  Cabinet Ministers have collective responsibility for Government policy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has no empty properties suitable for residential accommodation.

  Fireworks (Injuries)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the figures of injuries caused by fireworks in 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  According to reports from hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales, 877 people required treatment for injuries caused by fireworks during the three weeks leading up to 5 November 1988 and the few days after. This is 83 fewer than in 1987.

  I am encouraged by these figures, which show a fall on last year, particularly as they show a significant 18 per cent. reduction in the number of street injuries and to children under 16.

  Our safety campaigns last year highlighted the penalties facing shopkeepers who sell fireworks to children under 16 and individuals who let off fireworks in the street. I am pleased to see that the greatest reductions in injuries have been in the prime target groups of our campaigns, but we shall continue to seek greater safety all round.

  We shall discuss with trading standards officers and industry how we can further improve standards of fireworks, particularly imports, and ways of testing their safety. The table sets out the figures of firework injuries in Great Britain over a four-week period in October/November 1988.
  257

  Year

  1988

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Severity of injury

  1. Fatal injury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2. Detained more than one night

  69

  60

  48

  53

  55

  3. Sufficient to cause absence from work or equivalent

  167

  158

  160

  231

  161

  4. Minor injury

  587

  661

  582

  632

  506

  5. Unspecified injury

  54

  81

  56

  52

  55

  Eye injuries (included in 2 to 5)

  269

  312

  291

  341

  295

  Age group of injured persons

  1. Over 20

  280

  252

  235

  214

  180

  2. 16 to 20

  151

  168

  145

  161

  109

  3. 13 to 15

  166

  220

  207

  271

  208

  4. Under 13

  280

  320

  259

  322

  281

  Blue Arrow
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to appoint inspectors under section 432 of the Companies Act to investigate Blue Arrow and the Peter de Savary deal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I am considering the available information to see whether there is any action my Department need take.

  Visual Display Units
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) by how much United Kingdom manufacturers' percentage share of the visual display unit market has fallen since 1986; what assessment he has made of the reasons for this fall; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he is taking to arrest the continuing decline of United Kingdom manufacturers' percentage share of the visual display unit market.
  258
  Mr. Forth
  United Kingdom manufacturers' sales, as a percentage of the United Kingdom market for visual display units, fell from 64 per cent. in 1986 to 47 per cent. in the first nine months of 1988. The figures do not include VDUs that are manufactured and incorporated on site into complete systems, such as personal computers.

  Since early 1987 IBM United Kingdom has manufactured a high proportion of its own VDUs at its British PC plant, and the fact that these are not included in the published VDU statistics is a significant factor in explaining the apparent decline.

  Decisions about sourcing policy are a matter for the commercial judgment of individual busineses. The Government's responsibility is to create the right economic climate and to encourage enterprise. My Department has available a wide range of assistance to companies under the enterprise initiative.

  Opium Derivatives
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of opium derivatives is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that a company with around 87 per cent. of the market in the supply of specified opium derivatives has exploited this monopoly situation by engaging in price discrimination and has been enabled to charge high prices in the domestic market, leading to very high levels of profit. The commission concluded that these practices were against the public interest.

  The commission established that Macfarlan Smith Ltd, a subsidiary of Glaxo plc, had around 87 per cent. of the market in the supply of morphine, codeine, dihydroco-deine, diamorphine, ethylmorphine and pholcodine and was therefore a scale monopolist as defined in the Fair Trading Act 1973. The only other manufacturer is the Boots Company plc, which produced codeine and small amounts of morphine, principally for use in-house.

  Opium derivatives are subject to domestic and international controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the United Nations single convention on narcotic drugs 1961 and any person wishing to manufacture or process these products in the United Kingdom, or to import them, requires a Home Office licence. There are no imports of opium derivatives into the United Kingdom because it has been Home Office policy for many years not to issue import licences.

  The commission stated in its report that to increase competition in this market was of prime importance. It recommended that the Home Office, in conjunction with other Government Departments, should work towards the creation of a single EC market in the reference products through the reciprocal opening up of trade between EC member countries as soon as possible and not later than 1992. It also concluded that a measure of price protection for Macfarlan Smith's customers in the United Kingdom was necessary and recommended that the company should be required not to increase its maximum prices for reference products to these customers for a period of three years, except in the event of substantial and unavoidable increases in its costs.

  We accept the commission's findings that the monopoly has effects adverse to the public interest and agree that it is most important to increase competition in this market. Therefore my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the best means to relieve Macfarlan Smith's customers from the company's abuse of its monopoly power while maintaining adequate safeguards against illicit trade. We hope to achieve this quickly so that a price freeze in the interim will not be necessary. Meanwhile my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is inviting the Director General of Fair Trading to seek an undertaking from the monopolist that it will continue to make its list of maximum prices available to customers.

  Girobank
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further progress has been made in finding a suitable buyer for Girobank.

  Mr. Newton
  After detailed discussion with a number of interested parties, the Post Office board has decided to accept the conditional offer made by the Alliance and Leicester building society to purchase Girobank plc. I have endorsed this decision which I am satisfied takes full account of the factors for the sale set out by myself-and my predecessor.

  I understand that the Alliance and Leicester's conditional offer to the Post Office is to acquire the equity and subordinated debt of Girobank for £130 million subject to completion adjustments. The Post Office will now enter into detailed negotiations with the Alliance and Leicester with a view to completion as soon as practicable within the coming weeks. My consent will be required before the final sale can take place.

  In addition, the requirements of the relevant competition legislation will need to be satisfied and the agreement of the Bank of England will be needed to the operation of the bank under a new owner. If the negotiations are successful the Alliance and Leicester will also need to satisfy the Building Societies Commission before the sale is completed.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the attendance of British arms companies at the forthcoming Baghdad international arms fair, he has any plans to change the current restrictions on the export of arms to Iraq.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: There are no plans to change the current restrictions on the export of arms to Iraq which impose an embargo on the export of lethal equipment. A licence is required for the export to Iraq of goods which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1987, (SI 1987 No. 2070) as amended.

  Applications for such licences are examined in particular against the guidelines on the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq announced to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985 at column 454. The guidelines are kept under review in the light of developments in the situation there.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate the criteria relating to the gravity of human rights violations committed by countries in relation to which arms export licences are sought which he uses in deciding whether to grant such licences.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: A licence is required for the export of arms which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1987 (SI 1987 No. 2070) as amended. Licence applications are considered on a case by case basis, in accordance with stringent export control procedures which include, in particular, an assessment of the human rights record or the country concerned.

  It is not our practice to grant a licence for the export of equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for the Department of Trade and Industry or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Campaign

  Start

  Completion

  Enterprise Initiative1

  January 1988

  continuing

  Single European Market

  March 1988

  continuing

  Export Initiative

  January 1989

  continuing

  Bridge Programme2

  March 1989

  May 1989

  1 Includes television advertising in the period April to June 1989.

  2 On behalf of all Government Departments.

HEALTH

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations regarding the scope for self-governing hospitals to set their own rates of pay for staff.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received representations from a number of individuals and representative organisations on this subject.

  DHAs and FPCs (Membership)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of district health authorities and family practitioner committee membership in England and Wales(a) in 1979 and (b) currently is made up of trade union nominees; and if he will make a statement on the criteria he uses in appointing district health authority and family practitioner committee members.

  Mr. Mellor
  In England district health authorities have only existed in their present form since 1982. No information is available centrally about members of family practitioner committees in 1979, since at that time they were appointed by area health authorities.

  In England, currently 33 family practitioner committee members were nominated by trade unions. Information is not held centrally about district health authority members since they are appointed by the relevant regional health authority and local authorities. When appointing family practitioner committee members we endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance of age, sex, experience and geographical location. Regional health authorities are asked to do the same when appointing DHA members. However, all members are appointed on the basis of the individual contribution they can make and not to represent any personal or sectional interest.

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

  Human Organs (Sales)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to prohibit the sale of human organs; and if he will make a statement.
  262
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have today introduced the Human Organ Transplants Bill which seeks to ban the sale of human organs intended for transplant. The Bill would make it a criminal offence to:make or receive payment for supplying, or offering to supply, an organ from a dead or living person;
  act as a broker for such an arrangement;
  advertise organs or for organs to be provided for payment;
  transplant an organ from a living donor who is not closely related (cousin or closer relative) to the recipient, unless certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions would be set out in the regulations.

  The regulations would specify the way in which the relationship between voluntary donor and recipient would be established and the conditions which would have to be satisfied for those who are not closely related. Responsibility for ensuring that the regulations were being complied with would be given to such authority as would be set up under those regulations.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue the promised clearer guidelines in respect of applications to provide pharmaceutical services.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have already issued advice on the effects of a judgment by the High Court on applications for the minor relocation of a pharmacy. We have been discussing these effects and a number of other matters with interested parties and will issue draft guidance for comment shortly.

  Radioactivity (Accidents)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district health authority(a) the establishment of medical physicists appropriately qualified to carry out the duties identified in circulars HC (89) 8 and HN (FP) (89) 8 and (b) the number of such appropriately qualified physicists in post at the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Radiotherapy Physicists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the staffing levels recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection for radiotherapy physicists in terms of new courses on radiotherapy treatment.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1985 the international commission on radiological protection published a document entitled "Protection of the Patient in Radiation Therapy". Page 39 of that document states that one of the goals for radiation oncology staffing is one medical physicist per 400 new patients treated per year.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each region(a) the number of radiotherapy physicists required to fulfil the staffing levels recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in terms of new courses of radiotherapy treatment and (b) the number of such radiotherapy physicists currently in post.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was Government spending on the hospital and community health service budget as a proportion of the average household income in 1987–88.

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross expenditure on the hospital and community health service per household in the United Kingdom in 1987–88 represented 4·5 per cent. of average household income in that year.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were in(a) 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available; and what is his estimate of future trends.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information required is set out in the following table.

  Unrestricted principals in England

  As at 1 October

  Number

  1979

  21,357

  1987

  24,922

  1988

  125,322

  1 Provisional.

  The second advisory committee for medical manpower planning, which reported earlier this year assumed a growth of 1·5 per cent. per annum until the early 1990s followed by a decrease of 0·5 per cent. per annum up to 2005. Paragraph 7·22 of the White Paper "Working for Patients" sets out the Government's policy on GP numbers.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information to this level of detail is not collected by the Department.

  Babies (Alcohol)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum amount of alcohol that is assessed as acceptable for babies to consume daily; and if he will request the manufacturers of gripe water to label their products with the percentage of alcohol contained, to reconsider the amount of the recommended dose, and to display warnings of the dangers of exceeding it.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am advised that the small amount of alcohol contained in some gripe waters should not intoxicate babies if used responsibly by parents in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.

  Family Practitioner Service
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the family practitioner service in 1978–79 and in 1987–88; and what was the total cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioners at those two dates.
  264
  Mr. Mellor
  The gross costs of the family practitioner services in England, including capital expenditure but excluding administration and related costs, were £1,434 million in 1978–79, and £4,210 million in 1987–88. The gross cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioners in 1978–79 and 1987–88 were £558 million and £1,547 million respectively.

  Family Doctors
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints were made against family doctors over the past five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Complaints investigated by family practitioner committees against family doctors in England under the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 were:

  Number

  1984

  952

  1985

  1,286

  1986

  1,138

  1987

  1,027

  1988

  1,162

  In addition some complaints are resolved by family practitioner committees on an informal basis with the agreement of the parties concerned.

  Salary Scales
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the advances in the maximum of the personal secretary scale and higher clerical scale over the last 15 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The maximum of the pay scales for personal secretary and higher clerical officer grades from 1 April 1974 are shown in the following table.

  Effective from 1 April

  Personal secretary £

  Higher clerical officer £

  1974

  1,773

  1,995

  1975

  2,274

  2,553

  11975

  2,388

  2,691

  1976

  2,700

  3,003

  1977

  2,843

  3,153

  1978

  3,104

  3,452

  1979

  3,787

  4,240

  1980

  4,317

  4,834

  1981

  4,571

  5,119

  1982

  4,845

  5,426

  1983

  5,063

  5,670

  1984

  5,291

  5,925

  1985

  5,529

  6,191

  1986

  5,885

  6,556

  1987

  6,148

  6,884

  1988

  6,474

  7,228

  1 Effective from 1 July.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the practice of some health authorities of paying secretaries on the general adtrinstrative grade plus proficiency allowances; and if he will give a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold such information centrally. The grading of posts and payment of allowances are matters for individual employing authorities in accordance
  265
  with agreements reached in the administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council. Under existing agreements proficiency allowances are not payable to staff on the general adminstrative grade.

  Health Care (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his future plans for provision of health care in rural areas of South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Provision and planning of local health services is a matter for the district and regional health authorities. Since responsibility for South Yorkshire lies with four district health authorities—Barnsley, Doncaster,

  Total

  Women

  1Recorded ethnic minorities

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  All grades

  14,880

  6,745

  45·0

  384

  2·6

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 2

  3

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 3

  18

  1

  5·6

  0

  —

  Grade 4

  15

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 5

  92

  8

  8·7

  1

  1·0

  Grade 6

  110

  0

  —

  2

  1·8

  Grade 7

  645

  42

  6·5

  14

  2·2

  1 Figures for numbers of ethnic minority staff are based on a voluntary confidential survey of staff; the response rate was 72 per cent. overall and 84 per cent. for grades 1 to 7.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department completed its voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff already in post in the autumn of 1987. This information is kept up to date on a continuous basis by asking job applicants to complete a questionnaire about their ethnic origin.

  The Cabinet Office will be publishing the results of its national ethnic survey of all Departments later this year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Service Commission is responsible for recruitment of top grades to all Departments of the Civil Service. Recruitment and promotion are carried out on the principle of fair and open competition.

  Transatlantic Flights (Prestwick)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report figures showing the number of transatlantic flights (a) originating at Prestwick airport and (b) using Prestwick as an interim landing point in the years 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not have this information. I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, who may be able to provide it at least for the later years.
  266
  Rotherham and Sheffield—the hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of the Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

TRANSPORT

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The numbers and percentages of women and ethnic minority staff employed by the Department at present are:

  Scottish Lowland Air Traffic
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the review of Scottish lowland air traffic distribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a large number of representations about BAA's request for a review of Scottish lowland airports policy, the greater proportion against changing it.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his review of Scottish lowland air traffic distribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend is considering BAA plc's request for a review in the light of advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland; he will make an announcement in due course.

  A17-A151 Junction (Lighting)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the junction of the A 17 road with the A151 is adequately illuminated at night.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We considered the provision of lighting carefully during preparation of the A17 New Washway road scheme. Lighting is both expensive and intrusive and can be justified only where it is expected to make a significant contribution to road safety. The provision of lighting to the west of Boston road roundabout, including the A151 link road junction, could not be justified.

  We do not normally light isolated junctions in rural areas except as part of a larger system. Isolated clusters of

  267
  lights can be dangerous because switching from darkness to light and back in quick succession can disorientate drivers on the main road. The proper way to warn drivers of a junction is by adequate signing. This has been done.

  Mersey Tunnels (Tolls)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make the orders authorising an increase in Mersey tunnel tolls; whether he intends to use his powers under the County of Merseyside Act 1980 to confirm or modify the toll levels for fiscal year 1989–90; how any waiving of interest repayments would be authorised and financed; what are his long-term plans for the financing of the Mersey tunnels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 14 April a letter was sent to the Merseyside passenger transport authority informing it of the Secretary of State's decision to confirm, with modifications, its order setting new toll levels for the Mersey tunnels. The order will be made shortly.

  The long-term financing of the tunnels is the responsibility of the PTA. I hope there will now be fresh discussions with the PTA about its options for putting the finances of the tunnels on a sound basis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider lifting tolls on the Mersey tunnels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Mersey tunnels were promoted by the local authorities under legislation on the basis that they should be tolled. The legislation does not provide for the Secretary of State to abolish tolls.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study into the potential increase in traffic using the Mersey tunnels should tolls be lifted.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Mersey tunnels are the responsibility of the Merseyside PTA. Any such study would he a matter for it.

  Motorways (Speed Limit)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has conducted to establish whether a 70 mph limit on motorways is conducive to bunching.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is little evidence to suggest that the introduction of the 70 mph speed limit on motorways has contributed to dangerous bunching. The limit has, however, contributed to a reduction in accidents on motorways rather than the increase which might be expected if dangerous bunching was on the increase. The severity of injuries is also lower at lower speeds.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information for regions in England is:268

  Properties owned by the Department and suitable for residential accommodation

  Region

  Number

  Percentage empty for up to a year

  Percentage empty for over a year

  South West

  139

  15

  5

  Eastern

  365

  2

  1

  South East

  210

  7

  3

  North West

  406

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  104

  11

  10

  West Midlands

  82

  11

  5

  London

  866

  2

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54

  13

  11

  Northern

  29

  —

  —

  England total

  2,255

  4

  3

  In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the respective Secretaries of State are responsible for the management of land purchased for national road schemes.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent in 1988–89 under the national roads England vote (class VIII, vote I).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Expenditure is provisionally estimated at £1,021·6 million, less than 2 per cent., some £20 million, below the cash limit of £1,041·4 million. This reflects commitment to making full use of provision for roads expenditure within the discipline of cash limits.

  Air Security
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the introduction of mandatory protective measures for modern aircraft requiring(a) the fitting of locks to doors and latches and (b) the reinforcing of bulkheads and control systems from possible explosive damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The question would be more appropriately directed to the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation. I shall bring the hon. Member's concern to the attention to the chairman.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department of Education and Science owns no residential accommodation.

  Modern Hebrew
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what representations he has received about the status of modern Hebrew in the GCSE curriculum;
  269
  (2) if he will make a statement about the position of modern Hebrew in the GCSE modern language schedules;

  (3) if he will consider revising the GCSE schedules to include modern Hebrew; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any issue concerning the GCSE in modern Hebrew. We assume that the hon. Member is referring to the draft order on modern foreign languages in the national curriculum and the proposals which my right hon. Friend announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 3 March at column 338. My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from organisations, local education authorities, teachers and others about the place of modern Hebrew in the national curriculum. We are at present considering the responses received during the consultation period.

  Universities (Grants)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the University Grants Commission under its present powers, can divide grants to universities into separate blocks for teaching and for research.

  Estimated numbers' and cost' of incentive allowances, financial year 1989–90

  Rate

  Level of allowance (£)

  Numbers in ordinary schools (000's)

  Numbers in special schools (000's)

  Total numbers (000's)

  Total cost(£ million)

  A

  801

  53·5

  0

  53·5

  49·4

  B

  1,200

  54·2

  11·5

  65·7

  90·8

  C

  2,400

  14·8

  2·1

  16·9

  46·7

  D

  3,201

  26·1

  0·3

  26·4

  97·4

  E

  4,401

  8·9

  0·1

  9·0

  45·6

  Total

  329·9

  1 Numbers are a financial year average of the estimates for the school years 1988–89 and 1989–90. These take the accelerated introduction of the A allowances into account.

  2 The total cost figure includes employers' oncosts.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what announcements he made in 1988, in relation to school teachers' pay and allowances for 1988–89, concerning the total value or cost of incentive allowances payable in that year; if he will publish a calculation for each such figure of total value or cost showing how the total figure was derived from the expected numbers of allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend made no such announcements in 1988.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance Allowance
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects people who are terminally ill to be able to claim attendance allowance immediately, in line with the recommendation of the recent Social Security Advisory Committee report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 6 February at column 490.
  270
  Mr. Jackson
  This would be within the powers available to the Universities Funding Council under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Teachers (Incentive Allowances)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a calculation, in relation to his Department's figure of total baseline costs of school teachers' incentive allowances shown in appendix A of Cm. 625, showing how the total figure was derived from the expected numbers of allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The derivation of the figure for the total baseline costs of incentive allowances shown in appendix A of the second report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions is set out in the following table:

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr Peter Lloyd: All property occupied by the Department is vested in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; any surplus property is returned to the Property Services Agency for reuse or disposal as appropriate.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many referrals have been made to the social fund inspectors; of these, how many have been referred back to Department of Social Security local offices for reconsideration; how many of the decisions referred back to the local office have been altered and if he will also split the figures issued(a) between community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans and (b) and by region.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am advised by the social fund commissioner that between 11 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 social fund inspectors received 2,954 applications for
  271
  review. A total of 1,109 cases have been referred back to social fund officers for determination. The regional details are as follows:

  Table 1—Applications for review

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Totals

  London North

  53

  20

  145

  218

  London South

  43

  12

  51

  106

  Midlands

  139

  38

  158

  335

  North Eastern

  471

  26

  223

  720

  North Western

  412

  16

  131

  559

  Scotland

  529

  29

  232

  790

  Wales and South Western

  122

  21

  83

  226

  TOTALS

  1,769

  162

  1,023

  2,954

  Table 2—Applications referred back to the SFO for determination

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Totals

  London North

  21

  5

  75

  101

  London South

  17

  4

  16

  37

  Midlands

  58

  16

  56

  130

  North Eastern

  183

  5

  90

  278

  North Western

  185

  1

  54

  240

  Scotland

  164

  9

  63

  236

  Wales and South Western

  46

  5

  36

  87

  TOTALS

  674

  45

  390

  1,109

  Table 3—Applications redetermined in the applicant's favour

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Totals

  Decisions not completed

  London North

  5

  2

  35

  42

  22

  London South

  5

  0

  4

  9

  7

  Midlands

  24

  3

  29

  56

  18

  North Eastern

  82

  1

  38

  121

  15

  North Western

  68

  0

  19

  87

  34

  Scotland

  77

  5

  36

  118

  18

  Wales and South Western

  17

  2

  18

  37

  8

  TOTALS

  278

  13

  179

  470

  122

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will issue a direction extending eligibility for community care grants to people leaving institutional care whose income is above income support level because they are entitled to invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 16 December at column 750–51.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state for the financial year 1988–89, the number of claimants who were awarded and accepted(a) a social fund loan and (b) a community care grant as a percentage of the total number who received single payments in 1987–88; and in each case, what was the proportion which these represented of the total number of income support, supplementary benefit, claimants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of individuals receiving an award is not collected.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state for the financial year 1988–89, the number of income support claimants awarded and 272
  accepting (a) two budgeting loans, (b) three budgeting loans, (c) four budgeting loans, (d) five budgeting loans and (e) six or more budgeting loans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for the financial year 1988–89, the number of his Department's local offices spending less than(a) 50 per cent., (b) 60 per cent. and (c) 75 per cent. of their community care grant budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information for the period April 1988 to February 1989 is available in the Library.

  Information for March 1989 will be placed in the Library later this month.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for the financial year 1988–89, the proportion of total social fund expenditure which has been subsequently written off as unrecoverable.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is available only for the period ending 30 September 1989. The details are set out as follows and are provisional:
  273

  £

  Funeral payments

  6,354,434

  Budgeting loans

  4,315

  Crisis loans

  10,920

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for the financial year 1988–89, the proportion of social fund loan application refusals which were issued on the grounds of the claimant's inability to repay.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Only 1 per cent. of applications processed were refused on grounds of the applicant's inability to repay.

  November 19791 rates in real terms

  April 1988 rates

  Percentage change in real terms

  £

  £

  Retirement pension2

  Single person

  40·91

  41·15

  0·6

  Married couple

  65·50

  65·90

  0·6

  Unemployment benefit3

  Single person

  32·48

  32·75

  0·8

  Married couple

  52·59

  52·95

  0·7

  Sickness benefit3

  Single person

  32·48

  31·30

  -3·6

  Married couple

  52·59

  50·70

  -3·6

  Industrial disablement benefit4

  66·72

  67·20

  0·7

  Industrial death benefit5

  41·88

  41·15

  -1·7

  Maternity allowance

  Single person

  32·48

  31·30

  -3·6

  Married couple

  52·59

  50·70

  -3·6

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  Single person

  24·58

  24·75

  0·7

  Married couple

  39·33

  39·55

  0·6

  War disablement pension6

  66·72

  67·20

  0·7

  War widows' pension7

  53·47

  53·75

  0·5

  Attendance allowance

  Higher rate

  32·66

  32·95

  0·9

  Lower rate

  21·77

  22·00

  1·0

  Invalid care allowance

  Single person

  24·58

  24·75

  0·7

  Married couple

  39·33

  39·55

  0·6

  Severe disablement allowance

  Single person

  24·58

  24·75

  0·7

  Married couple

  39·33

  39·55

  0·6

  Mobility allowance

  21·07

  23·05

  9·4

  Child benefit8

  7·02

  7·25

  3·2

  One parent benefit

  4·39

  4·90

  11·6

  1 Benefit rates for 1979 to 1982 were set as a result of a forecast of future inflation, rather than by the historic method used since 1983; this discontinuity makes comparisons difficult.

  2 The basic rate of benefit, which is also the basic rate of benefit for invalidity pension and widow's pension.

  3 Rate for benefit under pension age.

  4 100 per cent. disablement pension.

  5 Higher permanent rate. Since 11 April 1988, this benefit is paid only to those already in receipt at 11 April 1988.

  6 100 per cent. disablement pension for other ranks.

  7 Higher rate.

  8 Rate in 1979 was set in April.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to his reply of 14 April to the hon.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the value in real terms both in absolute figures and as a percentage, of retirement and other state pensions and all other welfare and national insurance benefits and allowances paid in November 1979 in relation to those to be paid from April 1988; and if he will indicate the actual figure for each benefit in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The comparisons requested between benefit rates in November 1979 and April 1988 are set out as follows. Comparisons are given only for those benefits in existence at both dates. Benefit rates for the intervening years are set out in "Social Security Statistics 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Member for Glasgow, Govan, Official Report, column

  275
  743, on deductions from benefits for payment of the poll tax, on what authority the interim advice to which he referred was given.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The interim advice was issued on the authority of officials within the headquarters of the Department. It took the form of an internal management memorandum and was designed to keep regional and local staff abreast of developments in this area. The content of the memorandum paraphrases the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 507) which came into force on 8 April 1989.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the level of child benefit in

  Reductions in child benefit needed to maintain the 1978–79 level of tax-free income for taxpayers with and without children

  Single person

  Married couple

  Married Couple, 1 child, aged 3

  Married couple, 2 children, aged 4, 6

  Married couple 3 children, aged 3, 8, 11

  Child Benefit and tax not paid on allowances 1978–79 (£pa)

  325·05

  506·55

  673·19

  839·83

  1,018·02

  Note 1

  Child Benefit and tax not paid on allowances 1989–90 (£pa)

  696·25

  1,093·75

  1,470·75

  1,847·75

  2,224·75

  Note 1

  Child Benefit and tax not paid on allowances 1989–90 if married couple with children increased at same ratio as married couple without children

  —

  —

  1,454·09

  1,814·03

  2,198·92

  Change in child benefit required in 1989–90 to restore to position in 1978–79 (£ per child per week)

  —

  —

  -0·32

  -0·32

  -0·17

  Child Benefit and tax not paid on allowances 1989–90 if married couple with children increased at same ratio as single person

  —

  —

  1,440·63

  1,797·24

  2,178·56

  Change in child benefit required in 1989–90 to restore to position in 1978–79 (£ per child per week)

  —

  —

  -0·58

  -0·49

  -0·30

  Notes:

  1. Tax free income is calculated by applying the standard rate of tax to the appropriate tax allowances and adding the annual value of Child Benefit in payment. For example, tax free income in 1989–90 for a one-earner married couple with one child is calculated as: 25 per cent. (standard tax rate) × £4,375 (married man's tax allowance) = £1,093·75 plus £377 (Child Benefit of £7·25 per week for 52 weeks). Total tax free income =£1,470·75.

  2. Figures for 1978–79: tax allowances—single person's £985, married couple £1,535, children under 11 £100, children between 11–15 years £135. Tax rate 33 per cent. Child Benefit £2·57 per week.

  3. Figures for 1989–90: tax allowances—single person £2,785, married man £4,375. Standard rate of tax 25 per cent. Child Benefit £7·25 per week.

  4. All figures are subject to rounding.

DEFENCE

  Pyrton
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which military units and civilian contractors have been responsible for construction work at the depot site in the parish of Pyrton in the county of Oxfordshire;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of any documents held by his Department relating to the acquisition, planning status, construction, rating and occupancy of the depot site in the parish of Pyrton in the county of Oxfordshire which have not been released to the public record office;
  276
  1989–90 if the increase in tax-free income of taxpayers with children were maintained at the same level as that of taxpayers without children in relation to the 1978–79 level.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 December 1988]: Child benefit is a part of the public expenditure programme not a personal allowance against income-tax. For the purposes of answering this question, in the table, personal income tax allowance in both 1978–79 and 1989–90 have been converted into tax revenue foregone and added to the annual value of child benefit in each year. The results suggest that, in order to restore parity in the coming financial year with 1978–79 for married taxpayers with and without children, child benefit would have to be reduced by 32p for one-earner married couples with one or two children and by 17p for couples with three children. If the comparison were based on single taxpayers, the corresponding reductions would be 50p and 30p.

  (3) which detachments of troops have occupied the site of the depot in the parish of Pyrton in the county of Oxfordshire since its completion, indicating the dates of duration of each occupancy.

  Mr. Neubert
  The property was transferred to the Department of Environment in 1981. I regret that the details requested are not to hand. I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the new provisions for members of the armed forces to make additional voluntary contributions to their pensions relating to payments additional to their basic salaries have been adequately publicised.
  277
  Mr. Neubert
  Arrangements under which members of the armed forces pension scheme may make freestanding additional voluntary contributions based on additional pay were widely promulgated to service personnel in January of this year. In order to provide the maximum possible time for personnel to take advantage of these arrangements within the 1988–89 tax year, promulgation was by signal. Further publication was intended to follow but has been deferred pending review and clarification of the provisions which will be appropriate when the proposed changes in AVC requirements and limits for tax relief purposes, announced during the Budget statement, take effect. I am satisfied that in these circumstances arrangements which are currently available to members of the armed forces have been appropriately publicised.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Neubert
  Statistics are not collected in quite the form requested. The latest figures available show that on 30 November 1988 there were 78,520 tri-service married quarters, of which 14·4 per cent. had been vacant for under a year and 5·8 per cent. vacant for over a year. At 30 September 1988, of 1,828 civilian houses (including 263 leased from local authorities) 6·2 per cent. had been vacant for under six months and 7·1 per cent. for over six months.

  Some of these vacant properties are in the process of disposal, others will be undergoing major maintenance or refurbishment, and yet others will be allocated and awaiting the arrival of the families to the unit.

  The breakdown by region is:

  Percentage vacant by region

  Tri-service married quarters (as at 30 November 1988)

  Region

  Under 1 year

  Over 1 year

  Northern

  14·4

  5·8

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  16·8

  5·0

  East Midlands

  21·6

  16·8

  East Anglia

  13·0

  5·1

  South East

  13·1

  4·2

  South West

  15·5

  5·5

  West Midlands

  14·9

  10·8

  North West

  13·8

  1·2

  Wales

  14·2

  4·6

  Scotland

  15·4

  7·0

  Northern Ireland

  11·4

  1·6

  Civilian houses (as at 30 September 1988)

  Region

  Under6 months

  Over6 months

  Northern

  5·5

  20·0

  South East

  4·0

  1·5

  South West

  12·3

  7·4

  West Midlands

  0

  8·7

  North West

  0

  0

  Wales

  3·7

  45·1

  Scotland

  7·9

  11·7

  Territorial Army Bases (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to commission an investigation into the security of Territorial Army bases in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Security of all Ministry of Defence establishments and bases is kept under constant review as a matter of course. I have no plans at present to commission a specific investigation into security at Territorial Army bases in Northern Ireland.

  Gibraltar (Incident)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the special explosives ordnance team was sent to Gibraltar to assist in the operation in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988; when it left the United Kingdom; and when it returned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As was made clear at the inquest, it would not be in the public interest to reveal details about events prior to 6 March 1988 as these could reveal the intelligence background to the operation and methods of operation of the security forces. An explosives ordnance disposal team was sent to Gibraltar when requested by the commissioner of police. They were present in Gibraltar at the time of the incident, carried out render-safe procedures on the suspected car bomb in the white Renault car, and returned to the United Kingdom shortly afterwards.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the officers, who examined the Renault car parked in Main street, Gibraltar on 6 March 1988, concluded that it did not contain a bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the level of pensions paid to widows of military personnel; and what information he has on equivalent pensions for those in other countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Neubert
  The pensions paid to the widows of military personnel under the armed forces pension scheme are at rates which depend upon the individual circumstances of each case. Factors which will affect the rate payable include the rank held by the husband, the date of his retirement or death in service, the provisions of the scheme at that date, the nature of his termination of service, and in most but not all cases the length of service given. It is not therefore possible to provide the information requested.

  Nuclear Installations (Overflying)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air traffic control restrictions apply to military aircraft in relation to flights over nuclear installations.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 16 November 1987 at column 452.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from his United States counterpart concerning the length of time required to modernise the Lance missile; and what assessment he has made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States Administration have kept allies fully informed about their development programme for a successor to the Lance missile. The selection by the United States of a launcher at the end of last year was geared to having a new system available for development by the mid-1990s.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many main battle tanks are in operational service with the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to page 6 of the NATO publication "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any main battle tanks that are currently in operational service are used as a source of spare parts for other main battle tanks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In order to maximise operational availability, it is established practice to use tanks awaiting repair as a source of spare parts for other main battle tanks when the parts needed are not readily available through the normal supply chain.

  Namibia
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training the British contingent of the United Nations transition assistance group receives in peacekeeping operations prior to its deployment to Namibia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Prior to deployment, the British contingent to UNTAG (Britcon) underwent a training period during which they practised general military skills, were familiarised with aspects of peace-keeping operations, and were briefed on particular problems that they would encounter in Namibia such as the extremes of climate and the necessary medical precautions that they would need to take. They also practised their primary and specialist role, which is the provision of the force signals unit. In addition, the areas in which they were to operate were thoroughly reconnoitred.

  It should be borne in mind that UNTAG is not primarily a peace-keeping force but is there to monitor and supervise Namibia's transition to independence.

  Trawler Nets (Irish Sea)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what United States submarines were in the Irish sea during 17 April; and if any reported an incident with the nets of the trawler Laurel;

  (2) if a British submarine was involved in an incident on 17 April in the Irish sea with the fishing nets of the trawler Laurel, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that a United States Navy nuclear submarine was in the vicinity when the 280
  fishing vessel, Laurel, reported early on Monday 17 April 1989, that she had been towed backwards after a submerged object snagged her nets. When the submarine surfaced, it was found to have sustained superficial damage consistent with involvement in such an incident. The United States authorities are investigating.

  No Royal Navy submarine was involved.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Next Steps Initiative
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has identified any candidates for agency status under the next steps initiative within his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following preliminary studies in my Department I have decided that the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge, and the new veterinary medicines directorate which was set up on 3 April 1989 on the Weybridge site should be considered as further candidates for agency status. Feasibility studies will now be carried out with a view to the preparation of draft agency frameworks.

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of agricultural development advisory service staff time is spent on advising farmers about methods of preventing pollution of rivers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The 1988 edition of "Ministerial Information in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" (MINIM), a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House, indicates the resources specifically devoted to the control of pollution in 1987–88. ADAS advisers do provide advice on environmental matters, including control of pollution, when responding to requests for advice on other relevant subjects.

  Eggs (Imports)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that eggs imported into the United Kingdom will have been subjected to equally rigorous egg production and hygiene regulations as eggs produced in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to :lie reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 April at column 51. The monitoring system mentioned in that reply has now been put in place.

  Post-Chernobyl Restrictions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how long restrictions will have to remain in force on farms affected by fallout from Chernobyl.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how long restrictions will have to remain in force on farms affected by fallout from Chernobyl.

  Mr. Ryder
  We shall lift restrictions as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising food safety. The
  281
  broad downward trend in radioactivity levels within the Cumbria restricted area in 1988 compared with 1987 was encouraging. However, whilst there are sheep above the 1,000 bq/kg limit, restrictions will have to remain in force. We shall be reassessing the situation in the light of the 1989 monitoring results to see whether there is scope for reducing the area subject to restrictions later this year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of farms, number of sheep and number of acres subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions as at February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  About 116,000 acres with some 80,000 sheep on about 150 holdings were subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions in February 1989.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of properties owned by his Ministry and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Four properties, less than 2 per cent. of the Ministry's holdings, are vacant; two have been empty for over a year. Three are in Cambridgeshire and one in Hertfordshire. All are being sold. In addition, there are a small number of properties on experimental centres which are temporarily vacant pending occupation by employees.

  Aluminium Additives
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to which foods aluminium is added and for what purpose; and if he will make a statement regarding the necessity for, and safety of, aluminium food additives.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973 (as amended) permit the use of aluminium for the external colouring of dragees and for the decoration of sugar-coated flour confectionery only. In its report on these regulations the food advisory committee recommended that it should be made clear in future regulations that permission to use aluminium, silver and gold on dragees extends only to the traditional cake decoration dragees. The Government are currently considering the results of consultations on the report.

  Medical advisers in the Department of Health have advised that the regular consumption of larger aluminium-coated confectionery is undesirable because this may lead to an intake of aluminium by children in excess of the provisional tolerable weekly intake recently recommended by the joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the county councils that have received grants for the disposal of bovine carcases infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and what is the amount paid per animal in each case.
  282
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  County councils do not receive grants for the disposal of carcases, which is the responsibility of the state veterinary service. On occasions when assistance is provided by county councils, the Ministry pays any appropriate charge. Details of amounts paid are not held centrally.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts paid by different county councils to farmers for the disposal of each bovine carcase infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr Donald Thompson
  Compensation is paid by the Government to farmers who have animals slaughtered because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The disposal of carcases is the responsibility of the state veterinary service and no payments are made by county councils.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incineration plants within each county for the incineration of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 23 March at column 722.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list showing the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed in each county for the latest four week period.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Avon

  9

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  6

  Borders

  1

  Cambridgeshre

  2

  Central

  1

  Cheshire

  5

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  5

  Cornwall

  52

  Cumbria

  2

  Derbyshire

  9

  Devon

  62

  Dorset

  44

  Dumfries

  7

  Durham

  1

  Dyfed

  12

  Essex

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  South Glamorgan

  3

  Gloucestershire

  14

  Grampian

  5

  Gwent

  3

  Gwynedd

  2

  Hampshire

  21

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  14

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Highland

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Isle of Wight

  2

  Kent

  20

  Lancashire

  5

  Leicestershire

  10

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  Norfolk

  5

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Northumberland

  2

  283

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  Oxon

  11

  Powys

  1

  Salop

  17

  Somerset

  35

  Staffordshire

  7

  Strathclyde

  4

  Suffolk

  7

  Surrey

  2

  East Sussex

  6

  West Sussex

  21

  Tayside

  2

  Warwickshire

  10

  Wiltshire

  26

  North Yorkshire

  13

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 April to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, how many of the 40 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were reported from EEC export approved slaugherhouses and how many were from non-EEC approved slaugherhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle have been incinerated at each of the locations listed in his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 23 March,Official Report, column 722.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff he has employed to evaluate old pesticides since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 23 March 1989 at column 726. Since many of my staff in the Ministry's pesticides data evaluation unit have been involved in reviews as well as other evaluations it is not possible to identify precise numbers.

  Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the becquerel readings of each of the 40 sheep selected from within the restricted area of Cumbria used in the feasility study into monitoring of sheep carcases at slaugherhouses in December 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The readings (becquerels per kilogramme) from the special instrument calibration trial were as follows:

  Readings

  173

  579

  191

  605

  236

  620

  258

  642

  276

  642

  284

  Readings

  294

  645

  308

  651

  311

  678

  321

  684

  335

  711

  344

  780

  401

  806

  407

  810

  462

  812

  473

  905

  483

  909

  495

  1,004

  513

  1,053

  545

  1,119

  566

  1,283

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what purpose the sheep involved in the December 1988 feasibility study into the monitoring of sheep carcases in slaughterhouses, referred to in his press release of 14 April, were intended to be used.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The sheep involved in the December study were specially selected from within the restricted area for scientific purposes. No part of the carcases went for human consumption.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to conduct an aerial survey for radioactivity in the 20 per cent. of the restricted area not covered in 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no such plans at the present time.

  Sectoral Quotas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the reasons for the delay of some three months in the allocation of the sectoral quotas to the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Fisheries Departments hope to contact the industry shortly about a new and important issue which has arisen since the general arrangements for 1989 sectoral allocations were agreed in consultation with the industry last October. The original target for the notification of final allocations was the end of March.

  Sewage Waste
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the life cycle in salt water of sewage waste dumped off the north-east coast of England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Sewage sludge is the byproduct of sewage treatment and is more than 95 per cent. water. The solid component consists of inorganic material such as soil, grit, sand and so on from run-off, together with organic solids such as those derived from food wastes, human and animal excreta and detergents. The organic solids are predominantly natural materials which are degradable in the marine environment by the action of dissolved oxygen, light and the diverse natural microbial flora. The rate of degradation varies according to the source of the individual components and the degree of sewage treatment. The ultimate products of degradation are carbon dioxide, inorganic nitrogen compounds and water.
  285
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the health implications for fishermen fishing in water off the mouth of the river Tyne of the dumping of sewage waste;

  (2) what advice he has given to fishermen fishing in waters off the north-east coast of England in the vicinity of the area used for the dumping of sewage waste.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The subject of sewage disposal at sea and fishermen's occupational health was raised by representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations at a recent meeting with my officials. Arrangements were agreed with the fishermen's representatives for the reporting of medical evidence on this matter to the appropriate authorities, the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service.

  RV Corystes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many days in the first four months of the current year the RV Corystes(a) was due to be in place and (b) was in place off the north-east of England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A 16-day cruise off the north-east coast of England is due to begin on 25 April.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether scientists on his research vessel Corystes monitors for AIDS, hepatitis, meningitis, polio and other disease micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Bacterial counts are taken on Ministry research vessel cruises in the area of sites licensed for the dumping of sewage sludge from ships. The measurements are taken from seabed sediments for the purpose of assessment of the fate of the material disposed of at sea.

  Food Protection (Sea Fish)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the revocation of the Statutory Instrument, Public Health, Food Protection (Emergency Provisions) (Sea Fish) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 529); and what plans he has to introduce an alternative instrument.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 19 April. We shall continue our programme of sampling fish and crabs landed at south coast ports. Any necessary further restrictions will be introduced should this reveal evidence of lindane having leaked into the aquatic environment.

  Infant Formulae (Aluminium Content)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has further information on the aluminium content of infant formulae.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department's food science division has recently carried out a survey of the aluminium content of 10 brands of commonly available infant formulae. The Department of Health's independent expert committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and 286
  the environment has considered the results of the survey. It concluded that the intakes of aluminium are well within the safety limits established by the World Health Organisation. Despite this it asked for further research to be undertaken, which will show whether or not further action is needed. Research on the bioavailability of aluminium from food has been commissioned at Southampton university. Work is in hand on identifying the forms in which aluminium occurs in foods and investigating the precise source of the aluminium in infant formulae. Consideration is also being given to the further work needed on the gastro-intestinal absorption and renal clearance of aluminium by infants.

  Further information is contained in a food facts press notice being issued today, copies of which I am placing in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wakefield Prison (Chapel)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what chapel facilities exist at Wakefield prison for prisoners segregated on rule 43; when work was commenced on refurbishing the chapel; and when this work will be completed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Rule 43 prisoners segregated for their own protection may attend the temporary chapel at Wakefield prison but those who are segregated for reasons of good order and discipline may not. This is partly because of the location of the chapel and partly because of the nature of the offenders and offences concerned. The number of rule 43 prisoners who may not attend fluctuates between about 15 and 30, not all of whom will be practising Christians. Chaplains visit prisoners every day and will take private services for any prisoner who so requests.

  A date has not yet been fixed for commencement of the refurbishment of the permanent chapel.

  Quality of Life
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out in the Official Report details of those policies introduced by him since 1983 with the intention of improving the quality of life for the rural communities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Many of our policies on crime prevention are applicable to rural areas. We have issued a circular to the police and courts about the powers available to deal with outbreaks of disorder and issued guidance to the courts about arranging speedy court hearings after sudden outbreaks of disorder. We have strengthened controls on firearms and encouraged the creation of local farm watch and rural watch schemes to increase community co-operation in preventing crime.

  Shotguns (Licences)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotgun licences were issued in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested for 1988 is not yet available. Corresponding information for 1987 is published in table 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin 33/88, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many game licences were issued in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 39,131 game licences were issued between 1 October 1987 and 30 September 1988.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available figures show that 126 staff in grades 1 to 7 and their equivalents are women: this is just over 11 per cent. In the unified grades, 9 per cent. of staff at grade 3, 18 per cent. at grade 5, 4 per cent. at grade 6 and 15 per cent. at grade 7 are women.

  Thirty six members of staff in grades 1 to 7 and their equivalents described themselves in staff surveys as of ethnic minority origin. This represents nearly 4 per cent. of respondents in these grades.

  In the Home Office as a whole, 23 per cent. of staff are women: and 4 per cent. of respondents to staff surveys described themselves as of ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All non-industrial staff in the Home Office were asked to state their ethnic origin in regional surveys conducted between 1983 and 1986. A further questionnaire was sent in September 1988 to those who had not previously responded. A survey of industrial staff will be undertaken shortly. People seeking posts in the Department are asked to state their ethnic origin when making their applications.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Hogg
  Most senior posts are filled internally and the most important factor in increasing the number of ethnic minority staff in those posts will be their advancement over time through the promotion system. Considerable importance is attached to ensuring that they have every opportunity to do so. Recruitment direct to senior grades is generally conducted by the Civil Service Commission, and is always on the basis of fair and open competition. Advertisements make it clear that the Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer.

  Women (Attacks and Murders)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1979 in England and Wales(a) the number of women murdered by their male partner and (b) the number of women attacked causing actual bodily harm by their male partner; and if he will show in his answer the percentage for each year this is of (i) all murders and (ii) all attacks causing actual bodily harm.
  288
  Mr. John Patten
  Information relating to homicides is given in the table below; "homicide" includes offences decided by the court to be murder, manslaughter or infanticide and those cases in which a court decision has not yet been reached. Provision of information for years prior to 1982 would involve disproportionate cost. Information is not yet available for 1988 or 1989. Information is not available on the number of women attacked causing actual bodily harm by their male partner.

  Female victims of homicides1 in which the principal suspect was the spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant of the victim

  England and Wales

  Female victims of partners3

  Year

  All offences currently recorded as homicide2 (= 100 pre cent.)

  Number

  Percentage of total

  1982

  557

  102

  18

  1983

  482

  87

  18

  1984

  537

  97

  18

  1985

  537

  101

  19

  1986

  576

  109

  19

  1987

  635

  83

  13

  1 As at 1 June 1988; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts or as further information becomes available.

  2 Including both male and female victims.

  3 Spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office owns quarters available for members of the prison service. As the Home Office is in the process of selling surplus prison service quarters, precise information is not available on a regional basis, but a broad estimate is that 10 per cent. of quarters have been vacant for more than 12 months and 3 per cent. for less than 12 months.

  The following information is available about accommodation owned by the Property Services Agency but managed by the Home Office. Four properties managed by the Directorate of Telecommunications have been vacant for more than a year: one in Somerset and three in Nottinghamshire. Two out of 12 properties at the civil defence college in North Yorkshire have been vacant for over a year. Four out of 37 properties at the fire service college in Gloucestershire have been vacant for less than a year and two for over a year.

  Road Vehicles (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under regulation 7(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and section 40(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 in each police force area in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since 1 January 1987, the information collected centrally does not separately distinguish
  289
  contravention of regulation 7(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, although information for 1986 indicated that there were fewer than 400 prosecutions nationally for vehicles with excessive dimensions. The information available for 1987 on prosecutions for vehicles in a dangerous or defective condition, is for all forces and is shown in table 5 of "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, 1987, Supplementary tables".

  Mr. D. Miles
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason, and for how long, Mr. Dean Miles, prisoner 2672, has been held in the segregation unit at Her Majesty's prison, Albany; what category prisoner is Mr. Miles; for what category he was recommended; and why he is held in maximum security conditions in a dispersal prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Miles was removed from association with other prisoners at Albany prison on 10 November 1988 under prison rule 48, which allows for the segregation of prisoners pending adjudication. He continued to be segregated under rule 48 until 22 December, when his case was heard by the board of visitors and a disciplinary award of 14 days' exclusion from associated labour was made. This punishment was served in the segregation unit. On completion of the punishment the governor decided that Mr. Miles should be segregated from other prisoners, in the interests of good order and discipline, under prison rule 43. Mr Miles remains segregated under rule 43 at this time.

  Mr. Miles is categorised as security category C. It is not unusual for category C prisoners to be held in prisons of a higher security classification, in particular if the governor of a lower security prison has requested their transfer on the grounds that they have proved unsuitable for the regime of a lower security prison. Prisoners' allocation and categorisation are reviewed periodically at a local level. I understand that the question of Mr. Miles' location is to be reviewed shortly.

  Lollipop Persons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the number of lollipop ladies and gentlemen in post in(a) the Ealing, North constituency, (b) the London borough of Ealing and (c) the Metropolitan police area against the agreed number required; if he will instigate an inquiry into their pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of persons employed on school crossing patrol duty is as follows:

  Strength

  Establishment

  (a) Ealing, North1

  22

  30

  (b) London Borough of Ealing1

  44

  62

  (c) Metropolitan police district

  1,098

  1,350

  1 The figures given are based upon the Metropolitan police divisions rather than constituency or borough boundaries. For the purpose of this answer, Ealing, North is taken to be the subdivisions of Ealing and Greenford, and the London borough of Ealing to be the divisions of Ealing and Southall.

  290
  The pay of Metropolitan police schools crossing patrols is being reviewed.

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing each of the recommendations made in the report by the committee of inquiry into crowd safety and control at sports grounds.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's proposals for giving effect to the safety recommendations in the final report were set out in a consultative document produced in June 1986. All of these proposals except amendment to building regulations guidelines codes have been implemented.

  The question of structural fire precautions and means of escape in buildings (including covered sports stands) is under review as part of the Government's comprehensive overhaul of the building regulations. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to issue a consultative paper by the end of this year seeking comment on a package of proposals dealing with these issues.

  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which came into force on 1 January 1986 had already extended the police powers of search and arrest in ways which help them to deal with troublemakers at football grounds. The Public Order Act 1986 created a new offence of disorderly conduct to cover hooliganism in football grounds as elsewhere.

  A further recommendation was to review the provisions of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 in relation to executive boxes. Following that review a relaxation of the controls over the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes was introduced in the Public Order Act 1986.

  The Government's proposals for a membership scheme are contained in the Football Spectators Bill. This follows previous efforts to encourage the football authorities to introduce membership schemes on a voluntary basis.

  Community Centres
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it remains the policy of the Government that community centres should be encouraged, supported and if necessary funded to provide facilities otherwise unavailable to a range of community groups.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office supports community centres through its funding of the National Federation of Community Organisations. The funding of individual centres is a local matter.

  Female Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many females in Holloway prison were engaged in(a) work, (b) daytime education and (c) evening education on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: On 3 April 1989, the latest date for which information is available 109 inmates were engaged in work, 76 in daytime education and 40 in evening education at Holloway prison.
  291
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total average number per day during 1988 of females in Holloway prison engaged in(a) work, (b) daytime education and (c) evening education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Information held centrally relates to the period April to December 1988 and is not complete. Typically, some 40 to 50 inmates were working and about 85 were involved in daytime education, including vocational training courses. Information about the number of inmates participating in evening education is not readily available. However, on average, about 430 hours of evening education were provided each week.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many females in Styal prison were engaged in(a) work, (b) daytime education and (c) evening education, on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: On 3 April 1989, the latest date for which information is available, 187 inmates were engaged in work and 41 in daytime education at Styal prison. No evening education took place on that particular date.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total average number per day during 1988 of females in Styal prison engaged in(a) work, (b) daytime education and (c) evening education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Based on information held centrally for the period April to December 1988, an average of 167 inmates were daily engaged in work and 74 in daytime education. Information about the number of inmates participating in evening education is not readily available. However, on average, about 170 inmate hours of evening education were provided each week.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the hon. Member for Colchester, North, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, whether his Committee has received any report from the commissioner on the progress of his inquiry into the Department of Trade and Industry's handling of the Barlow Clowes affair.

  Sir Antony Buck
  It is not the practice of Select Committees to comment on their proceedings except by way of a report to the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Workplace Inspections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what inspection of the House of Commons as a workplace takes place to ensure that it meets statutory standards.
  292
  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  In meeting its responsibilities for the care and maintenance of Crown buildings, PSA's procedures are prescribed, as a minimum, to meet the requirements of all relevant legislation affecting the safety of the workplace. These procedures are applied on the parliamentary estate.

  Organic Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether organic food is served in restaurants and cafeterias in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Tuesday 18 April. In future, whenever organic food is presented on a menu, its availability will be indicated.

  Explanatory Memoranda
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what circulation is given outside the House to explanatory memoranda on Community legislation submitted to the House by Government Departments.

  Mr. Wakeham
  After deposit in both Houses, copies of explanatory memoranda are made available to the public primarily from the British library through public and other libraries.

ENVIRONMENT

  Canary Wharf
  Ms. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available on the £1 billion tax allowance to the developers of Canary wharf, whether this amount of tax concession was envisaged when the enterprise zones were established; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  I cannot comment on the tax affairs of particular individuals or companies. The position generally is that a property developer who builds property for sale, whether within an enterprise zone or elsewhere, incurs his expenditure on revenue account and is entitled to relief for all expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes under the normal business expenses rules. The amount of relief available by way of the special 100 per cent. initial allowance to those who incur capital expenditure on the construction of property within an enterprise zone will depend on how the expenditure is split between business buildings and non-qualifying premises such as residential dwellings.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications have been refused by the local authority and subsequently reversed on appeal(a) in York and (b) nationally for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information available from the Department's records is given in the table.
  293

  Planning appeals

  Year

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Percentage appeals allowed

  1985–86

  York

  16

  14

  5

  35·7

  England

  17,839

  14,130

  5,581

  39·5

  1986–87

  York

  36

  21

  9

  42·8

  England

  19,856

  15,613

  6,208

  39·8

  1987–88

  York

  37

  38

  14

  36·8

  England

  22,482

  18,474

  6,955

  37·6

  Recreational Facilities
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what proportion of planning appeals concerning development of recreational open space professional lawyers represented(a) developers, (b) local authorities, (c) sports associations and (d) amenity and residents societies, over the most convenient representative period available.

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

  HIP (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the annual housing investment programme approved for the London borough of Lambeth for five years up to and including the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total housing capital resources allocated to the London borough of Lambeth for these years are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  34·322

  1986–87

  35·587

  1987–88

  33·969

  1988–89

  30·683

  1989–90

  22·351

  UDCs (Publicity)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of urban development corporation budget in both 1988–89 and 1989–90 is allocated for publicity, information and public relations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information for each UDC is as follows:

  Publicity/promotion as percentage of total expenditure.

  UDC

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Black Country

  2·8

  3·0

  Bristol

  16·8

  nya

  Central Manchester

  17·2

  7·3

  Leeds

  8·5

  2·2

  London Docklands

  1·2

  0·9

  Merseyside

  3·3

  2·8

  Sheffield

  0·6

  2·4

  Teesside

  8·2

  5·9

  Trafford Park

  8·6

  4·8

  Tyne and Wear

  7·1

  5·8

  "Planning Control in Western Europe"
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any amendments to the planning system following the publication by his Department of "Planning Control in Western Europe".

  Mr. Chope
  We have published proposals to simplify and improve the development plan system in the White Paper "The Future of Development Plan"—Cm. 569. The study of planning control in Western Europe does not indicate the need for any immediate additional changes, but it provides valuable information which we shall take into account in our continuing review of the planning system.

  UPGs (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the total amount of urban programme grants for the London borough of Lambeth for each of the last five years including the year 1989–90; and if he will indicate the extent to which each year's grant represented an increase or decrease in real terms on the previous year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total amount of urban programme grants paid to the London borough of Lambeth in the years 1985–86 to 1988–89 was as follows:

  Year

  Grant £

  1985–86

  4,984,243

  1986–87

  5,070,520

  1987–88

  5,162,332

  1988–89

  4,268,983

  The amounts paid over to the authority to date are in respect of final claims for 1985–86 and 1986–87. Amounts paid for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are in respect of interim grant claims; final claims have not yet been submitted for these years. All grant claims are subject to audit certification, and none of the above has yet been so certified. Any analysis of increase or decrease in grant levels would be premature.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to collect the local statistics relating to registration for, and payment of, the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are currently considering the information to be collected under the new arrangements.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on the new needs grant assessments under the community charge regulations for England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend will be making decisions this autumn on the new needs assessments to apply in England from 1990–91.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain powers to issue directions to community charge registrars to choose freezing of bank accounts as a method of enforcing either fines for non-registration or for non-payment of the poll tax.
  295
  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cumulative total of private sector investment committed to urban development corporation projects.

  Mr. Trippier
  By end of March 1989 over £7 billion of private sector investment had been committed within urban development corporation areas.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policies on(a) the management of (b) the purchase of land by, and (c) the introduction of the right to buy in relation to housing associations.

  Joint manpower watch (England) annual change in full-time equivalents 1979 to date at December

  FTE's

  FTE's

  Change since December 1979

  December 1979

  December 1988

  FTE's

  percentage

  1. General Services

  Education—lecturers and teachers

  537,958

  502,932

  -35,026

  -6·5

  Education—others

  402,409

  382,543

  -19,866

  -4·9

  Construction

  121,789

  100,359

  -21,430

  -17·6

  Transport

  20,232

  2,592

  -17,640

  -87·2

  Social services

  195,182

  229,836

  34,654

  17·8

  Public libraries and museums

  31,258

  33,216

  1,958

  6·3

  Recreation, parks and baths

  69,686

  74,550

  4,864

  7·0

  Environmental health

  20,679

  19,130

  -1,549

  -7·5

  Refuse collection and disposal

  47,325

  34,109

  -13,216

  -27·9

  Housing

  48,118

  60,957

  12,839

  26·7

  Town and country planning

  20,602

  21,607

  1,005

  4·9

  Fire service—regular

  33,959

  34,209

  250

  0·7

  Fire service—others

  4,894

  5,685

  791

  16·2

  Miscellaneous services

  244,500

  232,258

  -12,242

  -5·0

  Total

  1,798,591

  1,733,983

  -64,608

  -3·6

  2. Law and order services Police—all ranks

  107,027

  118,249

  11,222

  10·5

  —cadets

  3,600

  351

  -3,249

  -90·3

  —traffic wardens

  4,113

  4,486

  373

  9·1

  —civilians

  33,106

  40,037

  6,931

  20·9

  Magistrates courts—staff

  7,638

  9,223

  1,585

  20·8

  Probation staff—officers

  4,879

  6,343

  1,464

  30·0

  Others

  4,207

  6,396

  2,189

  52·0

  Total

  164,570

  185,085

  20,515

  12·5

  3. Agency staff

  595

  1,644

  1,049

  176·3

  Grand total

  1,963,756

  1,920,712

  -43,044

  - 2·2

  Note: There is likely to have been some reclassification of staff between service categories over this period, so the figures for the two years may not be entirely comparable. Local authority functions have also changed over the period.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Tony Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will approve the new building regulations; and when they will come into force.

  Mr. Trippier
  Consultation papers proposing amendments to five parts of the Building Regulations 1985 and to the approved documents which provide practical guidance on meeting the requirements in them were issued last year. The responses are still under consideration, but I hope that the amending regulations will be laid before Parliament by
  296
  Mr. Trippier
  Housing associations are restricted as a condition of grant in what they may pay for land, and purchasing procedures are monitored by the Housing Corporation and by associations' own auditors.

  Secure tenants of registered housing associations normally have the right to buy, unless the association is a charity. New lettings by housing associations, as by other private landlords, will be on assured tenancies which do not carry the right to buy.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) of 30 January,Official Report, column 22, he will give for each available category of local government staff the numbers in (a) 1979 and (b) 1989, or the latest date for which figures are available, showing the net and percentage change in each case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  the summer, and that the amendments will come into operation early next year. The intention is that revised approved documents will be published at the same time the regulations are laid. Consultation papers on other parts of the regulations will be issued during the course of this year, but it is too early to say when these amendments are likely to be made.

  BISF-designed Properties
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made
  297
  with local building societies in Nottingham regarding offering mortgages to those who wish to buy BISF-designed properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Discussions are proceeding, and I hope to make a full statement very shortly.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions have been placed in relation to whom they are allowed to provide goods or services on (i) the Crown suppliers, (ii) the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre and (iii) the Property Services Agency's(a) project and (b) estates services divisions.

  Mr. Chope
  My reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 8 December 1988 at column 273 announced that the Crown Suppliers had been authorised to commence selling to the private sector, as well as to public sector customers. The Queen Elizabeth II conference centre can make its facilities available to any client meeting its standard conditions of hire. I am considering what freedom PSA should have to offer its services to other customers particularly after April 190, when its traditional Government customers are fully untied from the agency and able to buy services from the private sector.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Ridley
  As at 1 April 1989, 3·2 per cent. of the 433 residential properties owned by the Department of the Environment had been empty for less than a year and 5·5 per cent. for more than a year. Of these 34 per cent. are in the process of disposal on the open market. These properties are located in the following regions of the United Kingdom and local authority areas:

  Scotland: Argyll, City of Glasgow, Midlothian, Inverclyde, Motherwell, Banff Buchan.

  North East: Hambleton, Langbaurgh.

  North West: Manchester.

  Eastern: Brentwood, Suffolk Coastal.

  London: Westminster.

  South West: Cotswold, Isles of Scilly, Sedgemoor.

  South East: Medina.

  Water Privatisation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will be taking to ensure that the privatised water authorities will not be able to increase the charges being imposed on their customers in order to maximise their market capitalisations when facing takeover bids from other companies.

  Mr. Howard
  In appointing water and sewerage undertakers under the Water Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make it a condition of appointment that charges do not increase by more than specified amounts above the general rate of inflation. These limits will be subject to review by the Director General of Water 298
  Services. Companies will not therefore be able to increase charges above the limits set either by the Secretary of State or the director general in order to defend themselves against takeover bids, nor more generally to compensate for inefficient management.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum fine for offences under the Control of Pollution Act.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on 22 March 1989 at column 631.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to charge operators under his proposed system of integrated pollution control.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have today issued a consultation paper which sets out proposals for a new charging system to recover the costs incurred by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in implementing the system of integrated pollution control (IPC) of the major industrial dischargers of air and water pollutants and wastes.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's costs in granting integrated authorisations, sampling and monitoring discharges and enforcing the controls will be borne by the dischargers themselves rather than the general taxpayers, as happens at present.

  This is an important extension of the principle that polluters should pay the costs of protecting the environment from their activities.

  The proposed charges would cover about 70 to 75 per cent. of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's total expenditures associated with integrated pollution control. They would fully recover the costs of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's authorisation and inspection functions under IPC. They would not cover such Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution activities as support for policy development that serve wider Government objectives.

  In working up these proposals, the Departments have paid particular attention to ensuring that the system is both practicable to administer and equitable. So a large site with a higher potential to pollute would pay substantially more than a smaller, less-polluting site.

  Similar cost-recovery charging systems are levied in other European countries such as Germany and France.

  The Government will finalise the details of the charging scheme in the light of the views expressed by interested bodies in response to this consultation paper.

  North West Water
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what authority the financial director and corporate affairs manager have been appointed to North West Water plc; what are their salaries; and who is paying their salaries.

  Mr. Howard
  The appointments to which the hon. Member refers have been made by North West water
  299
  authority to the posts of financial director and corporate affairs manager in the authority. It is envisaged that the appointees will continue to fill these posts in North West Water plc when that company is established under the provisions of the Water Bill. Staff salaries are the responsibility of the authority.

  Council Tenants (Opting-out)
  Ms. Mowlam
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost of the advertising campaign advertising the rights of council tenants to opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of £524,000.

  Ms. Mowlam
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the advertisements advertising the rights of council tenants to opt out of local authority control carried in the Sunday newspapers on 26 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  Approximately £77,600.

  Art and Culture (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies and proposals in his draft planning guidance he has put forward for the future development of art and cultural facilities in London.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Waste Disposal (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment in his draft planning guidance he has made of the transport and land use implications of the activities of the 16 waste disposal authorities in London; and what proposals he has made for their co-ordination.

  Mr. Chope
  This is a matter for the waste disposal authorities and the London waste regulation authority. Policies may be included in unitary development plans as appropriate.

  Town Centres (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the future of strategic town centres in London; and what guidance he is offering the London boroughs in respect of their long-term development.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has considered the advice on strategic centres put forward by the London planning advisory committee. He does not consider that strategic centres should be designated in the guidance.

  Leisure (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies and proposals in his draft planning guidance he has put forward for the development of recreation, sport and other leisure facilities in London.

  Mr. Chope
  Guidance is proposed on the recreational use of green belt and open land. Provision for recreation, sport and other leisure development is in general a matter for individual boroughs.

  Transport (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what priorities he has set out for transport investment by the London boroughs in his planning guidance.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for the boroughs to determine their own priorities for future investment in their roads through their annual transport policies and programme submissions to the Secretary of State for Transport. The purpose of strategic planning guidance is to assist the boroughs to prepare their unitary development plans. The draft guidance proposes that these plans should describe boroughs' schemes and networks in accordance with their local road hierarchy and in relation to the strategic London road network.

  River Thames
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals and policies are included in his planning guidance in respect of the river Thames for(a) co-ordinating development along its banks, (b) improving public access and (c) promoting its use for freight, passenger services and leisure use.

  Mr. Chope
  The draft strategic guidance says that boroughs should give particulr attention to the character of any development proposals on or near the river Thames. They should aim to maintain and improve public access, and bear in mind the Countryside Commission's proposed Thames path when preparing their unitary development plans. The promotion of freight, passenger services and leisure use are not matters for strategic guidance.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered designating the river Thames as metropolitan open land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposed policies for metropolitan open land set out in draft strategic guidance are not in general applicable to the river Thames.

  Conservation (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy for conserving and protecting London's areas of special character.

  Mr. Chope
  Such areas can be protected by existing conservation and planning policies. The boroughs concerned should take these policies into account when preparing their unitary development plans.

  Water Authorities Association (Advertising)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the amounts expended by the Water Authorities Association on(a) press advertising, (b) television advertising and (c) other advertising in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter for the Water Authorities Association.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies and proposals are contained within his draft strategic planning guidance for London designed to improve access to affordable housing.

  Mr. Chope
  The draft guidance refers to the part that the planning system can play in alleviating the problems of access to housing by ensuring that there is an adequate and continuing supply of land for new housing; and that local policies allow for conversions of existing houses into smaller units and for redevelopment at higher densities where appropriate.

  Business Development (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific locational advice he has given London boroughs for future business development apart from central London and docklands in his planning guidance.

  Mr. Chope
  The draft guidance proposes that boroughs should adopt a positive, flexible and realistic approach to business development throughout London. Planning policies for particular locations are a matter for the boroughs concerned, not central Government.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for the latest convenient period for which figures are available, the number of letters received by his Department's offices in Bristol concerning footpaths on an average working day, the number replied to each day and the number which do not receive a reply within four weeks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Treatment Works
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet been able to consider the responses of the water authorities in England and Wales and the Water Companies Association following his request for each utility to carry out a thorough review of their management and operating procedures at water treatment works, particularly unmanned installations, as a consequence of the incident at the Lowermoor works of the South West water authority last summer.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. We have received and considered the responses and I am pleased to report that a number of improvements have been made to procedures following the Lowermoor incident.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, asked water authorities to review, in particular, the matters set out on which separate comments are given.

  (i) Waterworks Site Security. There have been some changes in key systems to ensure that access to installations is better controlled. The possible use of electronic systems is being considered in some cases together with improvements in boundary fencing.

  (ii) Procedures for Receiving Chemicals at Works. Labelling of installations has been checked and improved where necessary, as have controls for receiving chemicals.

  302

  (iii) Remote Monitoring of the Final Treated Water. Additional monitors have been introduced, or are being considered. In addition, the Water Research Centre is doing work in this area to try to ensure that any accidental contamination of the water supply is detected before it reaches the consumer.

  (iv) Internal Reporting Arrangements .for Incidents. Greater emphasis is being given to ensuring that emergency reporting lines are clear and co-ordinated and that senior management is informed immediately of an incident that might result in contamination of public water supplies.

  (v) Emergency Procedures, Including Liaison with all those concerned with Public Health Issues. Utilities have reviewed their procedures to take account of the lessons to be learned from the Lowermoor incident. In most cases, review is a regular practice. In particular, links with those concerned with public health issues have been reviewed and reinforced where necessary.

  (vi) Other Issues. My right hon. Friend also asked the utilities to consider the usefulness of employing a technique known as the Hazard Study Technique, designed to predict the outcome of potential systems failures and to ensure that all systems are fail-safe. A number of the utilities are considering using this method, if they do not already do so. Many utilities inform consumers of matters such as the undesirability of consuming water from the hot tap or have proposals to do so. The prevalence of this unsatisfactory practice was one of the revelations arising from the Lowermoor incident.

  Pollution incidents like Lowermoor are rare. But even one is one too many. It is vitally important that suppliers of drinking water take all reasonable measures to avoid such occurrences and that they are constantly alert and prepared to deal with any incident. This position can be secured only through regular review; learning from one's own and others' problems; and by holding regular exercises to ensure that staff are ready and trained to respond quickly and effectively to any incident that might affect water supply.

  I am most encouraged by the responses that we have received following the reviews that have just been undertaken.

  Tyne and Wear (Development Plans)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the preparation of unitary development plans for Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has today issued strategic guidance to assist the five metropolitan districts in Tyne and Wear in the preparation of unitary development plans for their area. The guidance covers the key issues identified by the local authorities and the Department—urban regeneration, retailing, transport and the environment.

  A draft of the guidance was circulated for comment in December 1988. Comments were received from 47 organisations and individuals. The guidance has been revised in the light of these comments. A copy of the strategic guidance, together with a report on the consultation exercise, have today been placed in the Library of the House. Following the issue of the strategic guidance, commencement orders will be issued shortly to enable the local authorities to start work on preparing their unitary development plans.

  Young People (Accommodation)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has in respect of the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who live(a) with their parents, (b) in private rented accommodation, (c) in council accommodation, (d) in hostels, (e) in bed and breakfast or other board and lodging establishments and (f) sleeping rough.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The most recent estimates for the first three parts of the question are from the 1987 labour force survey. This shows (a) 2,030,000 16 to 18-year-olds living with their parents, (b) 40,000 in private rented accommodation (not with their parents), (c) 40,000 in council accommodation (not with their parents). The other numbers requested are not available.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties have been sold to council house tenants in Kirklees since 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available; what this is of the total stock ; and how much income this has generated for the local authorities as a result of these sales.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Some 3,500 sales to sitting tenants have been reported by Kirklees district council between April 1979 and the end of December 1986; this is about 9 per cent. of the average stock over the period since 1979; the reported sales had a capital value (net of discount) of over £21 million. No returns of sales to sitting tenants have been received by the Department since December 1986.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish his estimates of the income raised for a 1p rate on the non-domestic properties in all parish council areas in 1989–90;
  304
  (2) if he will publish his estimates of the total amount of business rate income available to parish councils in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: This information is not available.

  Rate Relief
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to change the operation of rate relief for non-profit making sports clubs with the introduction of the community charge in April 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: On the introduction of the uniform business rate, local authorities will continue to have discretion to give up to 100 per cent. rate relief to non-profit making sports clubs. We are currently consulting the local authority associations and other interested bodies about how the cost of such relief should be borne.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information the Crown Suppliers privatisation unit has provided to those firms or groups who have expressed interest in purchasing the Crown Suppliers; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  Following my announcement of 28 July, a number of firms and groups interested in purchasing the Crown Suppliers were sent a copy of that announcement, a copy of "The Crown Suppliers' Annual Report and Accounts for 1987" (already in the Library) and an information memorandum prepared by Samuel Montagu and Co. Ltd. I am arranging for copies of the information memorandum to be placed in the Library shortly.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Western Sahara Dispute
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, during the Prime Minister's recent visit to Morocco, discussions took place on the war in the Western Sahara.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister welcomed the efforts being made to find a solution to this dispute.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for a most encouraging reply. I believe that all noble Lords will be pleased that his right honourable friend had occasion to bring up this subject. Can the Minister further tell me what Her Majesty's Government have done, or are intending to do, to implement the European Parliament's resolution passed on 15th March which urged all member countries to encourage direct negotiations between Polisario and the Moroccan Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly welcome that. We also welcome the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to find a solution and the acceptance in principle of the referendum proposals by both parties to the dispute. Perhaps those measures together offer the best solution.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the referendum of the population concerned has been proposed, but what information has the noble Lord concerning the position as regards that referendum? Can the Minister confirm that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister had talks with King Hassan on this subject when she visited Morocco? Can the Minister further say what initiatives the Government are taking to bring this sad and unnecessary war to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse concerning the referendum, but I can confirm that my right honourable friend did raise the matter with King Hassan when she visited Morocco. As I have said, we welcome the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General and we have joined the rest of the 12 in welcoming all the efforts to find a solution.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister say whether his right honourable friend the Prime Minister showed any concern during her visit
866
as regards arms that have been bought by Morocco from us? I believe that Morocco is a customer for arms from this country. I have no doubt that she feels that some of those arms may have been used in this conflict.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the matter of arms was not raised by my right honourable friend. We shall be prepared to consider Moroccan purchases of British defence equipment provided that appropriate financing arrangements can be agreed and that any defence supply will not risk destabilising the area.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Minister agree that hope for the future rests on reaching agreement on the terms of the referendum? Will the Government encourage the United Nations to enter into the dispute concerning the terms of the referendum?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, I have not with me chapter and verse on that referendum, but I shall certainly look into that point.

Kurds: Deportation Allegations
3.4 p.m.
Lord McNair asked Lord McNair asked Her Majesty's, Government:
Whether they have any recent information that the Iraqi Government is continuing its policy of forcibly transporting large numbers of Kurds from their own villages to other parts of Iraq; and what representations, if any, they have made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have studied recent reports alleging the forced eviction of Kurds from the towns of Qala Diza and Rania, and raised these with the Iraqi authorities. They have denied any deportations to the south of the country, but have admitted to some localised resettling on security grounds.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, the thinness of which I recognise is probably not his fault. The latest information that reached me a quarter of an hour ago is that the threat to Qala Diza and Rania is still there. Does the Minister not agree that this threatens deportation on almost a Stalinist scale and is utterly deplorable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have made clear to the Iraqis that, despite the proximity of these towns to the Iran-Iraq border, there is no justification for the mass deportations which are alleged to have occurred. My honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, saw the Iraqi ambassador only yesterday. He raised this matter with him and it was a point that was taken on board. We use every possible opportunity to raise this and similar concerns with their authorities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the evidence that the Iraqi Government used chemical weapons against the Kurds on at least 10 occasions is now

867
well established. The noble Lord—or the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his place—expressed the concern of Her Majesty's Government about that matter. In addition, the evidence of the forcible transportation of entire populations is well established. In the light of this, can the Minister say to what extent the Government are proposing to attend the Baghdad arms fair? Is it not time that the British Government took the most condign action against the Iraqi Government for conduct which is as bad as that which Hitler used during the Second World War?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the House knows well, we utterly condemn the use of chemical weapons wherever that may occur. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a clear statement to that effect on 30th November last year. Perhaps the only sensible way of dealing with chemical weapons would be a globally verifiable ban, which would provide the answer to the threat of their future use.
There is some doubt as to whether the forcible deportations which have been referred to have taken place in quite the way that has been suggested. At the meeting that took place yesterday the ambassador gave clear reassurances that no mass evacuations to the south were taking place.
As regards the arms fair, British arms supplies to both Iran and Iraq continue to be governed by very strict guidelines preventing the supply of lethal equipment to either side. I can assure the House that these guidelines are scrupulously applied.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say what these guidelines are? If Her Majesty's Government know of the terrible things that the Iraq Government are doing against the defenceless Kurds, why are we having anything to do with that government at all? Can the Minister say whether it is the case that Her Majesty's Government have sent a trade representative to Iraq to seek to improve trade relations? Why should we have trade relations with a government who do these things?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, apart from the troubles in Iraq and accepting the concern that the noble Lord expresses, we have to maintain some kind of constructive relationship. The possibility of that through trade links is not inconsistent with the condemnation of the denial of human rights.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government not believe the assurances given to them by the Iraqi Government and their ambassador concerning the scale of evictions and expulsions of the Kurds? Can the Minister say whether the Government believe the statements made by the Iraqi Government that they have not used chemical weapons?
Lord Glenarthurr: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, if, as may have been the case, chemical weapons have been used, then we deplore it. As regards the reassurances given by the ambassador, when my honourable friend spoke to him he made it plain that any mass evacuations of
868
the type that has been described would be a matter of very great concern to Her Majesty's Government. My honourable friend urged that British diplomats and journalists should be allowed to visit the area to see for themselves. As I understand it, the ambassador said that he would welcome journalists going to the south to prove that no mass deportations have occurred in that region.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the Iraqis are making their own chemical weapons or getting them from somewhere else?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to my noble friend, but I shall certainly find out.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, is it not a fact that the present threat to Qala Diza and Rania is no more than a continuation of a systematic policy involving the movement of Kurds to other areas—the south of the country is not mentioned in the Question—and their transfer into what are no more than concentration camps? Has that not been happening for at least the past seven or eight years? I can confirm that, having seen it myself when I was in the area in 1981. Is this not all part of a systematic programme of genocide, under the definition provided by the United Nations, of the Kurdish people, and should it not be raised by the Government in the United Nations? Should we not take every action to bring it to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord has a well known interest in this area. I can only repeat that when asked about this yesterday the ambassador gave clear reassurances that what is described as might have been taking place has not in fact happened. He went so far as to say, as I suggested, that journalists could go and see for themselves. Perhaps that is the kind of verification that is needed. I assure the noble Lord that wherever we have to raise this issue we will; I believe as what was said by my honourable friend yesterday bears that out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I accept the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that one must maintain relations of some kind even with detestable regimes. However, will he reply to the main part of the noble Lord's question as to whether this applies to the arms trade? Do the guidelines allow trade in arms with Iraq?
,Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, the arrangements by which arms might be sold to either Iran or Iraq continue to be governed by strict guidelines which prevent the supply of lethal equipment. That applies to both sides. Attendance by British companies is a matter for their own judgment in the light of their knowledge of the strict application of those guidelines. One thing they do not do is to guarantee the availability at the end of the day of those goods for export.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in addition to the unilateral efforts the Government appear to be making, would they not act more effectively through the European Community as well?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, the matter was discussed in the Twelve only yesterday.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the ambassador said that journalists would be welcome to visit the south of the country to see that nothing of this kind is going on. Is it not a fact that the south of the country is nowhere specified in the Question? It is now believed that this is going on not in the south of the country but in other parts of Kurdistan. Will the ambassador agree to me or to other journalists going to the Qala Diza and Rania areas? If so, I should be delighted to take him up on it.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to ask the ambassador about that. While I referred to the south of the country, we have to respect Iraq's legitimate security concerns in the north.

King's Cross Area: British Rail Proposals
3.14 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to preserve the area of oustanding architectural and community value to the south-east of King's Cross which British Rail propose to demolish to facilitate railway works connected with the Channel Tunnel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, British Rail is seeking statutory authority for its proposed works at King's Cross in the King's Cross Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament. It will be for Parliament to decide whether BR's proposals are justified.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interim Answer. Does he not think that this is a case where the Government should make their views known clearly and at once? Does he not realise that British Rail is proposing an act of vandalism to sweep away 13 acres of good housing, shops, small businesses and offices which constitute a real community; not yuppiedom but a real, rooted, working class community? Is not the existence of such communities what living in a city is all about?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are aware of the concern which has been expressed by my noble friend. We are considering the position. Ultimately, it will be for Parliament to decide the contents of the Bill.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the conservation area to the south-east of King's Cross, which includes Lloyd Square and Percy Circus and is of great artistic and architectural merit, will be preserved?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give details of the names of the streets concerned. I understand that the area has a number of listed buildings which might be affected. It will be for British Rail to explain why there is no alternative.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the deep concern felt by English Heritage about Clause 19 of the Bill, which would virtually drive a coach and horses through all planning legislation to protect historic buildings and ancient monuments, and would provide a bad precedent for the future? Is he also aware that British Rail is challenging English Heritage's right to petition against the Bill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are aware of the concern about Clause 19, and we are considering the position. Parliament will wish closely to consider this point when the Bill becomes before the House.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is not the noble Lord being slightly contradictory? When I first referred to Clause 19 of the Bill in a supplementary question to a Question on 23rd February, he gave the same reply as he gave just now to the original Question. He said that it was for Parliament to decide. He also said on 23rd February, in answer to other supplementary questions to the original Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange:
"I have said that British Rail have to go through the proper planning procedures if they want to demolish the building".—[Official Report, 23/2/89; col. 757]
If that is so, surely the Minister can be firmer on the Government's attitude to this clause, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has said, will drive a coach and horses through the legislation on conservation and the protection of listed buildings. Will it not create a dangerous and damaging, precedent for British Rail, and also for the public utilities, to bring forward further Bills? I am sure that a great many listed buildings and conservation areas are getting in the way of their plans.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say any more than I have just said. We are aware of the concern about Clause 19, and we are considering the position.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that buildings are listed in order to preserve them and not for British Rail to trample them down like a bull in a china shop?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I accept that they are listed for a purpose. We are considering this point at the moment and British Rail will have to justify its proposals.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in addition to the concerns in the area referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, there is also a great deal of concern and anger among the local community about the use of the Private Bill procedure instead of the inquiry procedure? Is he further aware that an alternative site is available with

871
plenty of land and no historic buildings? Stratford council is asking for this development to be transferred and is prepared to co-operate. Would it not have been a better proposition to enter consultations about an alternative site and also to use the inquiry procedure normally laid down for developments of this nature?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that the Private Bill procedure is the only procedure available for the authorisation of new railway works. Of course, objectors have the opportunity to petition against the Bill and to be heard by Select Committees in both Houses.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm—or will he deny—that the reason British Rail is insisting upon this link being driven above ground is that the plethora of tunnels from the Circle and Northern Lines in that area prevent the link being put underground? Further, does not the Minister feel that this very negative attitude which is emanating from the department is rather disappointing to people who care about the environment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I understand it, the proposals involved in that area are for a subsurface link and not an overground link. However, the problem is that the development would involve demolition in order to put in the link, and then reinstatement of some kind would be necessary. That appears to be the issue at stake.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the Minister say how much travelling time will be saved by virtue of these sweeping proposals? Is it true that such saving will in fact be only about ten minutes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the proposed Channel Tunnel link, it is not just a question of time saved; it is a question of the overall capacity of the line.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when the House was discussing the Channel Tunnel we were told that Waterloo was the only possible terminus for that traffic? Why then has the proposal for the development of the King's Cross area suddenly emerged from the blackness? As the noble Lord will perhaps remember, we made suggestions on that occasion that there should be a split between the two. However, we were told then that we were talking rubbish.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the capacity of Waterloo station is not unlimited. Indeed, British Rail estimates that its capacity would be about 15 million passengers a year. However, British Rail feels that there is a need for a second terminal to cope with traffic growth beyond that figure.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that probably the proper time and place to discuss the merits of what is proposed in the Bill would be in a discussion on the Bill itself?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend has said. In fact, that is what I have been trying to say in answer to many of the supplementary questions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, nevertheless, since we are having something of a discussion now, will the Government agree that whatever special consideration is to be given to the very attractive area of (as it has been described) homes, shops, workshops and offices, the same degree of consideration should be accorded to another very attractive area—namely, Peckham—which consists of nothing but homes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are now going a long way beyond the scope of the original Question. The Peckham proposal is concerned with the fast Channel Tunnel rail link, and a Bill in that connection has not yet been submitted.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord is the Minister for transport, but can he tell the House whether this project has been discussed, or is constantly discussed, with his right honourable friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment? I ask this question because that department is the one which is responsible for the matter about which we have all shown great concern.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can indeed confirm that discussions take place between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport on such issues. In fact, when I was briefed on this Question, I was briefed by officials from both departments.

Nature Conservancy Council
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received the report on the Nature Conservancy Council's review of its holdings which was expected by the end of 1988 and when they expect the Nature Conservancy Council to be able to resume its full range of activities.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are considering the NCC's report, the contents of which my noble friend Lord Caithness discussed last week with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir William Wilkinson, and his colleagues. We expect to make an announcement very shortly about the Government's response.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad to hear that the report has at last been received. However, can he say what consultations are likely to take place other than those with the Nature Conservancy Council? For example, will any of the voluntary bodies be concerned in the matter? Further, if it is decided to sell off any of the national nature reserves, will it be possible for such bodies to be helped to take them over?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answering the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I can reaffirm the commitment made to your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in November; namely, that we shall be consulting all interested partners before any final decisions are taken. Such partners will include the RSPB, Wildlife Link and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the matter is at present held so that nothing can happen while we are waiting for the Government's response to the report? When this issue was discussed previously, on 6th December last year, I asked whether the NCC would be able to acquire any sites during this waiting period. I asked especially about Caenlochan, which is a very valuable site and which the NCC would like to acquire. Can the Minister give me an answer in that respect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is important to realise that 234 national nature reserves have already been declared. Further, the NCC agreed last year that it would be sensible, as a rule, not to declare any more of them until the review was complete and future policy agreed with the Government. In the meantime, we have made it perfectly clear to the NCC that we would not object to declaration of future reserves if that was the only way to protect conservation sites of national importance which were under immediate threat. The council's other activities are not directly affected by the review.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the privatisation of those nature reserves in England and Wales is a possibility under the review? Is he further aware that, if that is the case and those nature reserves are put up for sale to any bidder, there will be profound concern and disquiet throughout the whole of England and Wales?
The Earl of Arran:My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that as part of the review the NCC is considering the scope for transferring some of the sites owned by the council to other owners. We shall consider the NCC's proposals most carefully. However, it would be most premature and improper for me to comment on the matter in any detail at this stage. I repeat the assurance which has already been given. The Government will need to be satisfied about the future arrangements for protecting any sites the ownership of which might change.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps the Minister did not altogether understand my question. The question I asked was this. If a valuable site was put up for sale and was ready to be acquired, would the NCC be able to acquire it at present while the matter is under consideration? I also asked what had happened to Caenlochan.
The Earl of Arran:My Lords, I can confirm my previous answer that sites can be acquired while the moratorium is in progress.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Companies Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Antarctic Minerals Bill will be taken.

Security Service Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [The Director-General]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("and shall be kept free from any political bias or influence")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I should like, if I may, to remind your Lordships that the Security Service Bill for the very first time puts the security service under statutory protection and under statutory duties. It is therefore very important that we read with care and legislate with care what the director general, who is responsible for the conduct of that service, should have as his duty in regard to ensuring that the security service properly carries out its duties.
In the Bill there is an amazing phrase which deals with the question of where the security service ought to stand in regard to politics, under the director general's supervision. In Clause 2(2)(b) is to be found the phrase:
"The Director-General shall be responsible for the efficiency of the Service and it shall be his duty to ensure … that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party".
I can understand there being no reference to politics, and the Minister when he replies saying that that ought to be a matter that is taken for granted or that it ought to feature in some guidelines but not in primary legislation. However, the primary legislation does, in the wisdom of the Government, deal with the question of political activity, loyalty and action with regard to the security service. It states that the service must not take any action to further the interest of any political party. But what happens if the action is against a political party? What happens if the action does not further but is adverse to a political party? That is not a novel thought of mine, because it was in the mind of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe when he was Home Secretary. I am sure that your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that he dignified the Woolsack later in his career.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe gave some guidelines in 1952 which were deemed to be extremely carefully worded and were sacrosanct. As far as I know, they have been sacrosanct until now. In those guidelines he obviously used language that was not meant to be incorporated in whole in a statute. I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me if I read one sentence from those guidelines. It deals with the political activity—rather should I say the non-political activity—of the security service. This is what he said:
"It is essential that the security service shall be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence, and nothing shall be

875
done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community or with any matter other than the defence of the realm as a whole".
I and my colleagues who are associated with the amendment have merely borrowed those wise, carefully chosen words, which were used by the Home Secretary in those guidelines when he talked about the service being kept free from any political bias or influence. Those are the precise words which are used in the amendment. I say that they are necessary, because to leave the wording as it is creates not only a vacuum but an absurdity for legislators. It would leave the director general to see to it that the security service does not advance the interests of any political party, and of course do things which are adverse to the interests of a political party. I borrow the wise words of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, and I invoke that name in submitting the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether there is not a difference here between a wise guideline and a clause incorporated in a statute. The first gives advice. In guidelines one gives the flavour one wants in a Bill. If this guideline was put in statutory form, surely one could envisage a case in which a party which is deemed to be inimical to democratic parliamentary government could claim that it was being unreasonably proceeded against by the security service.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that that is the very reason for having redrafted the amendment which was moved in Committee. I moved an amendment in Committee and merely added to Clause 2(2)(b), after "any action to further", "or hinder".
I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said when he replied to the amendment. He said that he respected and understood the intention of the amendment and that there was not a great deal of difference in regard to the basic aim and the spirit of the amendment between those who moved the amendment and himself.
The noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has pointed out: that the amendment as drafted would give complete immunity to any political group which intended to subvert the state or do something similar. The words of the amendment have therefore been chosen:
"and shall be kept free from any political bias or influence".
That is exactly what the noble and learned Lord meant when he said that there was little difference between the basic aim of those moving the amendment then and his own view. It would not catch the political group, as has been suggested.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the amendment would place a difficult task on the director general. How is it possible to keep anyone free from political influence? How does one prevent an individual member of the service being approached and an attempt being made to influence him in any political
876
view? The proposal embodied in the amendment is somewhat impractical. I should have thought that to include it would weaken rather than strengthen the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, the words of the amendment are taken from the guidelines prepared under the wise guidance ofa distinguished predecessor of mine on the Woolsack, although at the time he was Home Secretary. The noble Lord asked whether I remembered that distinguished occupant of the Woolsack. It so happens that on the first occasion that I was instructed to appear in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House —I should perhaps say, in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that it was a Scottish appeal—he presided. He demonstrated his wisdom on that occasion because we won the appeal.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has made, supported from a broader point of view by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not yet met by the amendment. As I said before, there is little between us on how we envisage the way that the security service will work and the atmosphere within which we think it should work. I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that we have gone as far in statute as we sensibly can to deal with those matters, and that to introduce aseries of injunctions or exhortations will take us no further forward.
There is, as has been pointed out, a real difference between the drafting medium of a non-statutory directive and the drafting medium of a statute. Your Lordships have widely welcomed the Government's decision to move from the medium of a directive to the medium of a statute. For a statute to work, if it is to be honoured and not to fall into disrepute, it must say what it means and mean what it says.
To achieve that in this area I believe that the Bill has to be positive in its drafting. It must require that the security service can do as much, but no more, than is set down in statute. It is about actions, rather than atmosphere.
It is no accident therefore that the functions of the security service in Clause 1 are expressed in active terms. National security is to be protected from threats, from activities and from actions. The requirements and safeguards in Clause 2 are also expressed in terms of actions and operations; constraints are placed upon the work of the service, for that is what matters. The effect of this is that anything which falls outside the positive scope and responsibilities of the security service as set out in the statute can be of no interest to, or factor in, what it does.
It would not serve to strengthen this positive approach if we were now to change tack and start to try to identify in legislation the characteristics or attributes which the service should or should not display in carrying out its work. That is what this amendment proposes. It would overlay the positive provisions of the Bill with broadly phrased prohibitions of general but uncertain application. That is really the point to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred. Although the amendment

877
is perfectly good for guidelines, it is surely of very uncertain application. How would the director general go about the task of keeping every member of the service free from any political influence?
Indeed, if we were to adopt this approach, in practice the amendment should be just the beginning of the task. For legislation to be effective it must be comprehensive. The full list of desirable attributes for the service would be long. So too would the list of prohibitions. The drafting would be complex. I am not sure, for example, that the concept of political influence which this amendment introduces is in any case sufficiently clear for the language of statute. We should always be driven back to acknowledging the functions of the service under Clause 1, which alone allow it to act, and the constraints already in Clause 2 which bear upon those actions. If we go down that road I believe that we would lose our way in a thicket of good intentions and would introduce a provision without the clarity which legislation of this nature undoubtedly requires.
I recognise that this amendment is really about creating the right atmosphere for the work of the service—the right ethos—with the right people. There is only so much that the legislation itself can do on such matters. I think many of your Lordships know that there have been considerable strides in the management of the security service in recent years. I pay tribute to the contribution which the Security Commission has made in this regard, as well as the service itself. These cannot be matters directly for legislation. They are matters properly for management. But I ask your Lordships not to underrate the very real effect which the clear and positive framework and safeguards at present in the Bill will have on these matters for the future. Their influence will be the greater because of the positive terms in which the Bill is drafted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has pointed out, if that kind of phrase were to be incorporated, there is at least a risk that some important activities of the security service, within the functions that have been described for that service in the Bill, would be inhibited or at least would be thought to be inhibited and restricted on the ground that they were political, notwithstanding that the very political influence that was under question was of a kind which might threaten the security of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I do not think it is desirable to confuse the clear structure and unequivocal message of the legislation with part of the language culled from a directive, however distinguished the author of the directive. I do not believe that the legislation will be helped by selective injunctions. This is not necessary in order to ensure that the service acts in the way in which all your Lordships would, I think, wish it to act. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think that I should be lacking in my duty if I did not press the amendment, having heard all the replies to it. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he regarded it as quite impracticable that any director general should
878
be under a duty to see, within the wording of the amendment, that his service was kept free from any political bias or influence.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry; I should correct the noble Lord. I did not say that it was impractical to protect the service from bias. I said, "from influence".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I say at once that he thought it was impracticable for the director general to say that the security service should be kept free of political influence. If it was impracticable, it is extraordinary that the directive of 1952, which said that that is exactly what the security service should be kept free of, was worded so carefully by so eminent a Minister in the noble Lord's own government that it has stood the test of time from 1952 until now.
I am also told—and this is quite extraordinary—by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who measures his words with such care, that everything is so clear in this Bill that when it becomes a statute everyone will know exactly what his duty is. It will be abundantly clear and there will be no impracticality about it. With the deepest possible respect, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly to look at the wording of Clause 2(2)(a). Let us see how practical that is from the point of view of the statutory duty of the director general. He has to ensure,
"that there are arrangements for securing that no information is obtained by the Service except so far as necessary for the proper discharge of its functions".
The practicality is this: does anyone in the Chamber think that when information first reaches the security service it has not got to be sifted for that which is necessary and that which is not necessary for the proper conduct of the security service in its obligations? "No", says the Bill, with the precision which the noble and learned Lord recommends. "With everybody knowing exactly what he has to do, it is the director general's duty to ensure that he has arrangements for securing that no information is obtained by the security service except what is necessary for its job".
It really is a nonsense. I would not mind so much if I were not dealing with a matter of great principle. If I thought that there was a history of the security service which all of us, on all Benches, respect, with never a suggeston of political bias or influence, I would not ask your Lordships so seriously to consider the amendment. Your Lordships know perfectly well whether the accusation was right or wrong. An inquiry was held because it was thought that the security service had been subjected to political bias or influence. Those associated with this amendment and I wanted to see, and I should have hoped that all your Lordships would have wanted to see, that the director general must ensure that there is no bias, no political bias or influence, in regard to the conduct of his department.
If it is practical that the director general must ensure that no action is taken to further the interests of any political party, I should like the noble Lord

879
Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to examine and analyse, with his usual careful, analytical brain, precisely what that means by way of practicality. Is the director general to question every action taken by the security service to see whether it, first, furthers the interests of a political party and, secondly, if it does, whether the main intention of the action is to further the interests of the political party, or whether that is purely incidental and accidental?
The words are clear. The Maxwell Fyfe directive contained those words. Neither I nor my colleagues have tried to introduce words which do anything other than clearly express, as the Bill now does, that the department and the director general should ensure that this matter is not supervised, except distantly by a Minister. They should also ensure that, first, actions are not taken to further the interests of a political party and, secondly, that no bias is shown and there is no influence by any political party in regard to security service activities. I must ask for the opinion of the House to be taken on this important amendment. I trust that in an amendment of this kind it will not be a political division that divides us.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Longford, E.

Ardwick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Aylestone, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Reilly, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, L.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L,

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Listowel, E.

880

NOT-CONTENTd

Ailsa, M

Joseph, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Long, V.

Annan, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ashbourne, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blake, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Blyth, L.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orkney, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Reigate, L.

Effingham, E.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Harwood, B.

Rodnev L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seebohm, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrier, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Slim, V.

Gisborough, L.

Somerset, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Goold, L

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh L

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B

Wolfson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B

Young, B.

Ilchester, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Prime Minister shall appoint a Security Service Review Committee ("the Committee") consisting of five members of Her Majesty's Privy Council (at least one of whom shall be the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition) and one present or former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The Committee shall keep under review the exercise by the Service of its duties and functions as set out in section 1 above and shall report annually to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. If the majority of the Committee consider there is any matter which

881
should be brought to the attention of Parliament they may do so provided such an action is consistent with a duty to protect the security of the nation and not prejudice the functioning of the Security Service.
It shall be the duty of every member of the Service and of every official of the department of the Secretary of State to disclose or give to the committee such documents or information as the committee may require for the purpose of enabling the Committee to discharge its functions.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is not a slightly modified version of the amendment which we discussed for nearly two and a half hours in Committee. The first few lines, which seek to set up an impartial review committee to oversee the security services, are the same as those in the previous amendment. But in my amendment this review committee reports only to the Prime Minister and to the Home Secretary on a confidential basis. Only very exceptionally can any report be made to Parliament. I might have included the provision that there is no parliamentary right to see documents. To emphasise the point, I shall read out the relevant part of the amendment:
"If the majority of the Committee consider there is any matter which should be brought to the attention of Parliament they may do so provided such an action is consistent with a duty to protect the security of the nation and not prejudice the functioning of the Security Service".
There are just two major points in favour of the amendment. First, I maintain that neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary has time to have adequate knowledge of what the security service is doing. Secondly, some independent surveillance is desirable. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that this is the kind of arrangement which exists in other countries.
I earnestly hope that we can limit the length of speeches on the amendment to a very few minutes. All I want to know is whether, if the Government disagree with the amendment, it is worth dividing the House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the noble Lord who has just moved the amendment pointed out, we had a great deal of discussion on a very similar amendment in Committee. We note the change which the noble Viscount has made to the wording. However, I believe that the overriding consideration should be that responsibility for the security service must remain, and must clearly be seen to be, with Ministers. I believe that in previous debates most noble Lords were agreed on that. A review body such as that now proposed, which would be permanently in existence, would appear to take on some of that responsibility.
I understand that that committee of Privy Counsellors would be within the veil of secrecy. That was the position in regard to the earlier amendment. How active would the committee be? It might do very little or the committee might feel that it was its duty to be continually following the main activities of the security service in order to,
"keep under review the exercise by the Service of its duties and functions".
In that event there would surely be some confusion as to who was in charge and who was responsible.
882
In the Bill the Government are introducing important new elements—a commissioner and a tribunal with functions involving warrants and complaints. They are to be within the veil of secrecy. That is the way chosen by the Government to increase accountability of the service and to meet public concern over the correctness of its conduct. If that proposed new system remains in the Bill—and so far I have detected no opposition in principle within your Lordships' House to that proposal—there does not seem to be a need for the proposed review body as well.
In the debate at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, suggested that a committee of Privy Counsellors, as suggested in the earlier amendment, could act as a long stop. I listened to his speech and I read it later. I commend his speech to any who did not hear it as a masterly exposition of what relationships between Ministers, civil servants and the security service should be. His speech was backed by his experience and good sense. He came out, on balance, in favour of a review committee but clearly he had reservations concerning refinements of that proposal.
I hope that the commissioner and the tribunal proposed by the Government in the Bill will act as a long stop. I nearly suggested a fielder in another position but thought better of it. Cricket was discussed freely in our last debate. If the House will forgive a little levity, I should remind your Lordships that there is another player on the field who is expected to back up the wicket-keeper. However, his designation is unfortunate in the context of security and this Bill because his position on the field is third man.
I spoke in the first debate mainly because I was involved in the idea of a group of Privy Counsellors when the first such committee was appointed in the 1950s. I was made the secretary of the committee. That committee considered security in general after Burgess and Maclean had disappeared and then reappeared in Moscow three years later. Incidentally, neither Burgess nor Maclean was a member of the security service in case of any misunderstanding. That first ever committee of Privy Counsellors completed its task and reported within five months. Subsequent committees of Privy Counsellors appointed to consider such matters as telephone tapping and the Falklands war acted. in a similar way. They did the job, reported and then ceased to exist.
I believe that those ad hoc committees of Privy Counsellors have proved appropriate for the kind of inquiry that they have undertaken. I have said so before on other occasions in your Lordships' House in recent years and that is why I make my view clear in relation to the present proposals. I do not believe that a continuing review body of Privy Counsellors is appropriate or necessary in addition to the new arrangements which the Government are making in the Bill.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I was in favour of an amendment on these lines at Committee stage. However, I was surprised to see this amendment appear today because it seemed to me to resemble

883
the Ghost in Hamlet. This amendment seems to be popping up at every stage in the Bill, although we had a Division on it in Committee. Surely we ought to say to this amendment what Hamlet said to the Ghost:
"Rest, rest, perturbed spirit".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is also my sentiment.
The amendment considered in Committee was taken:
"as an example by which to test the principle and to determine whether any such body is possible within the framework of our service." — [Official Report 21/3/89; col. 624.]
Your Lordships looked carefully at the principle in Committee and decided, I believe rightly, against such a body.
The amendment now before your Lordships reinforces my belief that that decision was the right one. The drafting appears to water down the responsibility of the review committee to report to Parliament. At best that is a compromise which should please nobody.
The compromise is as follows. Those who look for some form of independent parliamentary oversight from the committee will look in vain. The members of the committee do not have to be Members of this House or of the other place. We know from the amendments and the debates in another place that the party of the Official Opposition would like such a parliamentary body and not the kind of committee proposed here. At best this is, for them, a half-way house.
If the principal purpose of the committee is now to assist Ministers, as the new amendment appears to suggest, it is not the kind of parliamentary oversight which some noble Lords have looked for. Indeed it is hardly parliamentary oversight at all.
Its primary justification must now be that the Home Secretary needs the help. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred in our previous debates to a degree of sharing of responsibility for any final decision. This is not an area where the responsibility can safely be shared in this way. The lines of responsibility and accountability must be clear. No Secretary of State should be inveigled into the false belief that he can let some review body do his work for him. My right honourable friend has certainly not requested that.
The review committee proposed in this amendment would have to have full access to every detail relating to the work of the security service. Indeed, the amendment obliges the security service to give the committee any document or information that it requires. The committee cannot deal in generalities. It must be able to know of and to be informed of all the operational details of the service. There is no other way in which a committee of this sort could responsibly seek to discharge the duties placed upon it.
A committee functioning in this way would therefore have to be fully cognisant of everything that the security service does, but ostensibly it would appear to have no responsibility for what the service
884
does. This would create a most unsatisfactory situation. In a matter so close to the heart of the nation's security, the power to know cannot be separated from the power to decide. By trying to keep them apart, the amendment would create powerful and conflicting pressures which I do not believe it is possible satisfactorily to resolve. The result would be an inherently unstable structure, constantly needing to be reviewed, constantly requiring change.
I believe that a review body constituted in that way would speedily prove a disappointment not only to itself but to those who have sought to have it set up. I hope that the noble Lord may feel encouraged, in the light of the responses that he has heard, not to press the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I believe that my decision is an easy one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [The Security Service Commissioner]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The annual report mentioned in (5) above shall include the following matters—

(a) the number of warrants issued under section 3 of this Act;

(b) the number of complaints referred to the Tribunal under section 5 of this Act; and

(c) the number of persons who have been refused employment or continued employment or any office or capacity specified by him as a result of information disclosed by the Service.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes important additions to what is to be contained in the annual report that the Bill provides that the security service commissioner should make to Parliament.
Clause 3(1), which we have previously considered, gives to the Secretary of State and the security service exceptional—indeed awesome—powers to enter on or to interfere with a person's property. It reads:
"No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section".
It is an almost unprecedented provision in our law. There is no qualification as to how entry upon the property may be achieved, so that, without the authority of the warrant, it could well amount not only to trespass but to breaking and entering. Then, when entry has been achieved, property within the premises may be interfered with—to use the language of the clause—and searched and investigated at the discretion of the members of the security service who perform the operation.
Clause 4(3) provides that the security service commissioner,
"shall keep under review the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under section 3".
Under Clause 4(5), the security service commissioner is required to,
"make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Prime Minister".

885
Clause 4(6) provides that the Prime Minister in turn,
"shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Commissioner".
The amendment provides that three specific matters should be included in that report. These are: first,
"the number of warrants issued under section 3 of this Act";
secondly,
"the number of complaints referred to the Tribunal",
which is set up under Section 5 of the Act; and, thirdly,
"the number of persons who have been refused employment or continued employment or any office or capacity specified by him as a result of information disclosed by the Service".
Those three matters are all matters of importance. Parliament should know how the powers are operated, as should the public.
As is apparent, we are concerned here with great powers affecting fundamentally important liberties of the subject, his privacy and his property. It is therefore important that the public should know the extent of the usage of those warrants and that there should be a specific reference in the report to the number of warrants issued. I see no grounds for apprehension that the security of the state would be endangered by that requirement. Information about what goes on should be available to the public with regard to a power which potentially affects the public's rights and liberties so fundamentally.
The next proposal is that the report should include the number of complaints referred to the tribunal under Section 5 of the Act. Again, that is not only something that Parliament would be interested to know, but, bearing in mind its overall responsibility, is something that Parliament and the public should know.
The third element relates to a matter that has caused a great deal of concern to those who have been affected by what has been going on. They find themselves cut off from employment or the prospect of employment on the basis of information disclosed by the security service. I shall not venture to identify any particular cases, but they have caused great distress when they have occurred. It is therefore proposed that the annual report should also include the number of persons who have been adversely affected in their employment by reason of information disclosed by the service.
The measures are intended to reassure the public. The public should know whether the figures are reassuring; the public should be reassured. If the figures prove alarmingly excessive, the public should know that too and those in authority should have to be called to account in respect of them.
I submit that this three-part amendment is a useful addition to the rights and liberties of the subject and does not harm the security of the state. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may support the amendment which was moved in Committee. As there has been a great deal of talk about cricket at this stage of the Bill, I should point out that the noble and learned Lord adopted what one might now call his Boycott stance. If only he
886
had rather better residential qualifications, he might well make the ideal opener for whom the English team has been looking for a long time.
The noble and learned Lord made two points. First, he said, "Leave it to the commissioner. Why put it in the Bill? Leave it to the commissioner to put in his report whatever he likes". That seems to be the reply of the Government to so many suggestions. They say, "Leave it to the Attorney-General" when it comes to prosecutions. They say, "Leave it to the Minister". They say, "Leave it to the commissioners". However, what happens if a commissioner includes nothing in his report of any interest at all and makes a totally anodyne report, as is likely to happen? What possible objection is there to at least setting out the minimum number of points that should appear in his report?
The second statement of the noble and learned Lord—a rather streaky shot, I suggest—was that if one discloses the number of warrants it might indicate the amplitude of the detection of the extent to which the activities of any person working against this country had been disclosed. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, who is not in his place today, answered that point, because it only has strength if there were one source. If there were more than one source the point does not apply at all.
I suggest that the commissioner is there to assure the public that to some extent the operation of the service is conducted according to law. He is only there, as we know, after pressure from the European Court, and because of the huge number of credible leaks that there have been in the past. This amendment simply ensures that the public are given the very minimum degree of information, which, I suggest, they are quite entitled to receive.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether a particularly attractive feature of an amendment is that it should be designed to ensure that the public are given the very minimum of information about the matter upon which the commissioner can report. The commissioner has the duty to report, surely, in what he considers would be an appropriate way. The commissioner is to be a person of considerable stature. I think one can see how this might develop by looking at the report by the commissioner under the interception Act. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord's assessment of that would be in accordance with what he predicts in respect of this particular report.
The only effect of the amendment is to require the commissioner by statute to produce certain statistics in his report to the Prime Minister. I suspect that the Prime Minister does not need a statutory power in order to find out these figures; nor does the commissioner in order to report them. If he thought these figures were useful and he had all of them available, no doubt he would consider it right to put them in.
If the commissioner is not able to exercise sufficient judgment to decide whether or not he should put these numbers in his report, then I think that your Lordships might fairly have little confidence in the way in which he exercises much

887
more delicate judgments. There is no need for statutory requirements which appear to take the commissioner's decisions for him. He must be in the best place to take such decisions in the light of the work which the legislation will require him to undertake. I have mentioned already the example of the interception commissioner.
There is no statutory requirement of the sort proposed in this amendment in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Yet in each published annual report the commissioner has given figures of the number of complaints to the tribunal. He has also given certain figures relating to the number of warrants issued. For the first time this year he gave the number of warrants issued over the year by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as the number in force at the end of the year. Therefore I believe that to date he has shown that he produces matters of interest in his report.
I think that your Lordships might agree that this shows that the provisions in the 1985 Act relating to the commissioner's report work sensibly and well, and in the way that many of your Lordships would wish. The Bill before the House follows the same path. I do not believe that it is necessary to add further embellishments. I would only add that the commissioner in practice could not meet all the requirements of this amendment because the security service does not always know when someone about whom it has reported has been refused a posting or employment, let alone the reasons for that refusal. Therefore the commissioner could not necessarily have the numbers of such refusals available to him.
I have laid it aside really, but there is a point about the amendment which I do not understand; namely the reference to "specified by him" in the penultimate line after the word "capacity". The amendment refers to,
"continued employment or any office or capacity specified by him as a result of information disclosed by the Service".
I am not sure to whom that refers. Obviously the wording could be adjusted to make it plain if any clarification is required. I answered the amendment as a matter of principle, and I hope that, in the light of the explantion that I have given, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I think that "him" refers to the commissioner. I am now on my feet: if I had time I should be able to make the identification immediately. However, I think that that is the position. The reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is disappointing. The initial point—namely, that the language:
"The annual report … shall include"
would be restrictive, is a doctrine which sometimes comes from Ministers. However, the amendment provides that the report shall include and not that it shall only include.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should perhaps say that I was simply taking up the concluding
888
remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I was not necessarily implying that that was the proper construction of the noble and learned Lord's amendment; I should not like my remarks to be taken that way. I was perhaps following up too quickly what the noble Lord said and the way in which he expressed it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I never suggested that this was all-inclusive. I think I used the words, "minimum information".
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I do not think that we need to split any more hairs on that point. Clearly, it is not exclusive of everything else, but it is certainly inclusive of those three matters. I still submit to the House that these are matters of great importance about which the public is genuinely concerned. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate—he may have had it in mind—that to be effective, the annual report could well, and should, include these matters without making it a statutory duty to do. I detect, perhaps too optimistically, that that is the mood which has emerged from the discussion of these amendments. I hope that I am right. In that hope and possible expectation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Investigation of complaints]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Where, by reason only of the denial of a security clearance by the Service, a decision is made to deny employment to an individual or to deny any office or capacity specified by an individual, the Director-General shall (unless there be good reasons on security grounds for not so doing) send within 14 days after the decision is made a notice informing the individual of the denial of security clearance.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already called attention to one error that may have occurred in the previous amendment. I myself noticed that there was a bracket that should not have been there. Perhaps I may also say that in the case of this amendment the bracket which occurs in line 4 after the word "shall" should indeed be completed by another bracket in the next line before the words,
"send within 14 days after the decision is made".
Perhaps noble Lords will kindly treat that bracket as being in the correct place. I shall briefly give the reason for moving this amendment.
At the very beginning of Schedule 1 the duty of the tribunal so sensibly set up under this Bill is made clear. The tribunal is to consider the cases of people who complain about being aggrieved about what the service has done in relation to them or to any of their property, and unless the tribunal finds that it is a vexatious application it is its duty to look into the matter. I suppose that one of the greatest interferences in someone's liberty would be that, as a result of somebody's action that he cannot properly answer, he has lost his job, or, if in a job, he has lost the chance of preferment which he ought genuinely to have.
We are considering a service which has a vetting procedure the extent of which is quite extraordinary. As noble Lords will know, there is a negative and a positive procedure. Perhaps I may take the positive procedure first; it is a procedure which is known. The negative procedure is not known; it is a secret one. With regard to the positive procedure I am told—I have no reason to think the information wrong—that it embraces about 600,000 civil servants and a number of other jobs in the nuclear industry, in British Telecom, in the Post Office and among defence contractors. No one can give noble Lords the figures that are likely for annual consideration under the negative clearance procedure. Therefore the possibility of human error with those numbers involved, quite apart from any question of misconduct, can be quite considerable.
This amendment has been very carefully worded. I have tried by anticipation to answer the objections that no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will have. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that, and in thinking that I have an adversary to this amendment in the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I have tried to cover all the points which they so usefully make for the delectation of the House and the good sense of the Bill. This amendment provides that where there is a denial of a security clearance by the service—that is, whether it is by positive or negative procedure—a decision is made to deny employment, preferment, or alternative office. That arises purely and simply because of the result of a clearance. The director general is required—but only required:
"unless there be good reasons on security grounds for not so doing" —
within 14 days after the decision to inform the individual, not of the reasons, but merely that a denial of security clearance has taken place.
This amendment covers the question relating to security: "How can the security service be expected to give its reasons for having said no to a security clearance?" That point is covered; they do not have to. What happens if merely telling somebody that security clearance has been denied will breach security? That is covered because if there are good reasons on security grounds he need not do so. However, where, as a result, employment has literally been terminated or refused, or a preferment has been refused, this amendment gives the individual the opportunity—and noble Lords may think very rightly so—to apply to a tribunal. The tribunal will then consider it within the very careful framework of Schedule 1, which safeguards security so adequately. He will be able to go before the tribunal saying, "The one thing that I know as a result of this notice is that I have been denied a clearance. I say that that is quite wrong, and please would you look into it?" I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at page 3, line 36, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, with a bracket inserted after the word "doing".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is most kind. Perhaps I may just consider that. The noble and learned Lord is right, as is so often the case, and I thank him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at Committee stage, I explained fully the role of the service in respect of vetting. I shall not go back over old ground. I am not in a position to say anything about the numbers that the noble Lord mentioned in moving this amendment. They do not make any difference in relation to the principle of the matter. There is also a passage in this amendment with which I have slight difficulty. There is reference to "specified by an individual". I am not quite clear how that is supposed to work.
I see from this amendment, however, that I have not made it clear to your Lordships that it is not, in this country, the responsibility of the security service to refuse employment to someone seeking work with another employer. That is a matter for the employer. I think your Lordships would agree that that must be the right approach. The judgement is with the employer. The security service should not be the final arbiter of these decisions. The consequence, however, is that in some cases the security service may not know what decision has been made on a person's employment. Nor would it always be in a position to know the reasons for any decision, let alone whether it was made only because of the information the service had properly provided, which is the only ground on which this amendment would operate. To create a statutory obligation on the security service would therefore extend the responsibilities of the service in the operation and administration of employment decisions.
I recognise that the amendment seeks to meet the problem of putting terrorists on notice that the service is aware of them. It therefore provides a discretion about informing an employee. But it leaves that discretion to the security service. The service may not be in a position fully to assess and decide on all the implications of a decision to inform an employee, since the final judgment will not have been theirs. I doubt if any of your Lordships would welcome increasing unnecessarily the responsibilities of the service in these matters.
This amendment would, I submit to your Lordships, operate in a rather unpredictable and arbitrary way. It would operate only where it was clear that that decision had been made solely on the basis of the security service's information. It would operate only where the security service itself had decided that the individual could safely be informed. It would appear to suggest that without a communication from the security service, it has not been involved, and that, as the amendment acknowledges, would not be so because of the bracketed portion.
I believe that, on reflection, many of your Lordships would therefore have grave doubts about an amendment which created such a statutory obligation on the security service, both because of the implications it would have for the nature of the responsibilities of the service, and the implications it might have for national security. Your Lordships may come from different points in approaching this

891
amendment, but I hope that you will all come to the same conclusion. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is with some grief that I again come to the Dispatch Box to consider arguments against the amendment. Any disadvantages are far outweighed by the advantages and the fairness of agreeing with the amendment. The security service knows perfectly well that it has denied a clearance. We are talking about a security clearance in regard to members of the Civil Service and similar organisations. One knows perfectly well that there will be a response to the security service: "We note the lack of clearance here. In the circumstances we are not employing Mr. X". That would be necessary for the records of the security service. One has protected the question of security by saying that if there are good security reasons for not then serving the notice, the notice need not be served.
The noble and learned Lord immediately referred—and it is always an emotional reference but it is perfectly fairly made—to the terrorist. There are not many terrorists in the clearance activities of the security service. If it has to give clearance to a terrorist I should have thought that it would be an amazing example of its work on security clearances of this kind. What is the poor employee to do? He suddenly hears that his employment has been terminated, or it is not being renewed, or that a promotion is being denied him. He does not have the vaguest idea why, but thinks that a mistake might have been made by the security service because he knows he has had a positive clearance test by the security service. What is he to do? How can he go to the tribunal? He may feel—as may the tribunal—that the decision has been taken as a result of the fact that he turned up late for work three times in the previous week. How is he to know unless he is given this notice?
This is a gap in the Bill and a gap in fairness, in justice and in the protection of the rights of ordinary folk. We are told that the reason he is not being told this is because it would put a heavy duty on the director general and would create bureaucracy and so on, and that the director general and the security service would not know what was the result of their failing to clear on a security basis. I repeat that it would be an extraordinary security service that did not follow up what it had done so as to know whether the man was being employed or not. If he has been refused clearance the service had better keep a watch on him, one might think.
It is with terrific disappointment that I listened to the noble and learned Lord's answer to this amendment. But at this stage it would appear open to me only to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, to consider again what he said, possibly finding something that I did not appreciate, and, if necessary, coming back at Third Reading with something further on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Investigation of Complaints]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and that the service was so doing in the proper discharge of its functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the first schedule, to which I ventured to refer your Lordships when I was moving a previous amendment. That first schedule deals with the investigation of complaints by the tribunal. As the Bill stands, your Lordships will see in paragraph 3 that if the complainant,
"alleges that the Service has disclosed information" —
actually disclosed the information—
"for use in determining whether he should be employed, or continue to be employed … the Tribunal shall investigate whether the Service has disclosed information for that purpose and, if the Tribunal find",
that that disclosure has been made,
"they shall determine",
not whether the service had acted properly in making the disclosure as a result of which the man has lost his job, but,
"whether the Service had reasonable grounds for believing the information to be true".
That is the limit. There is no question of determining whether the information was true or whether the service, in disclosing, was doing so in the proper discharge of its functions.
It is in relation to those last words concerning the proper protection of the individual about whom this disclosure has been made, and as a result of which he has lost his job, that we say in the amendment that the tribunal shall at least consider the question whether in the making of the disclosure the service was doing it in the proper discharge of its functions. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as your Lordships know, anyone may complain to the tribunal if he is aggrieved about anything which he believes the service to have done in relation to him. This may, of course, include a complaint about the role of the security service in relation to some employment matter.
In all cases the tribunal must investigate whether the security service has made inquiries about the complainant and, if so, whether those inquiries were reasonable in the discharge of its functions. That applies to complaints about the security service's role in vetting matters as it does to any other. The tribunal address questions relating to functions under that head.
When it comes to looking specifically at the role of the service in respect of an employment matter, the question turns on the disclosure itself. The tribunal must investigate whether the security service has disclosed such information for employment purposes—and if it has, the tribunal must then decide whether the service had taken reasonable steps to check out the truth of what it has said. That is the central question for the tribunal in respect of the individual complainant. The amendment would require the tribunal to move into areas which are

893
more properly matters for the commissioner. The Bill at present provides a good and sound distinction between the work of the tribunal in relation to a particular complaint and the work of the commissioner, who can consider the wider issues and implications.
I do not believe that it would be right to ask the tribunal to get involved in the work of the commissioner, but that would be the effect of this amendment. The result would be a confusion of rsponsibilities. It would leave the tribunal grappling with issues which went well beyond the context of a particular complaint. It would not make for a fair, consistent or reasonable application of the provisions. Accordingly, I believe that the balance in the Bill concerning the individual complaint is correct and I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will perhaps be even happier not to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I at once recognise, and immediately say, that the noble and learned Lord, in replying to my amendment, has given reasons which I find acceptable. I wish that that had applied to other amendments that I have moved. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [The Tribunal]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("

(2) In the course of an investigation of a complaint by the Tribunal, the complainant shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the Tribunal, to present evidence and to be heard personally or by counsel.

(2A) The complainant shall be entitled to have access to any documents or information disclosed or given to the Tribunal unless the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances, such access would be prejudicial to National Security.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 5 provides for the setting up of a tribunal,
"for the purpose of investigating complaints about the Service in the manner specified in Schedule 1 to the Act".
We on this side of the House welcome the concept of a tribunal to investigate complaints about the service. But, when one examines the schedule setting out the constitution of the tribunal and its procedure, there is not one word about the rights that are to be given to the complainant in stating, explaining or elaborating his complaint: not one word.
Additionally, Clause 5(4) shuts out the courts completely from the study and examination of the matter. It states:
"The decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner under that Schedule (including decisions as to their jurisdictions) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court".
Apparently they cannot even be questioned on a point of law. Although we welcome the tribunal, these are important and significant elements which the House should consider.
My particular concern is that the elementary principles which are set out in the amendment are a statement of principles of natural justice which one would expect to be expressly provided for when
894
one is dealing with the creation of a new tribunal with a new jurisdiction. The amendment proposes that:
"In the course of an investigation of a complaint by the Tribunal, the complainant shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the Tribunal, to present evidence and to be heard personally or by counsel".
Secondly, the amendment provides:
"The complainant shall be entitled to have access to any documents or information disclosed or given to the Tribunal unless the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances, such access would be prejudicial to National Security".
There is nothing revolutionary, startling or unprecedented about those rights. They are part of the provisions of any self-respecting tribunal and are applied in any self-respecting court.
I must confess that as a result of an answer given by the noble and learned Lord in Committee my surprise moved almost for the first time towards anger. I am sorry if it sounded like that but I fear that it was my response to what was said by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that the House will forgive me and I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord said. It was:
"I do not believe it is either necessary, nor would it be practicable to give a right of oral representation to every complaint to the tribunal. The tribunal must, after all, consider the reasonableness of decisions made by the security service. The complainant may give the tribunal what evidence he wishes to substantiate his complaint. There is no need for this amendment in order to achieve that. But equally, the complainant is under no obligation to offer any evidence to substantiate his complaint. He only needs to make a complaint. He does not need to offer evidence to substantiate it".
But what if he does? The noble and learned Lord continued:
"It is for the service, not the complainant, I o respond to the tribunal's investigations. That is surely the right focus of the tribunal's work; and, if that is right, it could only be time consuming and unhelpful to give each and every complainant a statutory right to put his grievances and allegations in person, or through counsel".—[Official Report, 21/3/89; col. 665.]
I am sorry to say that I detected an excessively authoritarian touch in those observations of the noble and learned Lord. They were quite out of keeping with his normal response. However, I may be wrong and I return to the merits of what I have said. I do so quite apart from any view on the way in which the serious matter was imperiously brushed aside with no indication of a serious examination of what was being claimed and asked for.
In those circumstances, and because of the total absence of any anger in my voice or demeanour, I hope that this time the noble and learned Lord will see the merits that the principles of natural justice should be incorporated into the terms of the proceedings and the procedure laid out for the tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Perhaps I can introduce a little anger into the proceedings. At the late hour of night when we discussed the matter in Committee I found it almost unbelievable to hear the words which fell from the lips of the noble and learned Lord. We are talking about a person who is aggrieved and has complained because he has been adversely affected by the activities of MI5. We are

895
talking of a member of the public who is aggrieved because, he says, MI5 has acted unreasonably and wrongly towards him. It has done him a severe injury on what was perhaps completely wrong information. Therefore he makes a complaint.
The simple suggestion in the amendment is that in those circumstances he shall have the normal civil rights and rules of natural justice as they then apply. He shall have the right of being given an opportunity to make such representations as he wishes and to present any evidence to support his case.
The noble and learned Lord said that it is for the service to respond to the tribunal not the complainant and that it is not the complainant who is being investigated. That is a play on words. It is the complainant who has raised the matter; it is the complainant who is the member of the public who has been injured; and it is not the tribunal which is being protected in the clause. However, it may be put in such a way that it is for the tribunal to respond.
The noble and learned Lord said that there is nothing to preclude the tribunal from hearing evidence if it wants to do so but that it may be time-consuming to give the aggrieved person these rights. Sometimes one has to protest over and over again because people's rights are being trampled on by the legislation which comes before Parliament. To suggest that it may be time-consuming for a member of the public who has been aggrieved and seriously injured to put forward his case and to be entitled to produce evidence in support appears to be taking matters very far indeed.
The noble and learned Lord said that it may be unwise for such a person to have access to any document concerned in the matter. Is that really where the rights of people have come to under this piece of legislation? As we have already seen, it is made extremely hard and even impossible for someone who is informed against perhaps on completely wrong evidence and perhaps because they fall into a class or group of people which the security services believe to be subversive. We know from many cases that people have lost their employment as a result of a total misapprehension of what they were doing or of the group to which they belonged.
There are the gravest possible dangers for the individual in the passing of such secret information. Sometimes that is absolutely right; sometimes that is absolutely wrong. If it is wrong then the very least a person should have are the rights set out in the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I speak subject to correction but the amendment appears to give rights to the full court procedure in respect of any complaint to the tribunal. That is any complaint however trivial or irrelevant it may be. As I understand it, on an earlier occasion the noble and learned Lord said that in a serious case the tribunal could handle the matter as it thought fit, including hearing evidence and argument. But to give— —
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble Lord— —
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will restrain his impatience. On the other hand, the amendment appears to give the right to the court procedure in all cases, however trivial or small. I shall now give way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that they are not the full rights of procedure. They are limited because there is no right to cross-examine or to follow all the procedures in a normal court of law. The amendment gives a right and opportunity to make representations and to present any necessary evidence. That is all.
5 P.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is not quite all. It is also to be heard by counsel, and that is very largely introducing the mechanism of a court. It goes a great deal further than saying that a complainant may come and present evidence. He can be represented by counsel and plainly the purpose of that must be, if he is to go to that trouble and expense, that some legal argument should be presented on his behalf. Therefore, the noble Lord is not quite right, when it is merely for the complainant to make the complaint himself.
For that reason, it seems to me very doubtful whether we need burden the machinery of this tribunal with that universal right in the case of any complainant to have a procedure of that sort followed.
While I am on this point, I was rather amused to see that the complainant could, if this amendment is accepted, be represented by counsel. If we may touch on other matters which your Lordships have discussed recently and will discuss in future, the right of audience before this tribunal would be restricted to counsel and not allowed to a solicitor. In those circumstances I was rather surprised to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to leave the last point for another occasion.
This is an important matter and I have certainly never treated it lightly. Whether or not my responses have produced anger is not particularly my responsibility. However, this is an important matter and I agree that we must look at it carefully.
It is vitally important to remember that this Bill puts a certain duty on the tribunal at Schedule 1 (1), which states:
"Any person may complain to the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by anything which he believes the Service has done in relation to him or to any property of his; and, unless the Tribunal consider that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, they shall investigate it in accordance with this Schedule".
The responsibility is placed upon the tribunal to investigate any complaint that may be made to it unless it can exclude it as frivolous or vexatious.
The tribunal is set up under this Bill distinct from the ordinary courts of law. If it were appropriate for complaints of this sort to be investigated in accordance with ordinary procedure by the ordinary courts of law, what would be the point of having a

897
tribunal, and particularly a tribunal made up of very highly qualified lawyers? This is a tribunal which is different from our courts system and it is different from our courts system, generally speaking, in a most important feature; that is, that it has a duty of investigation. It is in the nature of an inquisitorial tribunal—and we have had discussions about that distinction in connection with other matters. That is the important matter. Every person who complains has a right not merely to be heard—that is not the important matter—but also to have his complaint investigated. If anything he has to say about it is relevant to that investigation, then that will be covered by the duty to investigate.
Your Lordships will see that there is not only the first part of this amendment but also a second part, which states:
"This complainant shall be entitled to have access to any documents or information disclosed or given to the Tribunal unless the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances, such access would be prejudicial to National Security".
That describes the notion that underlies this amendment. This amendment tries to come as near to the ordinary courts as possible.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is only because the noble and learned Lord rightly said how important this is that I take the liberty of intervening. He has talked in terms of the duty of the tribunal to investigate. If he will kindly refer to paragraph (2)(1) where the word "investigate" occurs, that is purely and simply limited to whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries and not as to the nature of them or any other matter. If I am wrong, I know that the noble and learned Lord will say where I am wrong, but that is where the word "investigate" occurs.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Lord is not correct. The word "investigate" first occurs in the passage which I read out in paragraph (2)(1) where it refers to "shall investigate". There is a duty to investigate the complaint in accordance with the schedule. There is no proposal to do anything other than investigate the complaint.
The amendment does not seek to enlarge the jurisdiction of the tribunal or anything of that sort. It merely seeks to add a responsibility on the tribunal to hear the complainant personally or by counsel, plus other matters about documents to which I have just referred. Therefore, with great respect to him, the noble Lord's intervention does not assist on this point. The obligation is to investigate the complaint in accordance with the schedule and this amendment only requires in addition to that that the complainant be heard. However, the idea must be that the complainant is heard for the purpose of enabling the tribunal better to investigate the complaint according to the schedule.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, now I risk the noble and learned Lord being angry with me instead of anyone being angry with the noble and learned Lord. At all events, that is ambiguous and I am sure that he will see that. The duty to investigate is to investigate in accordance with the schedule; and the only duty in
898
the schedule to investigate relates to whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries, and it goes on "if the Tribunal find" and so on. The duty to investigate in accordance with the schedule is set out as a duty in Schedule 1(2)(1). The investigation is as to whether the complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the service. I may be wrong in my submissions, but at the very least I believe that I can say that the matter is quite ambiguous.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very sorry but for once I do not understand the point made by the noble Lord. The obligation on the tribunal is to investigate the complaint in accordance with the schedule, and there are subject matters for the investigation not only in paragraph 2(1) but also in later paragraphs of the schedule; for example, in paragraph 3 which states:
"If and so far as the complainant alleges that the Service has disclosed information for use in determining whether he should be employed, or continue to be employed … the Tribunal shall investigate whether the Service has disclosed information for that purpose and, if the Tribunal find that it has done so, they shall determine whether the Service had reasonable grounds for believing the information to be true".
Therefore, it is not correct to say that the complaint is restricted to whether or not inquiries were being made.
Even if the noble Lord is right, that does not help in relation to this amendment. The point in this amendment is that the responsibility for investigation is put upon the tribunal and that distinguishes it from the court. The court is there to hear what is put before it. Generally speaking, that is an adversarial system and is part of the principle of natural justice as applied to an adversarial system when each of the adversaries must have a chance to say what he or she wants to say. However, where the duty is on the tribunal to investigate, the situation is different.
I must say that I believe that this amendment is important in relation to the tribunal and its constitution. This tribunal is given an investigative role because that is the approporate way in which investigations should be carried out in relation to security matters.
The creation of a complaints machinery raises peculiar problems when it is a complaints machinery related to security matters. They are problems that mean that we cannot rely on the normal courts or indeed the normal procedures of the courts. This is because the material that the tribunal must handle must not become public knowledge. It must not, in particular, be made available to the person to whom it relates.
The conventions and procedures followed by a court cannot therefore be applied directly. That is the reason for having a tribunal. The adversarial model is not the one that we are able to follow for dealing with this sort of complaint. It is not possible for both sides to be given all the available information, for both sides to argue their case and for the court to decide. That is why we have established not an adversarial but an investigative tribunal. It is not its job to sit back and decide on the basis of the evidence put before it; its job is to investigate and to look into every relevant part of

899
the complaint with which it has to deal. The Bill clearly gives the tribunal the power to do so. The onus is on the tribunal, not on the complainant.
I do not believe any other system would work as well in this area; nor would it be able to work with any assurance that complaints could be investigated and resolved without vital secrets being divulged. I do not believe it is possible or consistent with the necessary principles on which the tribunal is established under the Bill to graft on aspects of an adversarial procedure such as are proposed in these amendments. To do so would create a presumption that a complainant should know the security service's case; a presumption reinforced by the modified right of access to information given by sub-paragraph (2A) of this new clause. A right to be heard adds little of substance or relevance unless there is also a right to know.
That is not the way the security service tribunal can or is intended to work. Under the structure that the Bill proposes the complainant can put as much or as little information to the tribunal as he likes. Unless his complaint is frivolous or vexatious, the onus is then on the tribunal to conduct its own investigations and to get at the truth. The security service is obliged to give it all the information it needs and can do so in the confidence that the information will not be divulged. The tribunal can ask the complainant for more particulars, it can certainly ask to see the complainant in person and it can of course, if it would help, agree to his being represented. That is in no way restricted. The complainant too has the assurance in the Bill that his confidences to the tribunal must be respected and not divulged to the security service.
In order to work satisfactorily it must be the Tribunal's investigation. It must be the responsibility of the tribunal to get at the truth. There is therefore an important point of principle here that goes to the very heart of the complaints procedure in the Bill and to the reasons for having a tribunal in place at all. The amendment, if it were given effect to, would detract from the central responsibility of the tribunal. It would tend to put the onus on the complainant to make his case, to substantiate his concerns and to bring along evidence to try to show the position. The tribunal might be tempted to judge the strength of the complainant's case on the basis of what he had represented, however thin or poor the representations might be. That would weaken rather than strengthen the complainant's position.
It was for similar reasons that your Lordships approved the special investigative structure of the interception tribunal under the 1985 Act. For much the same reasons, I ask your Lordships to approve a similar structure in the Bill.
This is an important matter, as I say. It is important to realise that the principle upon which the tribunal must work is a very different one from the ordinary principle that the courts of law have to follow. We have tried to make available a procedure that will be effective and put responsibility for the investigation where it properly belongs—clearly on the shoulders of the tribunal.
900
I hope that the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment will feel able in the circumstances to accept the argument. The matter is of sufficient principle that, if he is not able to do that, one should seek to have it decided.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he makes a distinction between the adversarial court and the investigative tribunal which is getting at the truth, so that in an investigative tribunal, say, one that is seeking to find the cause of an accident, these rules of natural justice do not apply.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the distinction is between a tribunal that has the duty to investigate and a tribunal that has the duty only to adjudicate between cases presented to it. Consequences flow from that distinction. It is on these consequences that I have sought to rely.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I can only regret the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The field with which we are concerned responsibly today is an important and delicate one, and we should be able to carry Parliament and the public with us.
Here is a power that is given in precise language in the Bill that we are considering:
"No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State".
It is a statement of authority and power which, so far as I know, has no equivalent in our law. That power is given to the Secretary of State, the state and its representatives. As to the citizen, foreigner or whoever may be concerned, he can be affected most fundamentally in his career and in his life by the decision of the security service. It can ruin his life, especially if he is innocent. There is a man who may well claim that he is wholly innocent.
Merit is made of the fact that at any rate a tribunal has been set up, and I welcome it. The fact that it is a tribunal does not exclude or leave out—this is the procedure to deal with complaints—the necessity for the complainant to be given the fullest opportunity that he seeks, not that the tribunal thinks it right to give him, to state his case, to state his complaint and to give evidence to support his claim.
I am very willing to reconsider in all the surrounding political circumstances the somewhat tactless reference to "counsel". I am very willing to substitute "a representative of his choice". That should embrace all lawyers and non-lawyers.
I come to the serious matter that we are considering. What is proposed is modest; it is minimal. It is proposed that there shall be written into the procedures to be applied by the tribunal two elementary requirements of natural justice. In the course of an investigation of the complaint the complainant shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the tribunal, to present evidence and to be heard personally or by counsel. It is surely not to be tolerated that the fact that it might take more time should be a factor governing so important a

901
decision and so important a situation for him. For him in those circumstances to be given the fullest opportunity within reason to be heard and to make representations on his behalf is a minimal right. He should also have the right of access to all the relevant documents.
To allow this amendment will inspire confidence in the security service and not detract from it. At this critical stage in our affairs it is important that we are serious in dealing with the threat of terrorism and the rest of it. We in this part of the House are as eager to sustain that battle as anyone else. To reject the amendment will damage the standing of the legislation and do a disservice to the security of the country. It is on the basis of that approach that I invite the House to come to a conclusion.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTd

Abercorn, D.

Butterworth, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Aldington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Beloff, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Blake, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boardman, L.

Craigton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Digby, L.

902

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elton, L.

Moyne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Ferrier, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L,

Goold, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Rootes, L.

Havers, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Terrington, L,

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Torrington, V.

Joseph, L.

Trafford, L.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
5.28 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 147E:
Before Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("Merger References.
At end of section 64(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (merger situation qualifying for investigation) insert the words "and in his discretion to any matters to which section 84 of this Act may apply to which his attention or that of the Director has been drawn in writing" ").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with an amendment to Section 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 which, as your Lordships will realise, is concerned with a,
"merger situation qualifying for investigation".
A merger reference may be made to the commission by the Secretary of State. Before the Secretary of State makes the reference, the Director General of Fair Trading will have examined the situation in accordance with his duties under Section 2 of the Act. The object of the amendment is to introduce an element of increasing fairness into the arrangements before the Secretary of State and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decide upon the merger position and to introduce an elementary principle

903
of natural justice. It is also intended to remove uncertainty.
Perhaps I may briefly refer the House to the duties of the registrar under Section 2 of the 1973 Act. He has a comprehensive agenda to his duties. According to Section 2(1)(a), he has to keep under review,
"the carrying on of commercial activities in the United Kingdom which relate to goods supplied to consumers in the United kingdom",
and so on. That is a wide duty. Under subsection (1)(b) it is his duty,
"to receive and collate evidence becoming available to him with respect to such activities as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph".
In many ways this is a curious function for a director. He has to receive—that is simple. He has to collate the evidence—again, that is simple. What evidence? It is the evidence becoming available to him with respect to such activities as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph. He will receive evidence in writing or perhaps orally for a large number of reasons, not only because people are interested in the merger per se but perhaps for reasons of pure commercial help to the person who is writing to the director.
Section 64(5) reads:
"In determining whether to make a merger reference to the Commission the Secretary of State shall have regard, with a view to the prevention or removal of uncertainty".
That is one of the objects. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State will have been advised by the director of the position generally as a result of collecting evidence which came to him in any form or in any way. Section 64(5) continues:
"to the need for making a determination as soon as is reasonably practicable".
My amendment would add the words:
"and in his discretion"—
the Secretary of State's discretion—
"to any matters to which section 84 of this Act may apply to which his attention or that of the Director has been drawn in writing"
Section 84 refers to the public interest and sets out items which are considered to be relevant to the public interest in these circumstances. Under my amendment, if the director receives something in writing he will pass it to the Secretary of State who in his discretion should refer it to the tribunal. It may be said that it is not necessary, having regard to the terms of Sections 64 and 84, for my amendment. However, it is necessary again to emphasise the curious nature of the jurisdiction of the director. He can get information from anywhere and from anybody. One of the principal parties to the merger whose case is to go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may not know anything about that. That is totally unfair. Statements of considerable consequence to the party to the merger may have been made. The party to the merger should have the opportunity to know what that information is.
This would be in line with what is happening in regard to investigations under the Treaty of Rome. I had the honour for a couple of years to be a member
904
of a working committee of the EC. There I found that many of the investigations carried out by the commission under Sections 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome were the result of even anonymous information sent to the appropriate committee or the appropriate directorate of the EC. Some of the investigations arose as a result of letters and documents sent by outsiders without the knowledge of the other parties concerned. In order to try to modify and clarify some of the procedures we tried to give an opportunity to a person, an institution or a company that has been referred to in such documents sent privately to the directorate to know what was being held against them.
In my opening remarks I referred to principles of natural justice. It would be appropriate, where under Section 64 there has arisen a merger situation qualifying for investigation, that not only relevant matters concerning competition or matters principally relevant to Section 84 but any matter which is indirectly of consequence to the parties of the merger should be disclosed to the tribunal. Therefore the Secretary of State should submit to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission such matters as had been drawn to the director' attention in writing. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we support the amendment not least on the ground which we argued in Committee that there is a discrepancy between the criteria the Secretary of State has to use, which are up to him, when he makes a merger reference and the criteria which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has to use under the statute which are contained in Clause 84. The criteria of the Secretary of State on reference seemed to us to be determined by ministerial statements from time to time. I believe that the ministerial statement still in operation is the one which refers to the competition issue. On future occasions other ministerial statements drawing attention to other issues may be the basis of a merger reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, seeks in an elegant way, if I may compliment him on his amendment, to introduce into the issue of whether there should be a merger reference other matters which have been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State or of the director and relate to Section 84. We argued in Committee for a parallel procedure between the director, the Secretary of State and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We said that all of them in their individual capacities should have regard to Section 84 of the Act which defines the public interest. That proposition was rejected by the Government and I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord is probably the best we can achieve under the present circumstances. Accordingly, we support the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have read with interest the discussion in Committee on the similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It appears to me that there was, and is, little between us. As my noble friend the Secretary of State explained, since the matters in Section 84 are ones to which the MMC must have regard, he must

905
inevitably have them in his mind in deciding whether to refer mergers to the MMC. The intention, it seems, is merely to make this explicit. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is I know always anxious to make the legislation what might be called user friendly so that its provisions are clear to companies affected by it. As a general principle, we are all in favour of this.
But in this instance is there really any doubt on the point? My noble friend has on numerous occasions, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, explained the considerations which he applies in deciding whether to refer mergers to the MMC. People involved in mergers have a pretty good idea what are these considerations, of which the main one is the effect on competition. That some people would like to see greater certainty in the way these are applied is another matter. As has been said before, this is not easily compatible with a discretionary system, and could only be achieved by a loss of flexibility. Which considerations he should apply has also been questioned sometimes, but again that is another matter.
In the circumstances, explicitly mentioning the Section 84 criteria at this point is unnecessary. However, it is more than that, because bringing them in implies a more rigorous examination of mergers against public interest criteria at the reference stage. As my noble friend said in Committee, this would pre-empt the role of the MMC. The legislation leaves it to the MMC to judge whether something is against the public interest. The Secretary of State's role is to decide whether there is an issue which should be subjected to such a judgment.
There clearly is a link between the criteria applied by the MMC and the Secretary of State's decision to refer a merger, but this amendment is not needed to spell it out and could in fact confuse it. There is a further aspect. This area of the law is at issue in a case at present being considered by the juducial committee of your Lordships' House. It would be wrong for me to say any more than that, but I submit that it would be curious to amend the legislation at the very moment when its meaning is being established conclusively. There might then be those who would like to see the law changed, but that is another matter and is not I think the question at present. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his support and for his use of the word "elegant" in respect of my introduction to the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for pointing out that part of the reason for my activities in this House as regards Bills which relate to industry—especially legal Bills—is that I would like to see such legislation become more user-friendly. He was also most encouraging when he said that there did not seem to be much difference between us. However, perhaps I should say at once that I did not understand his rather vague allusions to a case at present being considered by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. For my part, I had no idea that any issue which arose from my amendment could
906
become the subject of some decision of the Judicial Committee. Indeed, the noble Lord did not emphasise, and nor did he indicate, what the issue was. Therefore I am in the dark on the matter.
I had only two reasons for putting forward the amendment: the first was to remove uncertainty in the interests of natural justice; the second was to add another parameter of fairness to the investigations which arise under Sections 2 and 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. This is the Report stage of the Bill. Despite the kind words which the Minister said about me (in respect of my wish to make legislation more user-friendly and that there is very little difference between us) and despite the fact that the substance of the amendment has not been discussed before, I am tempted to take certain action which will decide the matter one way or the other, unless he has anything further to say. However, I pause here for a moment to see whether my seductive words have failed to convince the Minister. I see that they have. In those circumstances, I must ask the House to decide the issue.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147E) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Carnock L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trumpington, B.

976

NOT-CONTENTS

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 147F:
Before Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("General functions of the Director.
. In section 2(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 leave out "uncompetitive" and insert "Anti-competitive" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. It amends Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and is designed to bring it up to date having regard to the Competition Act 1980 and to the position that has arisen since the date of that Act with regard to how mergers are being dealt with.
It has been emphasised many times in Committee, and even this afternoon, that the Monopolies and Mergers Committee is concerned largely with competition. I read part of Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 when I dealt with the previous amendment. I shall now refer your Lordships to subsection (2), which provides:
"It shall also be the duty of the Director so far as appears to him to be practicable from time to time, to keep under review the carrying on of commercial activities",
and then:
"ascertaining the circumstances relating to, monopoly situations or uncompetitive practices".
The term "uncompetitive practice" can mean that the commercial activities which the director has to investigate are not competitive. It is an absurd phrase to have in a section, these days at any rate, because it could include the investigation of commercial activities in relation to the manufacture of—if I may say so—lavatory pans, and firms which are making silicon chips.
In the Competition Act 1980 the word to be found is "anti-competitive". The commercial activities that are to be investigated are those that the director may think are anti-competitive, not uncompetitive. This is not a question of semantics. It clarifies the position of mergers in this country and even activities under the Treaty of Rome, in that what the Director General of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State concerned with such matters, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are concerned with is anti-competitive issues.
I never express much confidence when dealing with these matters because I know that Ministers, especially in regard to this Bill, are so tied to their briefs that it requires a certain amount of courage for them to diverge from them. It has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has done it on several occasions. I hope that the Minister leading for the Government this afternoon will come along with me and let me have the amendment. In this modern age, we cannot leave the director appointed under the Fair Trading Act to deal with such an extensive variety of uncompetitive commercial activities. He must, however, deal with them if they introduce an aspect of anti-competitiveness. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, again, I have read with interest the discussion in Committee about Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act. At that time, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was trying to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that any additional reference there to "anti-competitive practice" was unnecessary. That obviously succeeded so well that he is now suggesting adopting the term in Section 2 as it stands. It may therefore seem rather churlish of me if I say that that remains in our view unnecessary, and indeed a possible recipe for confusion.
If I may briefly remind noble Lords, we are talking here of the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep commercial activities under review. He must do so, among other things, with a view to becoming aware of monopoly situations or uncompetitive practices. He can then take appropriate action under the other provisions of the Act, to investigate those matters, or, under the Competition Act, to investigate anti-competitive practices. There is nothing to stop him looking at anti-competitive practices merely because that is not the precise term used here. Far from Section 2 having nothing to do with anti-competitive practices, it in fact describes the director general's basic duty, from which, in a sense, all his other activities stem.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in Committee that the term "uncompetitive practice" was perhaps less graphic than "anti-competitive practice". I think that is right, but that does not mean that there is anything terribly wrong with it. It is a term whose general sense is fairly obvious, which has a precise meaning as defined in Section 137 of the Act, and which is used in several other places in the Act. It occurs, for example, in Section 48, in the context of monopoly references, and in Section 78, which deals with general references.
The definition in Section 137, although very similar to that of "anti-competitive practice" under

909
Section 2 of the Competition Act, differs from it in a number of respects. It relates to commercial activities, which means,
"the production and supply of goods in the United Kingdom, the supply of services in the United Kingdom and the export of goods from the United Kingdom".
Anti-competitive practices, in the context of the Competition Act, relate to the supply but also the acquisition of goods or services in the UK alone, and also in any part of the UK. Adopting in the Fair Trading Act a term which has its own meaning in the Competition Act could result in confusion. Bringing the two Acts fully into line would entail looking at all the relevant definitions and at all their occurrences throughout the legislation. This would be a major exercise of, I would suggest, limited value.
As I said on the last amendment, the noble Lord is, I know, concerned about the intelligibility of legislation, as far as possible, to the layman. There is nothing magical about one term or another, as he knows; it is all a matter of how they are defined. The term "anti-competitive practices" and the definition were obviously felt to be right for the provisions of the Competition Act in 1980. Perhaps, if we were looking at the Fair Trading Act again, we should try to adopt the same terminology and definitions—though not necessarily, as the provisions have different purposes. However, there is no evidence that the existing term in the Fair Trading Act gives rise to any great confusion in practice; that is, we have no evidence. If the noble Lord has any, he will no doubt let us know.
As we said during Committee, we should not rule out the possibility of a more thoroughgoing review of all this legislation at some stage. I merely ask the noble Lord to consider, in the light of what I have said about the extent of the consequential amendments, whether the parliamentary time which these would require is justified for the sake of what seems, with respect, tinkering with the terminology of provisions that otherwise work well. I submit that the answer has to be no.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for reading his brief so carefully and, if I may say so, with such elegance. That is a term which was quite unjustifiably applied to me a little earlier. I shall not delay the House any longer on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [Restriction on references where prior notice given]:
[Amendment No. 147G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 147H:
Page 106, line 2, leave out ("twenty-eight days beginning with the first working") and insert ("twenty days, determined in accordance with subsection (7) of this section, beginning with the first").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 147H, 147J, 147K and 147M. At Committee stage my noble
910
friend the Secretary of State agreed, in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, to look again at the use of "Working days" in the definition of the period allowed for consideration of prior notice of a merger.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred at the time to the possible difficulties which a period based on calendar days could cause if one of the longer public holidays intervened. The competition authorities would have less time to consider prenotified mergers where this was the case. The Government's intention in framing the original provision in calendar days was to make calculation of the relevant period as simple and straightforward as possible. The number of days lost due to Bank Holidays would not of course be very great and would not have seriously jeopardised the prenotification system; particular problems which might arise over Christmas, for example, could have been dealt with by using the power to extend tile notification period.
However, in response to the concerns expressed in Committee, we are prepared to accept that a period of working days rather than calendar days might be considered clearer for all concerned. Amendments Nos. 147H and 147J therefore replace the prenotification period in new Section 75B(2) of 28 calendar days starting and ending on a working day, with a period of 20 days. Subsection (7), as amended by Amendment No. 147M, provides that such periods are to exclude days not normally considered working days; that is, Saturday, Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day and any day which is a Bank Holiday in England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment No. 147K replaces the possible extension period of 14 calendar days with a period of 10 days, excluding weekends, etc.
I am pleased to be able to bring forward these changes in response to the concerns that have been raised. These amendments will clarify the calculation of the prenotification period while retaining the same basic period. They show, I think, that we are always open to constructive suggestions for improvements to the Bill, and that the debate in your Lordships' House can be most valuable in clarifying our minds on such matters. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for introducing these amendments which respond to the problems that I raised in Committee. I am also grateful to him for saying that the debates in your Lordships' House sometimes serve to clarify the Government's mind, because I have found on certain occasions that the Government's mind is not entirely clear.
The amendments understandably reduce the number of days, and, as we agreed in Committee—I think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State and I agreed—we could not keep the 28 days if we were going over to working days. The number of working days would have to be fewer than the calendar days. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these amendments forward and we are happy to accept them.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the CBI has considered this matter and it supports the amendment. We believe it to be a definite improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 147J and 147K:
Page 106, leave out lines 7 and 8.
Page 106, line 14, leave out ("period of fourteen") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 147J and 147K, and with the leave of the House I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 147L:
Page 106, line 33, after ("misleading") insert—
("(aa) he suspects that it is not proposed to carry the notified arrangements into effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to another commitment given in Committee by my noble friend the Secretary of State. In response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, he ageed to look at the possibility of enabling the Director General of Fair Trading to reject a prenotification where he suspects that there is no intention to implement the notified arrangements. That is what this amendment does.
The power would be used where for one reason or another it becomes clear that it is not intended to proceed with a prenotified merger but the notice is not withdrawn. It sometimes happens that merger proposals, in which there may be a great deal of interest, in the end come to nothing. The power would have to be exercised reasonably. The director general could not just arbitrarily decide that an application was not serious but would have to have good reason to think so.
This is a small but useful procedural improvement which will help to ensure that resources are concentrated on those mergers where there is a clear intention to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for bringing this amendment forward. It responds to points we made in Committee.
There is only one small question I have about the drafting, and that is the use of the word "suspects". It seems to me to be a slightly odd expression: if the director suspects something. I should have thought "has reason to believe" would probably be a better expression, but perhaps the noble Lord can convince me that I am wrong. I do not wish unduly to prolong the discussion on the amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord is giving much thought to what I have just said. In the course of time he will be able to respond to my point, perhaps without undue delay. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also wishes to intervene.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I had the same difficulty about the word "suspects", but perhaps the noble Lord now has some advice about the word. I think this is a useful amendment and I feel that I ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on having clarified the mind of the Government so well with regard to the last two amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are always open to useful suggestions. I understand that the word "suspects" is quite commonly used in legislation; therefore I see nothing unusual about using it in this case. However, if I find that there is any reason to change that opinion I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 147M:
Page 106, line 39, leave out from ("In") to ("(a)") in line 41 and insert ("determining any period for the purpose of subsections (2) and (3) of this section no account shall be taken of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 147H. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 107, line 14, at end insert ("provided that the merger with one enterprise other than an enterprise to which these arrangements relate creates a merger situation qualifying for investigation or which clearly affects the impact of the notified merger.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, new Section 75C(1)(d) as at present worded provides that the expiry of the merger notice will not prevent a subsequent reference, if meanwhile any intervening merger is completed by any party. The CBI, which advised me, appreciates the concern to avoid condoning intervening mergers which change the nature and effects of the merger under consideration. However, care should be taken not to create an opportunity for tactical frustration of a merger notice by the target completing a non-material merger.
I consider that the exception allowed under new Section 75C(1)(d) should be limited to intervening mergers which themselves qualify for investigation, or which materially affect the impact of the notified merger. The object of the amendment is to achieve that qualification to the existing wording. I am not sure whether the Government have given thought to this problem; I think it is a serious one which deserves consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment relates to one of the exceptions which will make it possible for the Secretary of State to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission even after it has been prenotified and the period for consideration has expired without a reference. There may seem to be rather a number of these exceptions, but the intention behind them is simply to leave the authorities no worse off than they are at present. It must be borne in mind that otherwise, once the

913
period for consideration ends, the power to refer a merger has gone for good. We want to help business with this new procedure, but not at the expense of creating loopholes through which mergers which should be scrutinised can slip.
Following automatic clearance of a merger on the expiry of the pre-notification period, the parties will have up to six months to complete it. Before it takes place, one of the parties could merge with another enterprise, outside the notified arrangements. This merger might or might not qualify for investigation on its own. What is of potential concern is the previously unforeseen combination which will then come about when the pre-notified merger finally happens. For example, if A has a 15 per cent. share of a market, and notifies a merger with B which has no presence in that market, there will probably be no problems. If B then merges with C, which has a 15 per cent. share in that market, again there are unlikely to be grounds for intervening. It is when A and C eventually come together, through the merger which has already been cleared, creating a 30 per cent. market share, that problems could arise. New section 75C(1)(d) simply enables us to examine that new situation, if necessary.
It will be a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State whether there are new factors which justify re-opening a case in these circumstances. If there are none, then the decision will be unchanged, and he will not need to exercise the power to refer the merger. Indeed, his decision would be open to challenge if he did so. Only where the new merger might alter the view taken of the pre-notified merger would there be any grounds for exercising the power. This is likely to arise only very rarely, and I take it that my noble friend would not question the substance of the provision to deal with such cases.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone would limit this power to cases where the second merger itself qualified for investigation or where it clearly affects the impact of the notified merger. Whether the second merger qualifies is beside the point; it is the impact on the original, pre-notified, merger which is important.
My noble friend has suggested that this provision would lend itself to companies wishing to forestall a pre-notified, contested merger. I am not sure how likely this is; they would have to move rapidly to merge with another firm, the merger of which with the bidder could lead to a reference. No doubt there are other forms of "poison pill" available to companies who are really determined. Besides, only 10 per cent. or so of mergers are contested, and pre-notification, though it is open to all, is likely to benefit primarily the great majority of straightforward, uncontested mergers.
In any case, for the reasons I have explained, this possibility would not necessarily be eliminated by my noble friend's amendment. The Secretary of State will still only change his decision where there are significant new factors, such as a potential competition problem, which did not exist before. In that case, it is quite right that it should be possible to take another look at the case. Merger control does not exist to help one side or the other, but to deal with the effects of mergers on the public interest.
914
Under the provision as amended, the impact on the notified merger would still remain a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State. We therefore question whether in practice it makes any real difference. Either way, only the Secretary of State can decide, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, whether the new situation should be referred to the MMC. Either way his decision must be a reasonable one. He cannot arbitrarily re-open a case. While recognising the concern which underlies this amendment, we are not sure that in practice there is much of a problem here, or that, such as it is, we can do much about it. I hope that, in view of my remarks, my noble friend will be prepared to study what I have said and will withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining at such length the thinking behind not accepting my amendment, and indeed for explaining the thinking behind this part of the Bill. It sounded to me as if his argument was a good one, but naturally I shall need to study it with great care. It is possible that the matter may be re-opened at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148B:
Page 108, line 9, after ("withdrawn") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 148B, I shall, with the leave of the House, also speak to Amendments Nos. 148C and 148D. What is and is not appropriately left to secondary legislation has been much debated in your Lordships' House and in Committee. But I think there would be agreement that some matters are best dealt with in regulations. These include many of the details of the pre-notification system which do not affect the essential principles. Many of these are matters where requirements could change over time, or in the light of experience.
The powers in new Section 75D already enable us to provide when merger notices from pre-notifiers are treated as received, and the manner in which notices and information are to be given to or by the Director General of Fair Trading. Amendment No. 148D fills a small but significant gap by enabling us to provide when information is treated as given as well as the manner of doing so. Information supplementing the original merger notice, whether requested by the director general or not, must be provided in good time for the authorities to act on it, and provision for this is made in new Sections 75B(6)(b) and 75C(1)(c). The time at which information is provided could, therefore, be critical, so we must be able to say when this is regarded as occurring, just as we can for merger notices. It is in companies' interests that this should be clear, as failure to disclose information in time could leave a merger open to further scrutiny.
Amendments Nos. 148B and 148C are drafting amendments. They divide the paragraph concerned,

915
which would otherwise become rather long and cumbersome, into two paragraphs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 148C and 148D:
Page 108, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("(bb) provide for").
Page 108, line 14, at end insert ("and the time at which such information is to be treated as provided or disclosed".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 148C and 148D en bloc. I have just spoken to these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 148E:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of Director in relation to mergers.
( ) In Part V of the Fair Trading Act 1973, in section 76 (functions of Director in relation to merger situations) at end insert—
"(c) to satisfy himself, before making recommendations under (b) above, that—

(i) if there are issues other than the competition issue, interested parties are aware of his concerns and have had reasonable opportunity to comment on them;

(ii) reasonable time-limits have been given to interested parties for comment before he makes his recommendations;

(iii) the roles and responsibilities of parties appearing before him are properly identified and defined;

(iv) the facts of the matter before him have been fully established; and

(v) advisers giving evidence to him have done so as though section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (misleading statements and practices) had applied, namely that it is a criminal offence to—

(a) make a statement, promise or forecast which the adviser knows to be misleading, false or deceptive or dishonestly conceals any material facts; or

(b) recklessly make (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, made his statement in response to my Private Notice Question on 3rd April I indicated that I would table an amendment to this Bill which reflected some of the recommendations made by the inspectors in what I take to be the House of Fraser report. I say "I take to be" because I have no copy of the House of Fraser report and I only know what I know as a result of reading certain newspapers.
I tell noble Lords frankly that I have addressed the problem of how far it is proper for me to refer to the report, or what I take to be the report. I have taken advice on the matter. My conclusion and the advice I have received is that I should refer to the report only as strictly necessary in order to explain the amendment which I am moving this afternoon. I propose to observe that rule.
At present, when the director is required to exercise his functions in relation to mergers there is no onus on advisers to verify information that they give to him. There is no onus on advisers to substantiate the assurances they may give to the director, or
916
to the Secretary of State. There is no indication anywhere in the statute that the advisers, or the principals, should apply the same standards of behaviour in making representations and providing information to the authorities as they do under the Financial Services Act when issuing a prospectus. That seems to me to be a serious gap in the present legislation which the House of Fraser report exposed.
The inspectors expressed the hope that it was rare for deception of regulatory bodies to be practised on such a grand scale. I hasten to add that they found no fault with the Director General of Fair Trading or his staff, but they pointed out that the comfort taken by the Office of Fair Trading from the assurances of the advisers was greater than the comfort those advisers thought they were giving. The inspectors said that that lack of meeting of minds on the giving and taking of comfort in this or any other case must be overcome in future if healthy Government-City reliance and trust was to prosper.
I believe that that is the important point. It is the point that I am addressing in moving the amendment. There is confusion about the role of advisers when they make representations to the director. There is confusion about the status of discussions between interested parties and the Office of Fair Trading. Above all, there is confusion about how much weight should be placed on the assurances given by advisers, and by principals, to the director in order to allow him to exercise his function in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to whether or not a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I said earlier that the Secretary of State is also vulnerable in this respect. A press notice was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry on 14th March 1985 about the House of Fraser takeover in which the Secretary of State of the day announced that he took into account the statements made, and assurances given and the support given to those statements and assurances by Kleinwort Benson Ltd., which was one of the advisers to one of the parties in the transaction. The Secretary of State himself relied on the advisers to do their homework with due diligence and to make sure that they got all their facts right.
The amendment tracks the recommendations of what I take to be the House of Fraser report almost in its entirety, with the exception of paragraph (v). Taking paragraph (i) first, the inspectors recommended that,
"If there are issues other than the competition issue" —
which is the major issue to which the Government address themselves when deciding whether or not to make a mergers reference—
"interested parties are aware of his [the director's] concerns and have had reasonable opportunity to comment on them".
There have been occasions when the director has expressed concerns about issues other than the competition issue. It seems a sensible recommendation that the parties concerned should be aware of the director's thinking and should be allowed to comment.
Secondly, they should be allowed to comment within a reasonable period of time. They should not

917
be asked to comment overnight as to whether their company is too highly leveraged, whether they are in breach of some patent regulation, or whatever the director may be worried about.
Thirdly, the roles and responsibilities of parties appearing before the director should be properly identified and defined. If a party comes before the director as an adviser the director should be able to satisfy himself that the role of adviser is properly defined—this is the merchant bank and the lawyer —so that there is no doubt as to who is playing what role.
Finally, paragraph (iv) sets out the inspectors' recommendation that the facts of the matter before the director should be fully established. Any material which is put before the director should be properly researched and properly verified, as is the normal course in the case of a prospectus or another document in a takeover.
Paragraph (v) is not a recommendation of the inspectors in what I take to be the report. It goes further than those recommendations. The Financial Services Act 1986 lays down that anybody who makes a misleading statement or recklessly makes a statement which is false or deceptive which induces an investment or a transaction leading to investment is guilty of a criminal offence. If that is the case with regard to a prospectus it should be the case for information given and submissions made to the director in regard to mergers and takeovers.
Your Lordships may wish to ask yourselves how the director satisfies himself that that is the case. I believe that the director could properly say to advisers, "I should like you to sign a piece of paper saying that the information you have given me is in accordance with the Financial Services Act requirement". I am perfectly certain that any reputable adviser signing that piece of paper would understand the rules of the game; namely, that the information communicated to the director must be of prospectus validity and must be properly researched.
I believe that the amendment plugs an important gap in our existing system for regulating mergers. That gap was demonstrated in the case that I have mentioned. I believe that the director has a right to be able to satisfy himself that what he is told is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Government would do well to attend to the inspectors' recommendations and to what I have put forward this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I rise to make a contribution after the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, with some surprise because I had not realised that in regard to these amendments he would, to use his happy phrase, track his argument on the case of the House of Fraser. I do not approach the amendment having in any way regard to the House of Fraser; I am totally ignorant of any matters associated with it. I shall certainly not read from anything that has been published or support my arguments regarding the amendment by reference to the vague generalisations that have been floating around in connection with the House of Fraser.
918
I looked at the amendment objectively because parts of it—sub-paragraphs (c)(i) to (c)(iv) inclusive—are associated with the earlier amendment that I put forward invoking, perhaps rather pompously, questions of public interest and fairness. I believe it is important that when there are matters before the Director General of Fair Trading or the Secretary of State and where,
"there are issues other than the competition issue, interested parties are aware of his concerns and have had reasonable opportunity to comment on them".
I support sub-paragraph (i) on purely basic grounds of common sense and fairness. The same applies to sub-paragraph (ii), which refers to "reasonable time-limits", to sub-paragraph (iii) which provides that,"
"the roles and responsibilities of parties appearing before him are properly identified and defined",
and to sub-paragraph (iv) which provides that,
"the facts of the matter before him have been fully established".
It seems to me that those four suggestions are perfectly proper and should have been adopted by the Government irrespective of whatever happened in the House of Fraser.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, explained, this amendment is concerned with the statements and comments made to the Director General of Fair Trading before he submits his advice on a merger to the Secretary of State. It raises a number of different issues and, in dealing with them, I propose, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to concentrate on the substance of the amendment and not on a widely publicised case which may or may not have prompted it.
Given that the inspector's report has not been published, as the noble Lord made clear, he will not expect me to reveal whether it contains any of the matters to which he referred. That will no doubt emerge in due course, but, as I said, I shall deal with the amendment on its merits. Should a case be made for further changes to the legislation or to procedures, we shall consider it in the same way. This is not the appropriate time to go into questions about a particular case even were aspects of that case not before the Judicial Committee of this House. Noble Lords have had the benefit of a full statement on the report on House of Fraser which my noble friend the Secretary of State made on 3rd April. I have certainly nothing to add to what he said then.
Perhaps I may now return to the amendment. Before making recommendations to the Secretary of State, the director general is to satisfy himself upon a number of points, set out in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v). The first is that, if there are issues other than competition, interested parties are aware of the director general's concerns and have had a reasonable opportunity to comment on them. The second is that interested parties have been given reasonable time to comment.
This amendment in fact anticipates Amendment No. 148L which will give the director general a duty to consider representations from interested parties.

919
That results from a commitment that my noble friend the Secretary of State gave during Committee, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as responding admirably to the Committee's concerns. Since our amendment responds to those concerns, it is a little strange that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has tabled a similar amendment.
That is by the way; the point is that the director general must consider representations by interested parties, whether on competition or on other issues. Our amendment would reinforce that duty. In doing so, he must act reasonably; so it follows that he must allow adequate time for comments. If he did not do so, he could be regarded as failing in his duty. There is obviously a balance to be struck here between allowing time for comments and enabling the Secretary of State to reach a decision as soon as practicable, as the law also requires. Mergers should not be unduly delayed, consistent with the proper carrying out of the authorities' functions.
Indeed, one of the aims of the pre-notification system is to help expedite simple cases. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was himself concerned about the power to extend the period for consideration indefinitely. Limiting the number of extensions is indeed something that we are considering, but of course that would mean comments having to be submitted promptly if a decision is to be taken within the specified period.
Up to this point, then, we believe that the noble Lord's concerns are already met by the legislation as we propose to amend it in this Bill. But, to the extent that sub-paragraph (i) goes further and requires the director general to tell interested parties about concerns which he may have relating to a merger, then we have reservations. Where the director general has concerns on particular points, he will naturally, where appropriate, seek comments on those within the limits imposed by confidentiality. So, to that extent, this point too is already met. But what is appropriate and proper will depend on the case, and the rigid requirement proposed could not take account of that.
Moving on to sub-paragraph (iii), the question of the roles of the persons appearing before the director general is of course primarily a matter for them to resolve among themselves. Naturally, it is desirable for the Office of Fair Trading to know in what capacity people are acting, what their responsibilities are and who may be in the lead. This is something we shall want to ask in the context of the pre-notification system. But this is essentially a procedural matter; it can be established under the law as it stands and it is difficult to see how it can be legislated for.
As to sub-paragraph (iv), naturally it is desirable fully to establish the facts relevant to the public interest before advice is given to the Secretary of State; that goes without saying. If, in the event, it proves that there were material facts which had not been made public and of which the Secretary of State or director general were unaware at the time, then the law provides that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can still be made, provided that this is done within six months of the new material facts emerging. This, together with the
920
new offence, to which I shall come in a moment, should enable the authorities to rely on information that they are given without having to seek independent verification on every point, which would be a practical impossibility.
I should remind the noble Lord that it was not in doubt that my noble friend the Secretary of State had the power to refer the takeover of House of Fraser to the MMC on the basis of new material facts revealed by the inspectors' report. In fact, he decided, in accordance with the director general's advice, not to do so. It is that point which is at present before the Judicial Committee of this House.
Sub-paragraph (v) as it stands would merely require the director general to satisfy himself that advisers had acted as though subject to Section 47 of the Financial Services Act. How he is to do that, and why advisers should oblige, is not clear. I take it that the noble Lord actually wants to subject them to Section 47. As he knows, the Bill itself introduces a new offence of giving false or misleading information to the competition authorities—not just the director general, but the Secretary of State and the MMC as well. That would apply to anyone who gives information either knowing it to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly gives it; that is, disregards whether it is true or not. It would apply to principals or advisers. Moreover, those who supplied information for the purpose of giving it to the authorities would be similarly caught.
There was some discussion about Section 47 of the Financial Services Act in Committee following which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde wrote to the noble Lord. As he said in his letter, Section 47 deals with the very different and, in our view, more serious matter of making false statements to induce people to make investments. Given the general offence that we are already introducing, a further offence here is quite unnecessary.
The sole additional point with which the noble Lord's amendment is concerned, it seems, is the severity of the maximum penalty, which is seven years' imprisonment for Section 47, but only two years for the new offence and, for that matter, for the comparable offence in Section 200 of the Financial Services Act. During Committee, however, the noble Lord did not, as I understand it, want the penalty for the new offence increased. If so, I cannot understand why he should have changed his mind. It surely cannot have been as a result of something that he may have read. Ever since my noble friend was advised by the Director General of Fair Trading that there were new material facts in a certain case, it should have been clear that there was some question whether the authorities had previously been given misleading information.
I should add that we are not introducing this offence in response to any particular case. We like to see things in perspective and it has in fact been our intention to introduce this new broader offence for some time. We are doing so simply because it seems to us wrong that people should be able to give false information to the competition authorities with impunity. Nothing has happened to change our view that two years is an appropriate maximum penalty for an offence of this kind.

921
I apologise that it has been necessary to take up so much of your Lordships' time, but there are a number of separate points here which deserve careful consideration. I hope that I have shown why many of the points are already adequately provided for in the legislation as it is or as it will be amended by the Bill. Therefore, as I have explained, the changes in the amendment do not seem to us at present to be necessary. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my reply and feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in an endeavour to clarify my mind about the Government's views in regard to paragraphs (i) to (iv) of subsection (c), which were the subject of my address, perhaps I may point out that in the course of his presentation the Minister referred to Amendment No. 148L tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. I should like to ask him this question. Does he in effect have some sympathy (I shall not put it any higher than that) with the four parts of paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 148E, and are most of those matters to be dealt with in other amendments put forward by the Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall obviously be coming to Amendment No. 148L in a moment or two. I considered the different paragraphs in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and commented on each one of them, in particular that one which, as I said, would come up again with Amendment No. 148L.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord again sits down, I did not gather what his position was. I heard his comments in relation to those four paragraphs, but he was reading rather quickly and I did not quite understand the position. Rather than delay the House, perhaps it will be best for me to read what he said in Hansard.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to have paused but I thought that the noble Lord had received by carrier pigeon a message which he wished to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Obviously I was mistaken.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding fully to this amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his commentary on it. For myself I find it hard to understand how Amendment No. 148L which the Government are proposing covers my points. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, agrees with me that there are certain disparities between the two amendments.
Perhaps I may go through the Minister's explanation. I understood him to say that in the normal course of events the director would make interested parties aware of his concerns. That was obviously not the case in one important instance and that is why the inspectors who produced this report, which I have not seen, made what I believe to be a recommendation to that effect. The Minister then said that it was possible for the roles of the different parties that appeared before the director to be established by the law as it stands. Having looked at the law and having been a practitioner under the
922
law as it stands for some considerable time, I find it difficult to see where the law allows the director to determine exactly who is doing what and in what role. No doubt the Minister will be able to point me to that section of the law as it stands which allows the director to do that.
As regards the verification of the facts, I accept what the Minister says and that the Bill amends the status of the information that is to be provided to competition bodies. That is welcome and I am glad that the Government have accepted that particular recommendation. Nevertheless, the point that I was trying to make in Committee—and the noble Lord referred to it—concerned penalties. I was not trying to increase the penalties but simply trying to align them to make sure that the offence of providing misleading information or making a misleading statement or recklessly making a statement which would be false or deceptive carried the same penalty whether an organisation was making it to a private investor and inducing an investment decision or to a competition authority. It seemed to me very odd that there was a discrepancy between the two penalties. However, I shall not pursue that point very far. I made it in Committee and make it again to the Minister; it is just a question of alignment of penalties under what I regard as similar types of offence.
I am glad that the Government have given careful consideration to these anonymous recommendations which have been reproduced in my amendment. I believe we shall have to look at what the noble Lord has said. He has been kind enough to address himself, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, quite rightly mentioned, to the generality of the problem. It is not a problem of a particular instance; in my view it is a problem of a general nature. I shall certainly look as what he has said. Having heard the debate on Amendment No. 148L, we may if necessary come back to the problem at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 148EA:
Before Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
("Employee representations
"84A. In carrying out an investigation on a merger reference the Commission shall seek representations from relevant employees and employee organisations and from relevant consumer organisations." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 148L. Our discussion in Committee referred to employee organisations and relevant consumer organisations. The Government undertook to look at this general problem and they have come forward with Amendment No. 148L, which instructs the director to:
"take into consideration any representations made to him by persons appearing to him to have a substantial interest".

923
We welcome Amendment No. 148L but wonder whether Amendment No. 148EA in either words that track the wording of Amending No. 148L or in my wording would be appropriate. After all, if the director must take into consideration various matters, it seems to us to be only right that the commission also should do that. Because the commission deliberates at much greater length (obviously, under the system) and with much greater thoroughness than the director can possibly do in the time available and because the commission has this responsibility, it seems to us necessary to ensure that the commission actively goes out and seeks representations from the bodies which are most concerned. Certainly the director can rightly take into consideration any representation made to him, but we believe that the commission should go out and seek representations from similar bodies. It seems to me that if the Government have conceded on the director point, they should also concede on the commission point. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, briefly I should like to welcome the government amendment, Amendment No. 148L, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It seems to me that Amendment No. 148EA tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston, fills a gap which is essential to be filled in the present practice in relation to the position of the commission. New Section 84A rightly suggests that:
"In carrying out an investigation on a merger reference the Commission shall seek representations" —
and seeking representations is an important matter-
"from relevant employees and employee organisations and from relevant consumer organizations".
I support this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I was told that, not long ago in a case that shall be nameless, the trade unions concerned wrote to the commission and were not rebuffed. There were other interested parties who did the same. There was apparently no need for legislation to make this possible. Even if it is a question of importance that people should be sought out, I should have thought that the amendment provided a little "nannying". If people have a strong view about a merger in relation to their company it is up to them to take the initiative. If they do not have such a feeling, then jolly bad luck. But I do not think that one needs to have legislation which provides that these people are sought out. The other people involved in the case I mentioned would not be covered by this amendment, but they still took the initiative and were not rebuffed.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying on behalf of the CBI, therefore— —
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, although this is the Report stage, perhaps I may say that I am not speaking on behalf of the CBI. I am speaking from personal experience.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I may surely ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, before he sits down. Is he saying that that is not in order?
I am asking the noble Lord before he sits down, speaking as he is, in his own personal capacity, and not on this occasion for the CBI, whether he is saying that employees and employee organisations and consumer organisations will know what is going on. Is it not a duty of the commission—which does not have great publicity associated with it—to seek representations that are relevant?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as I obviously have not sat down, the answer is that I am quoting from personal experience. I should have thought that the situation which I have experienced could well happen again. I do not think that one needs to use the legislation to help people along in the way that is intended, as I said earlier.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I had not intended to get involved here. However, my noble friend Lord Mottistone is now suggesting that there is some "nannying" involved in the amendment. Since by statute we have set up both the Office of Fair Trading and the commission, it seems to me that it should be charged with all relevant responsibilities. In the light of changed circumstances over the past few years, I believe that those responsibilities should be considered. This amendment seeks to look at them again. In the complexity of company share movements today, with mergers of subsidiaries by other foreign-owned companies, there would be many, notably employees, who would not necessarily be aware of the direction in which the company might be moving or, more certainly, might not have the ability to raise the questions with which an office would be charged were the amendment accepted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, says, this fills a very small gap. I believe that there is more right on that side of the argument than in the argument of my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with permission, not only shall I reply to Amendment No. 148EA, but I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 148L, because both these amendments arise from the same debate in Committee on amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Those amendments were designed respectively to give the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a duty to seek representations on mergers from relevant employees, employee organisations and consumer organisations.
In replying to that debate, my noble friend the Secretary of State agreed to consider giving the Director General of Fair Trading, in advising on mergers, a duty to take into consideration any representations received from interested parties. Amendment No. 148L imposes such a duty and is in fact drafted in very similar terms to the existing duty on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under Section 81(1)(a) of the Fair Trading Act.

925
My noble friend explained why he was not prepared to go further, either in respect of the director general or the MMC. It would be far too onerous to require the director general to seek out representations, and invidious to single out particular persons or groups to be approached. Nevertheless, the amendment would clearly include within its scope, where relevant, employees and trade unions, and consumer organisations, which were the groups about which noble Lords opposite were particularly concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said on that occasion that my noble friend had responded admirably to his concerns. Given that we have done exactly what we then undertook to consider, I have to say that we were surprised, and perhaps a little disappointed, to see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had after all retabled the amendment applying to the MMC. The reply then had seemed to suggest that the noble Lords were satisfied with our response on the MMC.
As I have indicated, the MMC is already under a duty to take into consideration representations from anyone with a substantial interest in the subject matter of a reference, and bodies which are representative of such persons. This is in Section 81(1)(a). The fact that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment as an amendment to Section 84 leads me to wonder whether he has looked sufficiently carefully at Section 81. If he does, he will see that in addition to the provision I have just mentioned, the MMC must give interested parties the opportunity of an oral hearing, unless that is impracticable or unnecessary. The concerns of employees and consumers are thus already well catered for.
Furthermore, turning to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the MMC already takes appropriate steps to alert interested parties to the reference and to invite them to submit views. This is in addition to publishing the reference, which the Secretary of State is required to do. As well as advertising its inquiries in the press, the MMC writes to persons and organisations it considers may wish to give evidence, bearing in mind the nature of the merger. In practically all merger inquiries, these include the CBI and relevant employee organisations, and, depending on the subject matter, any relevant consumer organisations. By way of example, I would refer noble Lords to paragraph 5 of Appendix 1.1 of the report on Elders' bid for Scottish and Newcastle.
As with the director general, it would be invidious to single out certain groups for special treatment. That would imply that they had some special right to have their views heard, and that these carried more weight. As my noble friend said in Committee, this would exclude many other groups which might have as great or greater interest in a merger, such as industrial suppliers, competitors and customers. Those with an interest will obviously vary from case to case. Under Section 81, it is for the MMC to decide who has a genuine interest in a particular case. It is also for it to weigh up the views of all these particular interests and arrive at a balanced assessment of the overall public interest. By placing certain interest groups above others, the amendment
926
would detract from its role as the neutral arbiter of the public interest.
For these reasons, while we believe Amendment No. 148L represents a small but useful improvement to the legislation, we continue to believe that Amendment No. 148EA is misconceived. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams will consider what I have said and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his lengthy explanation of Section 81 of the Fair Trading Act, which I have read a number of times over the past few years. The difference is between passive acceptance of representation and actively seeking representation. That is the major problem. We are grateful to the Government for accepting our point on the role of the director. Nevertheless we believe that the commission should go out actively and seek representation instead of relying on Section 81(1) and passively accepting such representations as appear to it to be acceptable. Nevertheless, we are coming up to the witching hour of dinner. I do not propose to carry this matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. We shall not return to this Bill before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Antarctic Minerals Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, adopted at Wellington on 2nd June 1988 and signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 22nd March 1989. The Bill will prohibit mineral activities in Antarctica by British companies and nationals, except prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or another contracting party to the minerals convention, and will enable the Secretary of State to grant licences for prospecting activities in accordance with the convention.
It may be helpful to your Lordships to consider the background against which the Bill is set. Although traces of a wide varie1y of hard rock minerals have been found in Antarctica, none has been found which would be economically exploitable, even if situated next door to markets for them. Public attention has focused more on Antarctica's potential hydrocarbon resources than on hard rock minerals. I should emphasise, however, that it is not known whether any hydrocarbon resources exist in economically exploitable quantities. If they do exist, they are probably located offshore where the technical problems of exploiting them would, in any case, be far greater than those currently being faced in the

927
Arctic. While their exploitation is probably a long way off, the same may not be true of prospecting for them.
The Antarctic treaty makes no provision concerning the mineral resources of Antarctica. From the outset of the minerals convention negotiations, Britain has shared the view of its Antarctic treaty partners that it would be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to reach agreement to regulate minerals activity in the political circumstances peculiar to Antarctica once commercially viable quantities of minerals had been located.
Perhaps I may describe in detail some of the basic provisions of the convention. Its fundamental purpose is to prohibit the carrying out of any Antarctic mineral resource activity except in accordance with its provisions. The convention provides for three stages of mineral activity: prospecting, exploration and development. Prospecting is aimed at identifying areas of mineral resource potential and excludes deep dredging or excavations, or drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres. Exploration is aimed at the identification and evaluation of specific mineral resource occurrences or deposits. Development is aimed at the exploitation of specific mineral resource deposits.
The convention establishes two permanent institutions: a commission on which will be represented all Antarctic treaty consultative parties and other qualified states; and a scientific, technical and environmental advisory committee composed of all parties to the convention. If an area of the Antarctic is opened for exploration and development, the commission shall also establish a regulatory committee composed of 10 members of the commission, including the claimant or claimants (if any) whose territory is included in the area.
The operation of the convention is based crucially on a distinction between prospecting on the one hand and exploration and development on the other. Prospecting is defined so as to ensure that it should have no greater environmental impact than scientific research activity of a similar character. For that reason, prospecting is not subject to authorisation by the convention's institutions, although it must be carried out in accordance with the convention, including any relevant measure the commission may adopt. It is the responsibility of the prospector's state to ensure his compliance with the relevant provisions of the convention.
The convention recognises, however, that exploration and development give rise to potential environmental consequences of an altogether greater magnitude and provides for stringent environmental controls and operator liability. For that reason no exploration or development can begin until it is unanimously agreed that it should do so. The Bill before your Lordships, by providing only for prospecting, takes account of this crucial difference. I shall return to this point in due course.
Some may ask whether it was necessary to conclude the convention at all and whether its entry into force would give rise to another gold rush which might have unwelcome consequences for the fragile
928
Antarctic environment. No one knows for sure whether or not there are economically exploitable mineral resources in Antarctica, but that is not to say that at some point in the future there may not be those who will wish to go there to find out. Given the existence of opposing views as to whether sovereignty can or cannot be exercised in the Antarctic, any unregulated search for minerals would certainly give rise to disputes which would threaten the peace in Antarctica and the maintenance of the Antarctic treaty. It was with this possible threat to the peace in mind, much more than any desire to exploit Antarctic minerals, that the Antarctic minerals convention was negotiated.
It would not be true to say, as has been said in some quarters, that it is the convention itself which will give rise to the risk of environmental damage in the one remaining area of the world which is generally regarded as pristine. On the contrary, it was the fear of the damaging consequences which would result from an unregulated scramble for minerals which prompted the Antarctic treaty consultative parties to negotiate the convention. Moreover the convention arrives at no conclusion as to whether Antarctic mineral activities are acceptable or not. Instead, it provides for an assessment to be made, case by case, as to whether they are acceptable and, if so, provides for their detailed regulation.
Had the convention not been negotiated, or were it not to enter into force, there is no guarantee that minerals activities in Antarctica would not take place. Such uncontrolled activity would have far graver consequences for the Antarctic environment than would be the case if the convention were given effect. Thus, it is not the convention which will give rise to temptation: it was the recognition of the possibility of temptation which gave rise to the convention.
It may be asked whether this Bill will benefit British industry. The convention provides a framework within which British industry can make decisions in the light of market forces leading to the prospect of benefiting from Antarctic minerals, but which will at the same time require industry to meet the full costs of their activity and of any environmental consequences. While UK industry continues to see no present commercial justification for minerals activity in Antarctica in the foreseeable future, it was consulted throughout the negotiation of the convention and I believe that the political factors which have led to the conclusion of the convention are well understood. The combination of generally low market prices for hard rock minerals and hydrocarbons, the high costs and logistic difficulties of operating in Antarctica, together with a paucity of reliable data, at present act as a deterrent to serious commercialinterest.
But the cornerstone of the Antarctic treaty system is foresight. What might be a matter of negligible interest now might well become important in years to come. It is therefore necessary to put a mechanism in place now designed to take account of a possible change of attitude in the future, either here or in other countries. While the likelihood of UK industry wishing to prospect for Antarctic minerals soon

929
appears now to be remote, it would still be a sensible precaution, by taking the necessary legislative action now, to enable industry to do so if competitors in other countries show interest.
I should remind your Lordships that the Bill provides for only the relatively benign activity of prospecting. Exploration and commercial development are prohibited until such time as a separate protocol on liability has been negotiated. This protocol will set out detailed rules and procedures relating to the operator's liability for damage caused to the environment, elaborating upon the convention provisions on this matter which will apply to prospecting. These negotiations have not yet begun and are likely to take some years to complete. When completed the Government will return to Parliament with another Bill seeking to implement the liability protocol and to provide for exploration and development in accordance with the convention. Thus Parliament is not being asked at this stage to enact legislation enabling British operators to undertake mineral exploration and development in the Antarctic. That may come later.
I should refer to the matter of United Kingdom sovereignty over the British Antarctic territory. There are two particular points which I wish to make. They refer to possible revenues from Antarctic mineral activity and to the issue of Argentine and Chilean claims to parts of the British Antarctic territory.
It has been our objective throughout the negotiation of the convention to ensure that the UK, as a claimant state in Antarctica, should have the largest possible share of any benefits from minerals activity within the British Antarctic territory. The financial provisions of the convention require that the costs of operating the institutions of the convention are to be the first call on revenues resulting from mineral resource activities. If there is a surplus of revenue beyond that which is required to finance the minerals commission budget, the convention provides that:
"The commission shall ensure that the interests of the members of the regulatory committee, having the most direct interest in the matter in relation to the areas in question, are respected in any disposition of that surplus".
The meaning of this provision in the convention, which your Lordships might be excused for viewing as somewhat opaque, is that in respect of any surplus deriving from mineral and hydrocarbon activity in the British Antarctic territory, the United Kingdom is one of the members of the regulatory committee,
"having the most direct interest",
and whose,
"interests are (to be) respected in any disposition of that surplus".
The same meaning is accorded to this provision by other claimants in respect of their claimed territories. Moreover, the convention provides that in the preparation of management schemes an important aspect is the question of:
"payments in the nature of or similar to taxes, royalties or payments in kind",
from which of course we expect to benefit.
Secondly, the regulation of mineral activities through procedures which involve the relevant
930
claimant state having a special role in relation to its claimed area causes a particular problem in the Antarctic peninsula where the UK, Argentina and Chile have over-lapping claims. For the minerals regime to work properly in that region it will be necessary for the three countries to work together, or at least to co-ordinate their individual actions. Both Argentina and Chile understand this and we agreed with them a common statement relating to future consultations which all three made on signature of the convention. I shall place a copy of the UK statement in the Library.
I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 prohibits any activities in Antarctica for, or for purposes connected with, the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources, except for prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or by another state party to the convention. Mineral activities going beyond prospecting will for the time being be prohibited altogether. As I have already said, this is because such further activities, called in the convention "exploration" and "development", cannot take place until a separate protocol on liability has been concluded, which will require separate primary legislation.
Clause 2 excepts from the prohibition in Clause 1 prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or by another contracting party to the convention. The term "prospecting activities" is defined so as to reflect the definition of prospecting in the convention.
Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to grant licences for prospecting activities. It is chiefly through licence conditions that the Government will be able to secure compliance with the convention, including its environmental provisions, by licensees. A licence is not to be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the carrying on by the applicant of the activities authorised by the licence would be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. Thus the requirements of the convention must in each case be satisfied, as must any other international obligations binding on the United Kingdom, such as those arising under the Antarctic treaty.
Clause 4 regulates the transfer of licences and enables the Secretary of State to revoke, vary or suspend a licence for non-compliance with a licence condition or with regulations to be made under the Bill, or where necessary to comply with any international obligation of the United Kingdom. These are important powers which may in particular be needed in order to secure compliance with the convention, but otherwise a licensee will be able to invest in prospecting activities in the secure knowledge that his right to do so will not be interfered with.
Clause 5 obliges a licensee to indemnify the Government against any claims brought against them in respect of loss or damage arising out of the licensee's authorised activities.
Clauses 6 and 7 empower the Secretary of State to make regulations and give directions, and the Government will thus also be able by these means

931
to ensure compliance with the requirements of the convention.
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors for the purpose of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 provide for a number of offences so that the Bill can be enforced.
Clause 12 and the schedule apply, as part of the law of the United Kingdom, certain convention provisions relating to strict liability for specified types of loss or damage, in particular damage to the environment.
Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to 20 deal with a number of supplemental matters, but I should like to say a few words in explanation of Clause 14. This clause empowers Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council to confer on specified courts in England and Wales criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of matters arising under the law of the British Antarctic territory. This clause is not directly related to the convention or its implementation, but it owes its inclusion to the prospect of mineral activities in the British Antarctic territory, however remote they may now appear.
There is at present very little risk of serious crime or need for civil litigation in the territory. But if mineral activities were to commence on any significant scale the risk would obviously increase. It would be impractical for a court actually sitting in the territory to deal with any but the most trivial cases. Alternative venues must therefore be found. The most obvious one is the Falkland Islands, and powers already exist in the British Settlements Acts to provide for its courts to try matters arising under territory law. But no powers exist to allow United Kingdom courts to do the same, and there may be circumstances in which this country would be the most appropriate forum. Clause 14 is designed to fill this gap in case the need should arise at some time in the future.
As I said, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Antarctic Minerals Convention. The convention fills an important and long-awaited gap in the Antarctic treaty system, the continued success and stability of which will be secured by the convention's early entry into force.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his helpful explanatory speech. In my view this is a most significant Bill which, as noble Lords know, has its complexities. Behind it lies a great continent and many years of difficult discussion and negotiation. To begin to obtain international agreement on so sensitive a subject is in itself an important achievement.
Many people deserve congratulation for that, including officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I should like to mention Mr. Christopher Beeby, the deputy secretary of New Zealand foreign affairs and the chairman of the
932
meeting which negotiated the convention. The convention, which was adopted in Wellington on 2nd June last year, was opened for signature for one year on 25th November last. However, before it becomes operative, 16 ratifications or accessions are necessary, and that includes the United States and the Soviet Union. However, there are 20 possible ratifications and I should be grateful if the Minister would say a little more about that to us.
Presumably 16 ratifications are the minimum laid down by the convention. May we take it that all the governments concerned are likely to add their signatures? I note that 38 countries adhere to the Antarctic Treaty and that 22 of those are consultative parties under it. The latter are to be members of the commission set up by the convention. As the noble Lord explained to us, the other institutions are the advisory committee, the regulatory committee and the special meeting of parties. It is essential that those four institutions should work smoothly. The convention can succeed only if the parties to it wish it to do so.
The commission's work appears to be crucial in that it has the task of identifying an area of Antarctica as one within which applications for exploration and development rights may be considered. The so-called special meeting of parties referred to by the noble Lord will later also consider that. As we look at this Bill, we are all conscious that from the very outset, and certainly from 1959 when the 12 countries with an obvious interest in Antarctica met in Washington on the initiative of the United States, they were embarking on a major task. The Antarctic Treaty stemmed from that historic meeting, but the problem then—and it still lurks in the background—is that of sovereignty. The noble Lord touched on that in his speech. Nationalism, national pride, an aggressive foreign policy motivated by varying causes and also, one regrets to say, greed combine to make lasting solutions very hard to find.
Seven of the countries represented in Washington, including our own, had over a long period made claims to sovereignty in Antarctica and we recall that that factor asserted itself during the Falklands conflict. That problem was not resolved in Washington, and we must note that it has not been settled by this convention but sovereignty has been put on the shelf or, to coin a suitable phrase, in the freezer.
Article IV of the 1958 treaty says that neither the treaty nor the Acts which flow from it shall prejudice the position of countries which claim sovereignty or others not recognising such claims. However, we must acknowledge that that was a big step forward because it helped to reach agreement on other aspects of the treaty and it was then agreed that Antarctica should be demilitarised and used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Therefore, it is good to know that on this great continent there are to be no military bases or fortifications, no weapon testing, no nuclear explosions and no disposal of radioactive waste. On the other hand, a system of inspection was set up to ensure that the agreement is observed.
As the House knows, there are other constructive provisions in the treaty, but I repeat that it was an

933
historic milestone for here is a vast uninhabited continent, with incalculable resources which presents a temptation to the greedy and to the megalomaniac, and history ancient and modern has not been short of such people. Mr. Beeby very properly commented that:
"the single most significant feature of the Treaty was that it very greatly reduced the potential for tension, rivalry, dispute and conflict that was inherent in the pre-existing situation".
However, the treaty did not deal with resources and some countries, in particular New Zealand, have been increasingly concerned that a lack of internationally agreed regulations and discipline could end in disaster. Once again, the Falklands conflict pointed in that direction because it showed that a reckless and stupid leader like Galtieri could upset the delicate balance. Furthermore, a disorgansied scramble for minerals could not only damage the environment but also revive the sovereignty issue.
The convention with which we are concerned in this debate is clearly a compromise between the parties and, while I recognise the achievement, I still have a slight feeling of unease and I have some questions to put to the noble Lord in a moment.
Personally I should like all countries to agree to leave Antarctica alone and not to prospect and mine for minerals there. It is to New Zealand's great credit that it made that proposal early on in the negotiations. As the noble Lord knows, it did not receive much support for its proposal. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that and on the British Government's reaction to the New Zealand initiative.
The noble Lord has dealt with the distinction between prospecting and exploration and development. There is of course the commitment in the convention to the protection of the unique Antarctic environment and of its dependent and associated ecosystems, and we must hope that the safeguards which have been laid down in support of those will be respected, for there are perils such as damage to the environment as a result of such operations. The convention defines the:
"unqualified and unlimited obligation of the operator to take necessary and timely response action".
All that is laudable but still leaves open the question of what action can be taken against a ruthless operator who refuses to observe the injunctions of the convention. Perhaps the noble Lord will also comment on that.
We must not be too euphoric. This Bill is very important but it does not give us the assurance that unregulated minerals exploitation will not take place. However, I hope that the British Government will now take the lead with New Zealand in Antarctic environmental protection. The Exxon oil spill in Alaska demonstrated the terrible impact of such accidents on polar regions. Should such an incident occur in the Antarctic, the inaccessibility of the continent would exacerbate the situation and there could be a huge ecological disaster. Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that everything is being done to strengthen the environmental controls outlined in the convention?
934
Perhaps I may give some examples of stricter measures which could be included. First, mandatory environmental impact assessments should be carried out before a licence is issued. That is Clause 3(3). Secondly, a mandatory inspection system should be set up. Thirdly, there should be provision for private prosecution of an operator for failure to comply with the terms of the Bill when it becomes law or the convention. That is Clause 10(3) Fourthly, the statutory maximum fine of £2,000 for offences under this Bill seems to me to be inadequate and I believe that it should be increased. We must also be concerned about the difficulty of regulating multinational companies over this Bill and I should appreciate the Minister's comments upon that.
Ideally, Antarctica should be vested in the United Nations, but short of that we must welcome the convention. It takes the Antarctic treaty a substantial step forward and gives hope that the last great undamaged continent will remain stable and peaceful. We welcome the spirit of co-operation which made possible the convention and we support this Bill and will assist its passage throughout all its stages.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, noble Lords have already spoken on a wide range of issues and others will follow. With a reputation as a conservationist and as one who has been to the Antarctic, I believe that it would be wrong for a debate to take place without sufficient reference being made to the very strong feelings of conservationists led especially by my lifelong friend Sir Peter Scott. I: have no doubt that the conservationists would have the support of the vast majority of the public if the issue was put to them. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that I support the Bill; I believe it expedient that it should be introduced. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to disregard what is so widely felt by so many people.
I welcome the Bill because it probably provides the only hope of discouraging the worst excesses by the human race, such as Valdez experienced recently, in the last unspoiled part of our planet. Having seen the beauty of the Antarctic myself, I support the Bill without enthusiasm and accept it as recognition of man's inability to leave anything in the world free of exploitation. I recognise the ultimate horror that could occur ecologically there, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said.
My instincts and sympathy are entirely with those who would like to see the Antarctic continent protected as a world park. Peter Scott has made many comments and public statements to that effect. Such a step is of course right in principle. We should hang our head in shame that we all belong to the most unprincipled and avaricious species in nature. Sadly, man is what he is at the present time. It is obvious when one reads all the papers that there is no hope, there is not a single chance, of getting universal agreement to the creation of a world park now.
I want to reassure people like Peter Scott and all those who support him that we are merely being pragmatic. We have to be pragmatic because I

935
believe that the Antarctic may well become a natural world park one day. I emphasise "one day" because at times over the last 40 years it has been a lonely road for conservationists; yet today most people in the world are alert and exercised about all aspects of environment. I fear that it is due not so much to principle or conscience but to pure fright. Few worried overmuch about destruction of habitat, marine pollution, acid rain, and so on, but when the threat to the atmosphere hit the headlines and people suddenly realised that one day future generations might not be able to breathe, everyone was stopped dead in their tracks and wanted to know more.
The remarkable transformation in public attitudes over only 40 years has exceeded any conservationist's wildest expectations. Suddenly, conservation of environment and protection of habitat has become the in thing, a rolling world-wide movement. If human attitudes can change to that extent over the last 40 years, I predict greater change and yet more enlightment over the next 40 years. If the growth in enlightement or, if you prefer so to call it, just fright and fear increases at only the same rate, world opinion—the will of the masses in all parts of the globe—may conceivably forbid the exploitation of the Antarctic in the 21st century. World opinion needs time, but is consolidating fast. The Antarctic, as has already been said, is a very sensitive part of the globe and crass mismanagement could occur unless the nations in the convention are very careful.
Since I suspect that it may not be feasible, commercial or economic to mine mineral or get oil from the Antarctic possibly within 40 years or at the earliest 20 years, it seems to me likely that the world—as we so presumptuously call ourselves—may well have turned against fouling up the Antarctic before the exploiters start to operate. Governments may then be obliged to restrain the exploiters. The Bill at this point is therefore simply essential to provide some ground rules and control well in advance before any reckless or ill-conceived activities can occur in the meanwhile.
The more time that we allow to pass the more difficult it may become to provide ground rules and put controls and restraints into place. It will be much more difficult to introduce legislation after a country or industry has foolishly started activities. That could lead to the break-up of the convention, as has been said. We should then have the worst of all worlds. The Bill is the best step that can be taken at present. The Bill—I shall press this with my conservation colleagues elsewhere—in my view is not an exploiters' charter, but by introducing strict ground rules it may well discourage them.
Conservationists need and should never give up the campaign to preserve the Antarctic. They should see the Bill as a useful instrument through which to monitor the convention's success or otherwise, especially in supervising environmental impact effectiveness. I therefore commend the Bill to the conservation movement.
I congratulate the Government on taking this expedient step. I am delighted to add congratulations to those already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
936
Cledwyn of Penrhos. However, I impress upon my noble friend that it will not be such an easy ride when we start talking about exploration and development. In view of the panic that may then be around the globe, it may possibly never happen.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I have just come back from the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the European Space Agency. It is not so unrelated to the Antarctic as noble Lords may think. Indeed, when I initiated a debate over 30 years ago asking Her Majesty"s Government to sign the convention for the Antarctic treaty, we visualised it perhaps as an initial practice against the time when the problems of sovereignty in space would arise. I shall not follow that now, however.
The Bill is not simply about minerals; nor is it simply to prevent mineral development or to encourage it. It is to maintain the peace of the Antarctic. This is a crucial point. It was the original purpose of the Antarctic treaty.
When I initiated the debate 30 years ago in an Unstarred Question, we had more time. I am appalled to find that I spoke for 45 minutes on that occasion. I shall not follow the precedent that I then set. Indeed, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich introduced the Bill that gave effect to the Antarctic treaty the debate was long, with many noble Lords taking part, among them the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
The Bill is continuing the process that was developed in the setting up of the Antarctic treaty. Here was a continent in which shots had actually been fired and the Argentine, Chile and Britain had made overlapping claims. It seems an absolute miracle to have that treaty. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos paid tribute to the officials who have been responsible. I remember in those days people like Brian Roberts. This is being continued by officials like John Heap and others who know the Antarctic treaty and are themselves committed conservationists.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, made that speech so that conservationists like my friend Peter Scott, whom I know is worried about the Bill, will recognise that it is far and away the best that can be achieved. I do not believe that it is possible—much as one would like to see it—to have the Antarctic as an area of total conservation. Unless there is agreement and a power to regulate, there are real dangers not just to the environment but to the peace envisaged and achieved through the Antarctic treaty.
The Antarctic treaty does not solve the problems of sovereignty; it gets round them. As to the experience of the operation of the Antarctic treaty and the co-operation achieved by countries such as the Argentine, the great majority of countries in the world, China, Russia, and many small countries, are signatories to the treaty. This development is a further contribution to peace.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, I have been to the Antarctic. Three years ago I had the

937
tremendous luck to go to McMurdo Sound and to see Scott's hut and my father's hut that the New Zealanders are trying to conserve. With American help I was able to go the South Pole and, above all, to see the incredible beauty of the Antarctic. The one thing that one would like to do is preserve it. Thirty years ago it was already threatened by tourists.
The Bill is only one measure. There will have to be other measures to regulate tourism in the Antarctic. I do not think we can regard this as the answer to the problems for ever, but it is a useful step in the right direction. I wish that noble Lords on all sides of the House could see how lovely it is. I prefer the Antarctic because I suffer from seasickness and there you do not have to undertake such an amount of sea travel. Now that you can fly to the Antarctic it is a tempting place for tourism. That business needs to be regulated also.
There are a number of legal points that will need to be looked at during the Committee stage. Perhaps the noble Lord may care to make some comment. We have had some very interesting comments from Lady Fox of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law as regards the extent to which some of these measures are secret or provide for secrecy even at the prospecting stage. As someone who has been involved in the minerals industry, I know that you do not keep mineral discoveries secret for very long whatever the secrecy laws have to say on the matter. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will comment on this and also on the application of law within the English courts without comparable regulations. It may be that that particular proposal has been misunderstood.
There are similar points that I hope the noble Lord will refer to, since otherwise we shall have to have a fairly detailed Committee stage in order to consider them. When it comes to the conclusion of what views we should take, I say that this measure is a real contribution to peace. I believe that it was Dick Laws, the Director of the British Antarctic Survey, who called the Antarctic a continent for science. Everybody is now aware of the importance of that continent for science. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister herself, who has strongly supported— sometimes with others who are not so keen on Antarctic research—the research that is so valuable in that area and which has to continue. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has done that for any party political purposes.
The British Antarctic Survey carries out by far the most cost-effective and efficient research of any country in the world. We are pre-eminent in this and great tribute should be paid to the work. I should like to continue for the further 40 minutes that I had 30 years ago, but it not possible. I remember a colleague in the other place who travelled a great deal. He wanted to get his lecture printed so he used the whole of an adjournment debate in order to get Hansard to print it. He then brought the reprints of it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will remember that. I do not intend to do that.
I want to conclude my remarks by emphasising the importance of the agreements. I particularly wish to make a few remarks on the comments made by
938
governments, including those who were consultative members and those who were not concerning the signing of this convention. I was particularly struck by the statement of Mr. Alberto Daverede, the Argentine representative and the head of the delegation. The British, the Chileans and the Argentines were all rivals in claiming the same area of the Antarctic. I do not believe that the British will ever make good their claims and I do not really mind. I want the British down there because they help to keep the peace.
Mr. Daverede said:
"Mr. Chairman, today we have come to the end of a long journey, having achieved the adoption of a Convention that constitutes a real challenge to the imagination. We are sure that the system established in the Convention will contribute to the strengthening of the Antarctic Treaty, to which it will be subordinated and of which system it will form an integral part. We believe that, as for other components of the Antarctic Treaty system, we have obtained by consensus"—
I stress the word "consensus" because this is an agreement which could not have been achieved without consensus. Those who wish for more stringent measures endanger what has been achieved by consensus. Mr. Daverede continued:
—"an instrument that respects the premises of that Treaty in its entirety, and that therefore it will result in being acceptable to all the States that make up the system, without prejudice to their juridical positions towards Antarctica".
Bearing in mind that Argentina has passionate views about its Antarctic claims, that is a statement that deserves wide publicity. I am very glad to pay tribute to the Argentine delegation on this occasion.
There are many areas that we can talk about and particularly the question of publication of information which perhaps the Minister can briefly deal with. I commend this Bill to all noble Lords in all parts of the House as a most valuable contribution to peace as well as to conservation. I do not believe that anyone will go mining in the Antarctic. This is a pretty bureaucratic measure and it will be very difficult for people, under the rules and regulations, to see much attraction in mining in the Antarctic. I hope that, effectively, the Bill will achieve the result that the Antarctic is really a park of preservation and beauty.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Buxton spoke of those who object to this Bill. Some would like to see a complete ban on exploitation for any purpose of the Antarctic. Five times between 1972 and 1979 the Antarctic Treaty consultative powers tried but failed to agree to a moratorium on the exploitation of Antarctic minerals. I agree with my noble friend Lord Buxton because I too am a conservationist. I have been chairman of the All-Party Conservation Committee of both Houses for the past 17 years. I too am a friend of Peter Scott and we all feel the same way. My noble friend has expressed absolutely what we feel.
I agree entirely with the provisions of this Bill, which now limits prospecting for minerals so that we can know whether, if it has to be done, that it will be wise and safe to mine. My noble friend Lord Buxton spoke about the future. Who knows what the coming years may bring? Minerals from the

939
Antarctic may benefit man but we must know whether the environmental risks will be acceptable. That we cannot know unless we have obtained the facts which this Bill will obtain for us. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke of the "Exxon Valdez", which ran aground in Prince William Sound and fouled 16,000 square miles of water and 800 miles of shore. A lesson like that will help to ensure that the environmental impact assessment which I understand must accompany every application to prospect will include the immediate availability of disposal equipment. If I am wrong about that, I hope the Minister will tell me. I believe that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Given these risks, the convention is without doubt the strongest measure for environmental protection that has ever been included in an international agreement. If on any point there is no agreement by consensus then there is no decision at all. Unlike fishery agreements, where a harmful activity continues unless it is decided that it shall be modified or stopped, this activity cannot even start unless the promoters can show that their proposed actions will not cause significant environmental damage.
I now turn to the Bill. As the Minister said, the important provision is the prohibition of all Antarctic mineral mining activity by British interests except prospecting activity as authorised, as a member of the convention, by the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied that such prospecting will not injure the environment. Here, the vigilance of the non-government organisations, the voluntary bodies, will be essential in guiding the Minister. The representation on the convention itself of the non-government organisations is limited by Article 34 to observer status only, and then only to those NGOs which are international. I hope the Minister will assure us that, so far as is within his powers, our representation on the commission and advisory committee will press the claims of such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the ICBP.
This Bill and the convention concern only the mineral exploitation of the Antarctic. Considering the costs involved and the nature of the terrain, it is unlikely that mining, if it takes place at all, will happen for many years. The convention originates from the Antarctic treaty, which does not deal with resources, whether living or mineral. The treaty powers wisely saw the need for a closer control here than it gave them. So for the foreseeable future the world must rely on the Antarctic treaty which, while ignoring territorial claims—or putting them in the fridge, as the noble Lord said—now deals with environmental protection, telecommunications, meteorology, transport, tourism and protected areas. Furthermore, only members of the Antarctic treaty can be members of the convention.
So though the convention is essential to the protection of Antarctica, it is the Antarctic treaty that matters perhaps even more to the peoples of the world, and that includes us. Considering the importance to us of the Antarctic treaty I am surprised to find that Clause 14 of the Bill, a clause that in no way relates to the implementation of the Antarctic Minerals Convention, has been put in to
940
achieve a minor tidying up of jurisdiction which has up to now been the responsibility of the Falkland Islands. I understand that the Antarctic treaty laws are due for revision. If that is so, Parliament should be able to consider such revision in its entirety, including Clause 14. Will this lessening now of a small measure of responsibility be understood by the Falkland Islanders?
It is not as though there will be an immediate flood of potential troublemakers into the area. Even the preparation of the environmental impact assessment and detailed arrangements for prospecting will take a considerable time. I can see no justification for introducing this irrelevant and minor provision into this important Bill at this time, unless of course the Minister can assure us that no other revision of the Antarctic treaty laws is necessary or intended within the next two or three years, in which case I gladly withdraw my objection.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their wisdom and expedition. The convention was drawn up in Wellington on 2nd June 1988 and was signed only recently by the Government. The time from signature to the drafting of the Bill shows what can be done where there is a political will. I congratulate the Government on the expedition with which they have brought the Bill to the House. It is none other than a domestication of a treaty obligation, and as such is extremely welcome. I cannot do better than support the points made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Buxton. In the short time available to me I should like to ask my noble friend two short questions which will no doubt do nothing other than demonstrate ignorance on my part but which might save time in Committee.
As I understand it, the South Orkney Islands are approximately 1 degree south of latitude 60 degrees south and presumably come within the ambit of the Bill and of the Antarctic treaty. I refer of course to Laurie Island, Powell Island, Coronation Island and Signy Island. Allied to that point I should like clarification with regard to the definition in the Bill of the term "Antarctica". I understand that the treaty obligation covers all land to the south of latitude 60 degrees south. However, the Bill itself speaks of,
"all areas of continental shelf which are adjacent to that continent or those islands".
What precisely does that mean? It refers of course to the continent of Antarctica. Would this impinge on South Georgia? I do not think that it would but it might do.
I welcome the Bill and again congratulate the Government on the expedition with which they have brought it forward. I also congratulate the experts who have done everything they can to assist the Government in that excellent endeavour.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for giving the Bill such a good welcome. It has been a useful

941
debate and has highlighted a number of important points to which I shall return in a moment. Perhaps I may begin by apologising for going into the Bill at such length but I felt it was important to set the scene for it. I hope that noble Lords will have borne with me for that. I hope also that that explanation has given some reassurance about some of the intricacies and reasoning that lay behind it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his plaudits for those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in New Zealand who have done so much to take forward the whole process. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Buxton for his understanding of why the Bill is necessary and for his magnanimous endorsement to the conservationists of what the Bill is all about. I too am very much a conservationist and share much of the thought which lies behind his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, paid a sound tribute to the Antarctic survey, for which I am grateful as I am sure it will be, and to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the role that she has played.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Craigton asked about the environmental impact assessment. This is a most important point. I can assure both noble Lords that environmental impact assessments will be required before any licence is given.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the New Zealand proposal for a world park. My noble friend Lord Buxton endorsed this as a possible solution to the problem. I agree that it is an interesting concept. I think that there are those who feel that perhaps such a suggestion was based more on emotion than on a rational or scientific approach. We do not accept that world park principles are necessarily irreconcilable with utilisation of Antarctic resouces. The purpose of the Antarctic Treaty system is to ensure that utilisation is pursued rationally. That is an important point. The Antarctic comes close to any practically conceivable world park, so far as any of us can possibly imagine.
As regards the important point about the environment and acidents, which is so very topical at present following the tragic accident in Alaska, there will always be a risk of such things happening. The convention requires that,
"technology and procedures are available to provide for safe operation and that there exists the capacity to respond effectively to accidents, particularly those with potential environmental effects".
Both my noble friends Lord Buxton and Lord Craigton referred to that fact; indeed, they referred to it in the context of the accident in Alaska. There is always the human element to contend with in any accident. However, I think that the convention goes so far as it can to avoid environmentally damaging consequences.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I hope that he will bear in mind the point I made that it is not only mining which is threatening the Antarctic. That is probably the least of the threats. Although this does not come under the Bill, recent accidents show what risks humanity creates and the dangers in the Antarctic.
942
Therefore, I hope that some further action will be taken on the whole question of access to the Antarctic and to tourism. On that matter I do not believe that those who advocate not signing the convention make any contribution to the conservation of the Antarctic.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Lord's point. I visited Christchurch about a year or so ago; I was given a thorough briefing there by the New Zealand authorities on the concerns they had about such matters. There are a whole range of different aspects which could have an impact. I think that the noble Lord is on to a very good point.
Perhaps I may clear up one point in connection with the idea of a world park—although it is not the same one—which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The point dealt with the United Nations' control of Antarctica. I must say to the noble Lord that the Antarctic Treaty has worked effectively now for over a quarter of a century. United Nations' moves to replace the treaty might risk unravelling demilitarisation and nuclear control provisions. When it comes to UN resolutions, it is possible that they could be prejudicial to the good management of Antarctica. It is not the United Nations' role to oversee international treaties negotiated outside its ambit. We and the treaty partners have registered our common disapproval by taking the unusual step of not paticipating in successive UN General Assembly votes on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised many points. One of them concerned the way in which ratification would come about. Assuming that by "ratification" he means entry into force, perhaps I may say to him that the treaty will enter into force when 16 out of the 20 consultative parties which participated in the adoption of the convention have ratified it. The 16 ratifications must include all those countries which assert claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica, together with the United States, and the Soviet Union. The 16 must also include five developing and 11 developed countries. Those who have signed so far are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguary, the USA, the USSR and the United Kingdom. The fact that the convention was adopted by consensus leads the Government to expect that other governments will sign in due course.
When the noble Lord asked whether everything possible was being done to strengthen environmental controls outlined in the convention, I can tell him that for the time being, and until the convention enters into force, nothing can be done under the convention itself. However, that is not to say that nothing can be done. Environmental impact assessments—which I have already mentioned—play an important part in the convention. Such assessments are also required under the Antarctic Treaty. The Government have prepared the first of such assessments in relation to proposals to build an air strip at Rothera, a British Antarctic survey station. The assessment has been circulated to all

943
Antarctic Treaty consultative parties for comment and it has been made available to the NGOs for comment. The Government place considerable importance on those procedures and believe that further use of them by Antarctic Treaty governments will develop consciousness and experience in such provisions and procedures and will indirectly strengthen the environmental controls of the convention.
It has been suggested that the statutory maximum of a £2,000 fine is too low. Under Clause 10, that is the penalty for summary convictions—that is to say, minor cases. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured if I tell him that in serious cases Clause 10 provides for unlimited fines for conviction on indictment. As regards countries, organisations or individuals transgressing the convention, and also in relation to the matter of regulating multinationals, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, taking both topics together, that each minerals operator, including a multinational company, must have a sponsoring state under the convention. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring state—that is, the state with which the operator has a genuine connection through being subject to its jurisdiction and control—to ensure compliance under its law. The Bill provides the necessary licensing powers and criminal penalties to enable the United Kingdom to control its own operators and to deal with those who breach the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has enormous experience, both personally and through family history by virtue of his father's work, concentrated—rightly, to my mind—on the international aspects of the Bill and the reasons lying behind their importance. I very much endorse what he said in respect of the Bill. The noble Lord said that it was about keeping the peace; indeed, that is an all-important aspect of which we must not lose sight. He asked for clarification of the effect under our domestic law of measures adopted by institutions established by the convention. He also asked whether such measures would be accessible and published. Indeed, he referred to them as perhaps being secret, and I am most grateful to him for giving me notice of those points.
The Bill would not make such mesures automatically part of UK law, nor would it make breach of such a measure a criminal offence. No such offence is included in the list of offences created by the Bill under Clause 10. The Bill provides various means by which the Government may secure compliance with measures adopted under the convention which constitute international obligations of the United Kingdom. For example, if the minerals commission adopted a binding measure prohibiting prospecting activity in a particular area of Antarctica, the Secretary of State could give effect to it under our law in a number of ways. He could do so by means of regulations under Clause 6(1)(b); or he could incorporate the prohibition in a condition of a prospecting licence under Clause 3, or by varying an existing licence condition under Clause 4; or, especially in an urgent case, he could issue a direction under Clause 7. An offence would only be committed
944
if there were then a failure to comply with the regulations, the licence condition or, as the case may be, the direction which implemented the commission measure by virtue of Clause 10(1)(d), (c) or (e) respectively. No offence would be committed if the commission measure had not been given effect in United Kingdom law in one of those ways. I hope that that information is useful to the noble Lord.
As regards publicity and accessibility to commission measures, none of course yet exists, but we envisage that they would be published by the Government and laid before Parliament as Command Papers. That is already the practice for measures adopted under the Antarctic treaty at meetings with consultative parties.
As to the scope of Clause 9 and the disclosure of information, the clause reflects the balance achieved between competing interests in the convention, especially in Article 16. The industrial interest was to ensure that commercially valuable information should not be disclosed, at least for an initial period, while environmentalists and others would like the greatest possible disclosure.
Clause 9 will protect potential or actual licensees from the disclosure of information supplied by them except in the circumstances set out in subsection (2). One of those is paragraph (d), which allows disclosure,
"in accordance with the convention or regulations made under Section 6".
The convention requires a great deal of information to be supplied to the institutions, in particular the commission, and for such information to be made publicly available subject only to specific rules designed to protect commercially valuable information. That openness is obviously desirable and necessary if environmental effects are to be properly assessed.
Compliance with the convention will therefore lead to the disclosure of a great deal of useful information. Moreover, provided that regulations under Clause 6 are compatible with the convention, Clause 9(2)(d) will enable them to require or permit the disclosure of information where that is considered necessary or useful; for example, for environmental protection purposes. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to study those complex explanations. I should be delighted to clarify them if I can be of any further use to him.
My noble friend Lord Craigton questioned the inclusion of Clause 14 in the Bill, and asked for an assurance that no other revisions of the Antarctic treaty laws are necessary or intended within the next two or three years. I readily give such an assurance. Although the Antarctic treaty is open to review as from 1991, there is no obligation upon the parties to do so. Even if there were such a review, which is far from certain, we cannot yet predict whether there would need to be primary legislation to amend the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. In those circumstances we thought it a sensible precaution to seek the powers provided in Clause 14. While I understand my noble friend's doubts, I hope that I explained in my earlier remarks the connection that Clause 14 has, if only indirectly, with the convention and the prospect of minerals activity in the British Antarctic territory. I

945
also pointed out that the Falkland Islands will remain an alternative venue for the trial of cases arising under British Antarctic territory law. I hope that that will have allayed my noble friend's concerns.
My noble friend Lord Morris asked whether the South Orkney Islands fell within the ambit of the Bill and the convention, in the general welcome that he gave the Bill and his remarks about the speed with which it has come forward. The answer in short is, yes. He asked whether the definition of the Antarctic and the continental shelf would include South Georgia. The short answer to that is, no. I could elucidate further, but I had better not delay the progress of the next piece of business.
In summary, the Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Antractic minerals convention to fill a gap within the Antarctic treaty system and to fulfil our commitment to the treaty. Following careful consideration, the Government are convinced that the convention meets our interests in strengthening the Antarctic treaty system as the guarantor of peace and stability in the region. It will adequately provide for the orderly regulation of any minerals activity that may take place there and protect the unique Antarctic environment.
I am grateful for the welcome the Bill has received. I understand the concerns which have been expressed on every aspect of it. I shall study with care the remarks that have been made. Again, I am grateful for the endorsement the Bill has been given. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 108 [Temporary restrictions on share dealings]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148F:
Page 114, line 327, at end insert—
("(4M) Nothing in subsection (4A) of this section makes anything done by a person outside the United Kingdom unlawful unless he is—

(a) a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen or a British National (Overseas),

(b) a body corporate incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of the United Kingdom, or

(c) a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom, either alone or in partnership with one or more other persons.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides for the extraterritorial application of the prohibition on share acquisitions following a merger reference. Outside the United Kingdom, it will apply only to the various classes of British citizens or United Kingdom companies and persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 148G:
After clause 109, insert the following new clause:
("Public Interest.
. In section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 delete the words "among other things".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not often that one rises confident that one is moving an amendment that will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I am confident because all I am attempting to do is to amend the present law to fall in line with the apparent interpretation by the commission of its duties and functions within the law.
As your Lordships will be aware, Section 81(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 states that the commission,
"in determining for any purposes to which this section applies whether any particular matter operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the Commission shall take into account all matters which appear to them in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, among other things, shall have regard to the desirability",
of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), which refer in the main to competition.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in earlier discussions today, suggested that competition was the main prong of the functions and duties of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. With respect, I believe that position is wrong because the competition element of the functions comes within "among other things"; in other words, at best it ranks in importance pari passu with any other relevant matters which appear to the commission to be against the public interest.
As recent history has made clear on numerous occasions, it is apparently the view of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and Her Majesty's Government that the only matter that should excite the public interest is competition. I shall give one brief illustration. My noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale asked my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it was in the public interest to ensure that those who endeavoured to take over a company should be seen—in his colourful phrase—as squeaky clean. My noble friend's bland answer to that was, no. What he meant was that the question of probity was absolutely central to the public interest in the determination of whether a merger or takeover should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
That is the kind of issue which I believe is causing much concern in the country. However, since that is the position of Her Majesty's Government and appears to be the position of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I think that the only decent thing to do is to get the law right, to rewrite the law so that it is in line with that somewhat strange policy which Her Majesty's Government appear to be following. That is the effect of the amendment, as I see it, to delete the words "among other things" because Her Majesty' Government's view with regard to competition is not that it is "among other things", it is that it is the absolute central plank of their thinking. I do not feel that there is any matter of public interest which Her Majesty's Government wish to be considered other than competition. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has drawn our attention to what I always thought was a drafting point. He has explained that it is not a drafting point but a point of central interest. I am bound to say that I have read Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act 100 times or 200 times in the course of my career. It has never occurred to me that the expression "among other things" inserted in it demotes the various criteria in Section 84 to matters which can be considered along with other things which are unspecified. It seems to me that the noble Lord has produced an amendment which the Government would do well to accept.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there were a number of discussions during the Committee stage about the public interest test set out in Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act. Many of your Lordships will therefore know that the section requires the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in deciding whether something is against the public interest, to take into account all matters that appear to it to be relevant. It goes on to give a list of particular matters to which it must have regard. The list is inclusive, not exclusive. This amendment seems designed to remove the inclusivity so that the MMC would be required only to have regard to the desirability of those matters specified.
The list is quite wide-ranging: it includes maintaining and promoting competition, promoting the interests of consumers, promoting the development of new techniques and new market entry, maintaining and promoting the balanced distribution of industry and employment in the UK and promoting competitive exports. But it is not comprehensive, and was never designed to be. There will from time to time be matters which clearly concern the public interest but which are not mentioned here.
If I could mention one or two, there is the question of leveraging, which I know concerned some of your Lordships. The MMC looked at that in a case a couple of years ago and took the view then that the leveraging involved would not make the merger operate against the public interest. But this was a view on balance, as all its findings must be, weighing one factor against another. The amendment would make it difficult for the MMC— —
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but does "leveraging" come under the heading of "other things"? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, that is what I am trying to explain. It is something which must or could be taken into account, and it was on this occasion. But this amendment would make it more difficult for the MMC to base an adverse public interest finding on a factor not listed here, and so less weight would be attached to such factors.
Another instance, about which I know my noble friend has been concerned, is evidence emerging from an inquiry under the Companies Acts. Given the interest of my noble friend in one particular case, I was in fact rather surprised by his amendment. As my noble friend the Secretary of State explained
948
during Committee, if such an inquiry were to reveal new material facts concerning a merger, he would have the power to refer the merger back to the MMC. He might or might not choose to exercise that power. But the effect of this amendment could be to hamper the MMC in assessing the public interest in the light of these new facts, if they did not fall under one of the existing factors. This would of course be relevant to my noble friend's consideration of whether to make a reference. There would be little point in his doing so if the MMC were then precluded from reaching an adverse public interest finding on the basis of these new facts.
Noble Lords will say that if there are other matters which could be relevant, let them be spelled out as well, so that the list is exhaustive. But no list of this kind can ever be exhaustive. Other matters will crop up from time to time to which it would be desirable to have regard. If I could tell your Lordships what they all were, we would not need the generality in the section at present. To return to leveraging, that is a relatively recent phenomenon; it would simply not have entered anybody's mind in 1973. I am sure that there will be others in the future, but by definition I do not know what they are. Naturally, since the references are usually made on competition grounds, that is what the MMC will look at, but it needs to be able to look at other factors, including benefits which offset any damage to competition.
The test as it stands has stood the test of time, and we need to be wary of making changes without very good reason. My noble friend's amendment, by making it harder for the MMC to take into account matters put to it outside those specified, would limit its flexibility to deal with new or unusual issues. It is difficult to see how that could help anyone, and I very much hope that, with the explanation I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, of course I shall be able to withdraw the amendment. I am astonished that my noble friend thought that I would not be aware of the flaw in the drafting of the amendment. It was quite deliberate, in the sense that I had no intention whatsoever of limiting the ability of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to look at these matters.
I merely wished to highlight the fact that it appeared that the commission did not look at these matters in the way that I read the legislation, as providing that it had a duty so to do. In light of what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, I shall of course withdraw the amendment. However, I wish to state again that there is considerable concern that not only the City but Her Majesty's Government will bring themselves into serious difficulties if mergers are allowed to proceed at the same time as the Department of Trade and Industry is investigating matters under other parts of the statute. I believe that the matter needs to be looked into very carefully. With those short remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 148H:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
("Takeover bids

(1) The Secretary of State shall designate a Takeover Panel, (in this Act referred to as "the Panel") for the regulation of takeover bids and other general bids to the holders of securities or the securities of a particular class or classes of any United Kingdom public limited company.

(2) The Secretary of State shall choose the members of the Panel in consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England either as full time members or as part time members.

(3) The Secretary of State shall publish a Code of Practice setting out general principles relating to the functions of the Panel and the status and terms of office of such members and staff as is considered desirable in the prevailing circumstances.

(4) No appeal shall lie from the final decision of the Panel save that such decision may be subject to judicial review.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I ought first to say why I put down this amendment relating to takeover bids. There were two reasons. The action arose because of my careful reading of what happened at the Committee stage, particularly on 21st February and 6th March. A number of distinguished members of the Takeover Panel, like the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Boardman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, spoke about its activities. I examined what they said very carefully, and that was my first reason for putting down the amendment.
The second reason was that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I had drawn the attention of the Government at certain times during the Committee stage to Article 6 of the thirteenth directive which, as I understand it, is under discussion. Under the heading "Supervisory Authority", Clause 1 says:
"Member States shall designate the authority or authorities which must discharge the functions specified in this directive".
I ought to have mentioned that I have read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on 6th March to which I shall refer later. It may be helpful if I indicate the salient points of my amendment. The first subsection of my proposed new clause states:
"The Secretary of State shall designate a Takeover Panel".
That complies with what Article 6 of the thirteenth directive indicates. The first subsection continues:
"for the regulation of takeover bids and other general bids to the holders of securities or the securities; of a particular class or classes of any United Kingdom public limited company".
I say at once that I am in no way denigrating the work that has been carried out by the present Takeover Panel over the past 20 years, nor of course any of the members of that distinguished panel.
The second subsection of the proposed new clause states:
"The Secretary of State shall choose the members of the Panel in consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England either as full time members or as part time members".
The present position, I understand, is that the Takeover Panel is appointed by the governor general alone. Under the thirteenth directive it is suggested that member states should designate the authority or authorities which are to deal with this matter. Therefore it seems to me to be proper that, somehow or other, the Secretary of State should be brought
950
into these matters, and that he, in collaboration with the Bank of England, should choose the members. That does not go very far away from the present position, except that the Secretary of State is brought in as a kind of titular head, and he has to consult with the Governor of the Bank of England.
The third subsection of the proposed new clause of my amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall publish a Code of Practice".
He would of course do that in collaboration with the panel. My amendment continues:
"setting out general principles relating to the functions of the Panel and the status and terms of office of such members and staff as is considered desirable in the prevailing, circumstances".
It concludes with the words:
No appeal shall lie from the final decision of the Panel save that such decision may be subject to judicial review".
I shall deal with subsection (4) in my proposed new clause first. I had thought that I had misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, had said on the position of the Takeover Panel as regards judicial review. A number of attempts had been made, according to the noble and learned Lord, to undertake a judicial review of some of the decisions of the panel. I understood that it was not considered that judicial review would apply to the panel.
Having heard whit the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in reply to a Question earlier this week, I think I am wrong about that, and from an informal talk I had with him during supper tonight, I believe he felt that, although judicial review is a creation of judges, it does apply to the panel.
I wish to draw attention to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when intervening in the course of a long discussion arising out of an amendment on takeover offers moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the thirteenth directive and said:
"Without wishing to debate the directive in. detail, we must bear in mind that Community legislation applies to all 12 member states. It is one thing to have a voluntary system for ourselves, but there are very soon complaints about voluntary systems operated by other people. It is for that reason that we need at least a minimum framework of Community law. The thirteenth directive set out to provide no more than the absolute minimum framework that was required".—[Official Report, 6/3/89; col. 1295.]
Suggesting that the Takeover Panel should be designated by the Secretary of State, in collaboration with the Bank of England, seems to me to be appropriate in the present circumstances.
The next point to which I think it is worth while drawing noble Lords' attention is the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, as referred to in a recent copy of The Times. I apologise that I do not have the date of that article, but it appeared fairly recently. The article stated that the noble Lord highlighted:
"areas of potential conflict between European Commission proposals for policing takeovers and Britain's non-statutory system in which the Panel plays a central role"
The article was written by Mr. John Bell, the City editor of The Times. It quotes the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who describes Britain's takeover regime as:
" 'arguably the world's most effective'".

951
The article continues:
"Lord Alexander expresses confidence that a way forward will be found which leaves the essence of the Panel system intact".
In my submission, my amendment leaves the essence of the panel system intact because all I am doing is seeking to bring the Secretary of State, as a designated authority, to collaborate with the Bank of England for the appointment of the members of the panel.
In conclusion, I crave in aid what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said as recorded in Hansard on 22nd March 1989, when your Lordships were discussing the matter of non-elected body appointments—known as "the Patronage Bill". I apologise for the fact that I did not notify the noble Lord that I was going to bring him into the arena, as it were, by this, but it will not be too dangerous for him. In closing the debate on non-elected bodies he said:
"I can only reiterate that we believe we have made a contribution towards reducing the number of quangos in the country".—[Official Report, 22/3/89; col. 726.]
Naturally, the noble Lord is speaking on behalf of the Government there. He continued at column 726:
"Further, we believe that there is a misconception that the setting up of bodies is in some sense undemocratic. The Government's actions give effect to the wishes of the people who elected them with a majority".
I pass over that fairly quickly, as noble Lords will expect. Now I come to the really crucial point in the noble Lord's speech which I crave in aid. He said, again at column 726:
"Moreover, the Government continue to be answerable to Parliament, and to the electorate, for what they do. That includes justifying the decision to set up new bodies and the appointments made to them".
If my amendment includes a new body, it is a new body which the noble Lord has approved. He has just entered the Chamber and is looking with astonishment at me. I assure him that I have been very kind to him and that I have supported wholly what he has said. I shall go down in posterity as having craved the support of a distinguished Minister of this Government. I am much obliged to him.
However, all I am suggesting in the amendment is that the Secretary of State should collaborate with the Bank of England. If we must call that a new body, let us do so. However, it is a reasonable new body and conforms with the basic framework of the thirteenth directive. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in his amendment. Before he started speaking, I had no idea he would pray in aid words of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. It was an intervention that I can only describe as almost divine that the noble Lord happened to enter the Chamber at the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was praying him in aid. I am sorry that he is not going to take up his position on the Government Front Bench to respond to the points that the noble Lord made.
The arguments in favour of this amendment have been rehearsed a number of times. I cannot add to them other than to say that in our debate in
952
Committee we discussed the membership of the panel. It was significant that a number of noble Lords opposite, and indeed noble Lords to my left were members of the Takeover Panel, but I could not discover any member of the Takeover Panel on my Benches, or indeed on the Benches to my right. I think that there is a problem here which needs to be addressed. The Takeover Panel is not simply a City body composed of people who happen to be friends of the Governor of the Bank of England. It is meant to be a body which exercises a judicial and quasi-judicial function.
I hope very much that the Government will pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said. Even if they cannot accept his amendment, I hope that they will indicate that there will be a widening of the membership of the panel to meet the arguments that we put forward in Committee and to make sure that consumers, employees and others have a proper voice on the panel.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a member of the Takeover Panel. I am sorry that the chairman of the panel, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, has had to leave the Chamber and is unable to be here because I know that he wanted to take part in the debate.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has introduced the amendment. It is a point of principle which was debated very fully in Committee and the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was overwhelmingly defeated when put to the vote. The issues that have been raised today were raised and debated on that occasion.
The second reason why I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, introduced the amendment is that on this occasion he has gone even further than the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and introduced the Secretary of State. I should have thought that he would find the greater bureaucracy which would inevitably result even more offensive than the introduction of the SIB which the noble Lord, Lord Williams proposed.
The noble Lord expressed concern in Committee, as he has today, about the effect of the thirteenth directive. I am not sure that when he quoted my noble friend Lord Cockfield he quoted the part of the intervention which was most relevant. The point that worried him seemed to be that the directive would mean that the Takeover Panel as it now operates would cease to have an effective role. I suppose that there is no greater authority in this House on EC directives than my noble friend Lord Cockfield. He said:
"I am sure that once a directive is examined in detail it will be seen that it does not undermine the operations of the Takeover Panel. We went to quite extraordinary lengths to ensure that the Takeover Panel was left untouched as far as possible by the thirteenth directive".—[0fficiat Report 6/3/89; col. 1295).
I should have hoped that would have consoled the noble Lord in respect of that point.
Another point with which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was concerned at Committee

953
stage was that, according to the wording of Article 6 of the draft directive:
"the authorities and, where appropriate, the associations or private bodies referred to … must have all the necessary powers to ensure that this Directive is put into effect".
I should have hoped that the noble Lord would have recalled what my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham said at Committee stage. On that very important point he said:
"The SIB and the self-regulatory organisations have made it clear that their sanctions are available to be used against authorised persons who show themselves not to be 'fit and proper' by breaking the takeover code. They have adopted 'cold-shoulder' rules requiring investment businesses not to act for individuals or companies who the businesses have reason to believe will not comply with the code. They also have rules requiring authorised persons to co-operate with the panel's inquiries and investigations".—[Official Report, 6/3/89; col. 1300.]
The powers of enforcement of the Takeover Panel are substantial and in practice have proved to be very effective.
There remains a great deal of discussion on the thirteenth directive. I assume that those discussions are taking place between the Government and Brussels, and the Takeover Panel, the authorities in Brussels and the Government. I am sure that they are very sensitive discussions and I do not know what line they are taking. But it is right and important that we should have a system here that is not distorted by the thirteenth directive.
The point was made very forcefully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, in Committee that the directive was not as powerful as the powers of the Takeover Panel. We believe that London, as a great financial centre, should have strict and well enforced rules, but those rules should include the degree of flexibility and power to adjust which is necessary to match the highly changing scene in the financial world.
There have been very few complaints. The appeals tribunal, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill sits, has had to consider very few, if any, appeals. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that there is the possibility for judicial review. He referred to there having been three cases which have gone to judicial review: two were not accepted and one failed. The power for judicial review exists but the extent to which the appeals procedure has had to be invoked shows the acceptance by all parties—despite disappointments—of the fairness with which people believe assessment has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to appointments to the panel. He suggested that it was insufficient that they should be made by the Governor of the Bank of England. I do not know how the system works, but I am confident that the Governor would make appointments only after very full consultation with all interested parties. Appointments are made on a representative basis; for example, I serve on the panel as a representative of the clearing banks—the CLSB. Similarly, members of the panel represent the insurance industry, the CBI and similar bodies. I should have thought that representation was highly satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which member of the panel represents the Trades Union Congress?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I do not recall seeing a representative of the Trades Union Congress on the panel. However, I stand open to correction and I am sure that the noble Lord will check whether or not that is the case. The panel's members represent a broad selection of people with knowledge and experience in the interests of those for whom the panel was set up, namely for the defence and protection of the investors.
I shall not go over the ground which was covered in Committee except to say that I believe that the panel does a very good job. It has that flexibility which is necessary in a changing financial scene. The noble Lord himself said that he had no cause to denigrate what the panel has done. There is the old saying, "If it's not broke, don't fix it". I believe that that applies here, provided one is not complacent. That is not the case; it is an evolving situation. Rules are changed and introduced to take account of developments in the financial market.
With all the prejudice of one who is privileged to sit on the panel now and again, I believe that it does a very good job. Let us not interfere with that unless we have some really good cause to do so. Let us leave it to try to work out with government, and with Brussels, how to meld in with the directive to make sure that nothing destroys the effectiveness of what I believe is an extremely effective panel.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, did not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, say that the Takeover Panel is at the present time actively considering fundamental changes in its procedures?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, no. I believe that I prompted the point that was raised; namely, that a working party had been looking at a whole variety of changes that may be necessary. Earlier in today's proceedings, reference was made to leverage bids. If such measures are introduced, it is necessary to look at the rules and see what changes are required in order to cope with them. This is a continuing process. There are a number of areas that have caused concern in the last year or so. I know that those matters are being reviewed. The panel is not making any fundamental changes of structure, but it is making sure that its rules evolve and develop to meet the changing conditions of the financial world.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boardman took the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to task for raising this issue at Report stage. With great respect, my noble friend is quite wrong to take issue with that. He has confused the rules of procedure for the Report stage of the Bill with those for the Third Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord is absolutely at liberty to bring in a new series of amendments which raise points related to the original point.
I support the amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who say that there should be self-regulation rather than regulation by government. However, if one looks at the composition of the Takeover Panel, I do not think that one could blame the man in the street for coming to the conclusion that it certainly looks as though the City of London

955
has been judge and jury in its own courts. By that, I am in no way suggesting bad faith. Given that, as happened recently, the Takeover Panel came to a decision at 9 o'clock in the morning and the Government came to a totally different decision at 9.30 in the morning, it would not be a bad thing if the Takeover Panel had a good look at its procedures and practices—as it no doubt has a regulatory means of doing—and, above all, its membership. It must do so in an attempt to maintain the good name of the City of London, which is critically important, but which does not at the moment look too good if one examines the City press on a daily basis.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as noble Lords have said, we are back on familiar ground which was debated in Committee as to the status of the Takover Panel and the takeover code. The main purpose of the amendment moved then by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was that there was difficulty in running two systems—one under the Financial Services Act and one operated by the panel—in parallel. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other noble Lords with experience in these matters explained that in fact the arrangements for co-operation between the two systems worked excellently. The amendment before us now is not designed to tackle that issue. It provides for a Takeover Panel to be designated by the Secretary of State, not by the Securities and Investments Board. The panel would continue to operate outside the ambit of the Financial Services Act. However, the essential issue that noble Lords are asked to consider is the same as that discussed in Committee. It is whether there is a need to change the status of the panel from that of a voluntary body to one which operates under statute.
I recognise that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has, in common with that discussed in Committee, the intention of maintaining the existing relationship of the panel with the courts, together with all the advantages which that entails. The Government believe that there are a number of reasons why it is unnecessary and undesirable to give the panel a formal basis under statute while attempting to limit the role of the courts.
The amendment is unnecessary for the reasons given by my noble friend the Secretary of State in Committee. The panel has operated effectively since it was established in 1968. It has gone from strength to strength under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and I am sure that it will continue to do so under its new chairman when he takes office. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon was not able to stay for this part of the debate. There is no need to give the Secretary of State responsibility for the membership of the panel or for the general principles that it operates under. The members of the Takeover Panel are appointed on a non-party basis and the general principles of the takeover code are expressly designed to carry out the purpose of protecting the interest of shareholders. Bringing the panel under statute will not make the system work any better than it does at present.
956
The absence of any need for a change in the system would, of itself, be a sufficient argument against the amendment. I believe, however, that the consequences of the amendment could in themselves be undesirable. The difficulties relate principally to subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new clause. Subsection (3) proposes that the Secretary of State should publish a code of practice setting out general principles. The assumption is that the panel would then make rules which are consistent with the general principles. The general principles may address not only the type of conduct to be followed in takeovers, but also the status of the members and staff of the panel. Nothing is said, however, as to the legal effect which either the code or any rules will have; they might be legally binding or they might not. They might give rise to actions in the courts if they are breached or they might not. Their status is left wholly unclear and that is undesirable in itself.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in subsection (4) of my amendment, I say:
"No appeal shall lie from the final decision of the Panel".
That would therefore limit any court action. I withdrew the second part of that provision, to the effect that it was not necessary to include the fact that the panel should have been the subject of judicial review. I misread what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said. However, legal matters can come to an end. There are no court proceedings, except judicial review, which can lie from the final decision.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was just about to come to subsection (4) which is an attempt to constrain the ability of the courts to intervene on panel decisions. The important point is that the subsection would not necessarily achieve its apparent objective of preventing tactical litigation during takeovers. The Court of Appeal has set itself guidelines as to how it will consider applications for judicial review of panel decisions. It has constrained itself from attempting to reverse decisions made by the panel. It is not simply a matter of attempting, as the amendment does, to limit the role of the courts to that of judicial review. The crucial question is the extent to which, if the arrangements proposed by the noble Lord were adopted, the courts would, in undertaking judicial review, be disposed to reverse panel rulings. I hope that that explanation clarifies the point about which the noble Lord was concerned.
I do not think, therefore, that it is possible to be confident that the amendment or any similar provision would be successful in preventing tactical litigation during takeovers. Given the fact that the current system operates well, and that the new clause would add nothing of benefit to it, I do not see the justification for running the risk of upsetting the prevailing approach of the courts to takeover regulation.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the 13th directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and my noble friend Lord Boardman referred. The effect of the directive on the Takeover Panel was discussed in Committee where my noble friend the Secretary of State made clear our view that the

957
directive should allow for non-legally binding rules. This is something that we shall continue to discuss with the Commission and with other member states. The comments of my noble friend Lord Cockfield in Committee have been quoted. He noted in Committee that it was premature to be discussing implementation of the directive. There is a long way to go in Brussels before a text of a directive can finally be agreed. It would be curious for Parliament to attempt to legislate for a Commission proposal which has not even been considered by the Council of Ministers, let alone adopted.
I believe that the amendment takes us no further than the one discussed in Committee. It does not avoid the pitfalls of the previous amendment, nor does it add anything beneficial to the existing system of regulation. The question for noble Lords is essentially the same as that which was answered by the Committee. Is there a case now for tinkering with a system which has and continues to operate well? The answer is that there is not.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for having given us his valuable time, staying behind after dinner to explain once again what an admirable organisation is the Takeover Panel. I am sure that his one voice is equivalent to the voices of all the members of the panel who were present earlier but found other more important matters to deal with than speaking about this panel. However, when any cause has a champion such as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who else is wanted to support it?
The Minister of course is confused by what was said by his Secretary of State on another occasion for other reasons on a totally different amendment. My amendment is quite different from the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Other than saying that the Government did not want to take the risk of upsetting the panel, the Minister made little contribution to the scope of my amendment. It is interesting to note that the only difference in my amendment in relation to the panel is that the Secretary of State should be involved. The Minister obviously feels that there would be a great risk of upsetting the panel if the Secretary of State were brought in, as I have said, in a consultative capacity.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his support and am equally glad of that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, indicated one aspect of the views of members of the public in regard to the City. I do not subscribe to all those views but feel that, if the Government could have taken more time to consider my amendment, irrespective of what was said at Committee stage, they would have found it to be a very good measure in the public interest or at least would have had some sympathy with it.
I was glad to hear the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, say that they are looking forward—I think that that is the right word to use—to the directive being considered again and that they will be collaborating with the Secretary of State and EC officials in trying to improve (if that
958
is possible) the Takeover Panel. I hope that in those circumstances they will have some regard to my words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in this field. I do not propose to delay the House any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148J:
Page 117, line 39, at end insert—
("(11) References in this section to Part V of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and to merger references under section 64 or 75 of that Act or under that Part include sections 28 and 29 of the Water Act 1989 and any reference under section 29 of that Act.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment brings water mergers referred to under the new provisions of the Water Bill within the scope of the fees provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House whether it is proper to refer to the Water Act 1989 when in fact there is a Water Bill before this House?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it is not the same thing. It refers to the Water Act but there is no such measure as the Water Act. It might be possible to say what is in the Water Bill of 1989 but not what is in the Act. In any case amendments will be tabled to modify Section 29 of that Bill, not that Act.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can assure the House that it is certainly not the first time that a measure of this kind has been put forward before a Bill becomes an Act. It is quite common. I cannot personally remember the last time that I experienced it but I have certainly known it to happen. Obviously it is just a matter of convenience to do this at this stage now rather than waiting for something else to happen.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down can he tell us how he knows that they will be Sections 29 and 30 of the Water Act? Many new clauses may be put into the Bill in this House, Can he explain how it happens that "1989 c. 00" appears in the rubric?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly I cannot explain the last point made by the noble Lord, no. However, I imagine that if the sections of the Water Act change it will be possible to make amendments to this Bill to take care of it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down again does he agree that it would be a good idea to withdraw this amendment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there will be a Water Act by the time this Bill is passed. If the section number is changed by the insertion of other clauses, the number in this Bill will also be changed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments about mergers and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148K:
Page 206, line 42, at end insert—
("4A. In section 67(2)(a) of that Act. for the words from "any enterprise" to the end there is substituted—

"(i) any enterprise which remains under the same ownership and control, or

(ii) if none of the enterprises remains under the same ownership and control, the enterprise having the assets with the highest value, and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the meaning of part of Section 67(2)(a) of the Fair Trading Act relating to the value of assets taken over.
As many of your Lordships will know, a merger qualifies for investigation under the Fair Trading Act if it creates or enhances a 25 per cent. market share, or if the assets taken over exceed a certain amount—at present £30 million. Section 67(2)(a) indicates how the assets taken over are to be calculated. In most cases, it is a matter of deducting from the total assets involved those of any enterprise which remains under the same ownership and control. This reflects what happens in most mergers, where ownership and control of one or more enterprises is transferred to one or more others whose ownership and control is unchanged.
Sometimes, however, it is more complicated, and none of the enterprises remains under the same ownership and control. This occurs in particular when partnerships merge, as a new partnership is then created out of the old ones, so none of the merging partnerships retains its original identity. The section therefore provides a different method of calculating the assets taken over, where no enterprise remains under the same ownership and control. This is not often the case, so the alternative method of calculation is seldom used.
It has been pointed out to us that the wording of this section in this respect is ambiguous, owing to the way it is set out and punctuated. On one interpretation, the assets of the largest single enterprise alone are looked at. This view has been adopted in certain cases in the past but has the effect of catching takeovers of, for example, very small partnerships by very large ones. We very much doubt whether this was what was intended when the Fair Trading Act was passed. On the other interpretation, the assets taken over are calculated by deducting those of the largest enterprise from the total assets. This is the interpretation that we believe was originally intended. It is the one which we are now applying, and this amendment simply puts it beyond doubt. It provides a small but useful clarification of the Fair Trading Act. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether ownership and control is defined by Part I or Clause 103 of the Bill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148L:
Page 207, line 19, at end insert—
("8A. At the end of section 76 of that Act there is added—
"(2) In exercising his duty under this section the Director shall take into consideration any representations made to him by persons appearing to him to have a substantial interest in any such arrangements or transactions or by bodies appearing to him to represent substantial numbers of persons who have such an interest." ').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 148M:
Page 210, line 7, at end insert—
("(2) The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Performance of S.I. 1989/122. Functions) Order 1989 shall have effect as if sub-paragraph (1) above had come into force immediately before the making of the Order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Performance of Functions) Order 1989 reduced the minimum size of groups appointed to carry out MMC investigations from five to three. Your Lordships may recall that, when my noble friend Lord Strathclyde moved the approval of the order, he explained that it did not extend to references made under the Telecommunications Act 1984. This was because the power to amend Schedule 3 to the Fair Trading Act, which deals with MMC procedures, by order was not applied in the Telecommunications Act. This omission is rectified by paragraph 21 of Schedule 15 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that when the order was first moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee I opposed the reduction from five to three. I opposed it in Committee; and I oppose it even under the new dispensation for British Telecom. I oppose it now. I feel that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is now required to conduct industrial policy more or less across the whole range of industry in this country, should have a proper balance. A proper balance means more than three on a panel.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be aware that we went though these arguments in Committee. I shall therefore not detain the House any further. However, I do not believe that the Government have got this right.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about this matter. However, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that it would be undesirable to have an anomaly of this kind in this instance which would mean that the change extended to all references made to the MMC with the sole exception of those under the Telecommunications Act. The amendment merely removes that anomaly. I hope therefore that, although the noble Lord may not agree with the principle, he will recognise that it would be silly to leave an anomaly in this instance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he not agree that it is better to remove the anomaly in the other direction by reinstating the five place of the three-member panels?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. This issue has been debated at some length. That would be a matter of—I am searching for the expression—the tail wagging the dog. I shall leave it there. The noble Lord knows what I mean.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Introductory]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(1):
Leave out Clause 113.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, each of the government amendments to Part VII begins with the prefix 148M. It may be for the convenience of the House if I omit this prefix and refer to each amendment by the number that follows. With leave, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 94.
These are paving or consequential amendments relating to three new clauses. Those new clauses raise substantive issues and I do not propose to debate them at this point. We shall come to those amendments in due course.
The first two amendments replace the existing Clause 113 with a new introductory clause, setting out the purpose of the Part. The purpose remains to safeguard the operation of certain financial markets. But the new clauses make it appropriate to relate that purpose expressly to the rights and remedies dealt with in the new clauses. Those rights and remedies relate to certain property provided as cover for margin in relation to transactions in the market, or to property subject to a market charge.
Amendment No. 94 is consequential on the three new clauses. Those clauses are to be capable of extension, as appropriate, to contracts and charges brought within the scope of the Part by regulations. That applies the same approach as the regulation-making powers already applying to existing provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is very welcome to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at the Government Dispatch Box yet again, particularly on a subject with which he is familiar, the issue of insolvency. Perhaps I should make clear what is the Opposition's attitude to these amendments, because I do not wish to speak at length on the various amendments as they come forward since there are only two major points that I want to make. I shall make one of them now.
The Government produced a Bill without consultation and have now had to rewrite Part VII. I understood what they were saying when they said that they could not go out to consultation because problems might be associated in the market. Nevertheless, insolvency practitioners have felt aggrieved that the Government produced a Bill and
962
then went out to consultation. Consultation was inevitable once the Bill was produced and so we have had a complete new redraft of this part.
The original draft—I call it a draft but one should really call it the original Bill—seemed to override the whole pari passu principle. That was the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I, had in Committee. It seemed to do so by creating a new preferential class of creditor, namely investment exchanges and clearing houses. When in Committee, the Bill appeared to allow for a clearing system to operate when a market organisation became insolvent. That would give market organisations priority over other general creditors. We objected to that. The Government explained that it was not really their intention to bring this into effect. Their intention was simply, as I understand it, to clarify and make certain what is already an accepted practice, namely that a set-off should occur on a bilateral basis at the time when a market organisation becomes insolvent. So far so good, as I understand it.
The only difference is that this one-to-one set-off procedure between insolvent market organisations and other market organisations with which it has market contracts would now occur when the default is declared rather than on the commencement of insolvency. The Bill did not seek to allow for multilateral or pool clearing systems to operate between market organisations.
We believe that with their new amendments the Government have made their intentions—which I have just expressed and which I hope I have expressed fairly to the Government—more understandable and have removed the wholesale abrogation of the pari passu principle. All this could have been avoided had the Government consulted in the first place. There are plenty of good ways of doing that.
My first major point is that I and my advisers believe that the Government have moved towards a principle which is much more coherent with the general principle of the Insolvency Act, which is the pari passu principle. For that reason we generally welcome the amendments, although I have other points to make.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I generally welcome most of these amendments and, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I shall save time by indicating what my position is on them.
When I looked through these amendments I looked back at what I refer to as the old numberings of the Bill when it was at the Committee stage. With Amendment No. 148M(43) the Government seek to leave out Clause 119. That was Clause 111 at Committee stage. I could not correlaite how "After Clause 119"in the Marshalled List fitted in with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when dealing with Clause 119, in the form of Clause 111, in the Bill at that stage.
There are a number of these. New clauses have been put in which are totally different in basic principles and many details from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said at Committee stage. I

963
shall not cite them. Unless I am tempted to speak I shall say nothing until the House comes to deal with Amendment No. 148M(109). I am glad that I have support for that statement. I hope that noble Lords will not think me discourteous if I disappear for a few moments.
Together with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I find the new clauses to be a great improvement. I understand from the noble Lord that since producing the original draft the Government have, for the first time, taken advice from insolvency law specialists.
I complain rarely but I should like to put on record the fact that the way in which the Government have dealt with this part of the Bill has caused me to waste a great deal of time in trying to discover the difference between what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in Committee and the scope of the various new clauses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(2):
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause:
("Introductory.
This Part has effect for the purposes of safeguarding the operation of certain financial markets by provisions with respect to—

(a) the insolvency, winding up or default of a person party to transactions in the market (sections 114 to 128),

(b) the effectiveness or enforcement of certain charges given to secure obligations in connection with such transactions (sections 129 to 133), and

(c) rights and remedies in relation to certain property provided as cover for margin in relation to such transactions or subject to such a charge (sections (Application of margin not affected by subsequent interests), (Priority of market charge over unpaid vendor's lien), (Proceedings against market property by unsecured creditor) and (Power to apply provisions to other cases)).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Market contracts]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(3):
Page 118, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for welcoming me back to the Dispatch Box— —
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry that I forgot to do so because I was engrossed with what I wished to say relating to the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that both noble Lords generally welcome the amendments. I know that they understand the reason why it has been necessary to bring back so many at this stage.
With permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 148M(3), 148M(5). 148M(30), 148M(31), 148M(34),148M(35), 148M(38), 148M(39), 148M(42), 148M(48), 148M(50), 148M(51),148M(52),148M(55),148M(59), 148M(60), 148M(65), 148M(97) and 148M(98).
964
These amendments have in common that they make miscellaneous drafting and tidying-up amendments to the provisions of the part relating to recognised investment exchanges and recognised clearing houses. I would mention particularly some changes to the provisions of Clause 122 relating to the report which an exchange or clearing house must produce on the completion of default proceedings. This report specifies the sum due to or from each creditor or debtor of the defaulter, and these are the sums which are then provable in any insolvency proceedings or available for incorporation in a set-off.
At present Clause 122 provides for a single report to be made on the completion of default proceedings. We now propose that it should be open to the exchange or clearing house to make an interim report or reports from time to time as proceedings are completed in relation to transactions affecting particular debtors or creditors. We think that this facility will be particularly useful in a case in which most of the contracts can be sorted out fairly quickly, but a relatively small number of more difficult cases remain to be dealt with. The issue of an interim report will enable the office-holder to make substantial progress with the rest of the insolvency proceedings without having to wait for the resolution of the difficult cases.
The amendments also seek to protect investors' confidentiality by narrowing the scope of the provisions for inspection of the report. It is obviously important that a debtor or creditor of the defaulter should be entitled to inspect that part of a report which relates to the sum owed to or by him, including the means by which it was calculated. But there is no reason why he should be able to inspect the information relating to other persons' transactions, which may well be commercially sensitive. For the same reason, it is not appropriate that the report should be open to general public inspection. We have therefore brought forward an amendment to remove the provision for public inspection. A copy of the full report or reports will, of course, go the relevant office-holder.
The amendments also make clear that the function of making regulations under the part is not capable of transfer to the Securities and Investments Board.
I should add that in the memorandum I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we indicated our intention to table an amendment to Clause 127 concerning the precise forms of international link between exchanges and clearing houses which could fall within the scope of the clause. We have not yet tabled such an amendment, but the Government intend to bring an amendment forward at a later stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(4):
Page 118, line 43, leave subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 148M(4), (32), (62), (63), (66), (67), (75) and (99) together. The amendments tidy up the provisions in the part

965
conferring regulation-making powers. Amendment No. 148M(99) introduces a new clause after Clause 135 which provides that regulations made under the part may make different provision for different cases and may contain such incidental, transitional, and others supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient. This flexibility is desirable to deal with the wide variety of cases which could arise. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand why the Secretary of State wishes flexibility but Amendment No. 148M (99) gives him almost total flexibility to do whatever he wants whenever he wants without having to come back to your Lordships' House or, indeed, another place. Yet again, we find primary legislation writing powers in for the Secretary of State to change what he likes, when he likes and how he likes. Even at this stage of the Bill, I find that rather hard to swallow.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, this is one amendment to which I was proposing to speak. It seems to me that the Secretary of State can do what he likes. It is one of the most extended forms of regulation I have ever seen.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I can briefly say that it is necessary for the order-making powers to be widely drawn precisely because of the complexity to which I have referred and the wide variety of markets and procedures for which it may be necessary to cater. However, I draw attention to the importance of Clause 113 in this connection. That makes clear the purpose of the part. We consider that the regulation-making powers are constrained by that purpose. If they were used for any other purpose, their exercise might be successfully challenged. That is an important safeguard which I believe should meet any concerns about the apparently broad scope of some of the powers and I hope that noble Lords will agree.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Additional requirements for recognition: default rules, &c.]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(5):
Page 119, line 19, leave out from ("that") to end of line 29 and insert ("any of those requirements is not met in the case of such a body, he shall within one month of commencement give notice to the body stating his opinion.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not—

(a) take action to revoke the recognition of such a body on the ground that any of the additional requirements is not met, unless he considers it essential to do so in the interests of investors, or

(b) apply on any such ground for a compliance order under section 12 of the Financial Services Act 1986,

until after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which notice is given under subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State may extend, or further extend, that period if he considers there is good reason to do so.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(6):
After Clause 115, insert the following new clause:
("Changes in default rules
.—

(1) A recognised UK investment exchange or recognised UK clearing house shall give the Secretary of State at least 14 days' notice of any proposal to amend, revoke or add to its default rules; and the Secretary of State may within 14 days from receipt of the notice direct the exchange or clearing house not to proceed with the proposal, in whole or in part.

(2) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked.

(3) Any amendment or revocation of, or addition to, the default rules of an exchange or clearing house in breach of a direction under this section is ineffective.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 148M(6), (33), (58) and (61) together. These amendments leave out Clause 117 and add three new clauses concerned with procedural requirements and powers of the Secretary of State, or the Securities and Investments Board, in relation to recognised investment exchanges and recognised clearing houses. Their purpose is to provide a range of safeguards in connection with the exercise by exchanges and clearing houses of the additional functions they acquire by virtue of the part
The main effect of these amendments is to give the Secretary of State power to give directions to a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house in various circumstances. Although primary responsibility will lie on those bodies to deal with defaults, it is desirable that in the last resort there should be a power of direction.
We would normally expect default action to be initiated before an insolvency office-holder is appointed, but it is possible that at the time of his appointment, no action has yet been taken. In such circumstances he will need to establish quickly whether default action is or is not to be taken. He may require the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the body. And the Secretary of State must then choose between directing that action be taken or that no action be taken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Additional requirements for recognition]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(7) to 148M(29):
Page 210, line 13, leave out ("rules ("default rules")") and insert ("default rules").
Page 210, line 15, leave out ("the settlement forthwith") and insert ("for the taking of action in respect").
Page 210, line 16, leave out ("as principal").
Page 210, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("rules") in line 21 and insert—
("

(2) The action provided for must be such as to secure the settlement of the unsettled market contracts—

(a)in accordance with rules complying with paragraph 2 below, or

(b)where or to the extent that the exchange provides its own clearing arrangements, in accordance with rules corresponding to those required by paragraph 9 below in the case of a UK clearing house.

(3) The

").
Page 210, leave out lines 24 to 45.
Page 210, line 46, leave out paragraph 2 andinsert—
("Content of rules
2.—

(1) The rules referred to in paragraph 1(2)(a) must provide for all rights and liabilities of parties to an unsettled market contract to be discharged and for there to be paid by one party to the other such sum of money (if any) as may be determined in accordance with the rules.

(2) The rules further provide—

(a)for the sums so payable in respect of different contracts between the same parties to be aggregated or set off so as to produce a net sum, and

(b)for the certification by or on behalf of the exchange of the net sum payable or, as the case may be, of the fact that no sum is payable.

(3) The rules may make special provision with respect to, or exclude from the provisions required by sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), contracts of any description prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The above provisions do not apply to contracts to which the defaulter is party as agent.").

Page 211, line 11, leave out from ("(1)") to ("rules") and insert ("The").
Page 211, line 15, leave out ("under its default rules").
Page 211, line 17, leave out ("adversely") and insert ("be likely adversely to").
Page 211, line 18, at end insert—
("(3) a person shall not be so designated without his consent; and if a person so designated withdraws his consent, the designation shall cease to have effect.").
Page 211, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("are").
Page 211, line 29, at end insert—
("(2) This paragraph does not apply to a market contract whose performance is ensured by a recognised clearing house or in relation to which the exchange provides its own clearing arrangements.
In the latter case the exchange must have arrangements complying with paragraph 13 below.").
Page 211, line 36, leave out from ("State") to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("any relevant office-holder").
Page 211, line 42, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
("7. Where the exchange provides its own clearing arrangements and margined transactions are effected, paragraph 16 below applies as it applies in relation to a clearing house.").
Page 212, line 9, leave out ("rules ("default rules")") and insert ("default rule").
Page 212, line 11, leave out ("any market contract") and insert ("one or more market contracts").
Page 212, line 12, after ("all") insert ("unsettled").
Page 212, line 13, leave out from ("(2)") to ("rules") and insert ("The").
Page 212, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 213 and insert—
("Content of rules
9.—

(1) The rules must provide for all rights and liabilities of the defaulter under or in respect of unsettled market contracts to be discharged and for there to be paid by or to the defaulter such sum of money (if any) as may be determined in accordance with the rules.

(2) The rules must further provide—

(a) for the sums so payable by or to the defaulter in respect of different contracts to be aggregated or set off so as to produce a net sum;

(b) for that sum—

(i) if payable by the defaulter to the clearing house, to be set off against any property provided by the defaulter as cover for margin (or the proceeds of realisation of such property) so as to produce a further net sum, and

(ii) if payable by the clearing house to the defaulter to be aggregated with any property provided by the defaulter as cover for margin (or the proceeds of realisation of such property); and

968

(c) for the certification by or on behalf of the clearing house of the sum finally payable or, as the case may be, of the fact that no sum is payable.

10.—

(1) The reference in paragraph 9 to the rights and liabilities of a defaulter under or in respect of an unsettled market contract includes (without prejudice to the generality of that provision) rights and liabilities arising in consequence of action taken under provisions of the rules authorising—

(a) the effecting by the clearing house of corresponding contracts in relation to unsettled market contracts to which the defaulter is a party;

(b) The transfer of the defaulter's position under an unsettled market contract to another member of the clearing house;

(c) the exercise by the clearing house of any option granted by an unsettled market contract.

(2) A "corresponding contract" means a contract on the same terms (except as to price or premium) as the market contract, but under which the person who is the buyer under the market contract agreeds to sell and the person who is the seller under the market contract agrees to buy.

This sub-paragraph applies with any necessary modifications in relation to a market contract which is not an agreement to sell.").
Page 213, line 23, after ("to") insert ("unsettled").
Page 213, line 32, leave out from ("State") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("any relevant office-holder").
Page 213, line 39, leave out from ("that") to end of line 41 and insert ("the requirements of any relevant regulations under section 55 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (clients' money) are complied with as regards property provided as cover for margin.").
Page 213, line 46, at end insert—
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to a charge or lien in favour of the clearing house itself.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 148M(7) to 148M(29), I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 148M(100). Except for Amendment No. 148(100), the amendments all relate to Schedule 16, which lays down additional requirements for recognised investment exchanges and recognised clearing houses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116 [Modification of the law of insolvency]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(30):
Page 119, line 33, leave out ("following provisions of this Part") and insert ("provisions of sections 118 to 125").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(31) and 148M(32):
Page 119, line 37, leave out ("following provisions of this Part") and insert ("provisions mentioned in subsection (1), and any other provision of this Part as it applies for the purposes of those provisions, or provide that those provisions have effect subject to such additions, exceptions or adaptations as are specified in the regulations.").
Page 119, line 39, leave out subsection 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 117 [Duty to initiate default proceedings upon notice of insolvency]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(33):
Leave out Clause 117.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Proceedings of exchange or clearing house take precedence over insolvency procedures]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(34) and 148M(35):
Page 120, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 120, line 28, at end insert—
("(c) the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as to the settlement of market contracts not dealt with under its default rules.".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148(M)36:
Page 120, line 30, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 148M(36) I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148M(37), 148M(40), 148M(41), 148M(43), to148M(47), 148M(49), 148M(53), 148M(54), 148M(56), 148M(57), 148M(81), 148M(82), 148M(101), to 148M(103), 148M(105) and 148M(107). The amendments are concerned with clarifying the extent to which certain provisions relating to insolvency legislation apply in the context of the part as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment No. 44. The costs of assisting the financial market in default proceedings in our view should be borne by the market itself. The Bill appears to allow for such costs to come out of the estate and hence to be borne at the expense of non-market creditors. That does not seem right. If there is to be an arrangement for a market clearance system that overrides the normal insolvency procedures, the Government surely have to justify the costs being borne by the non-market creditors rather than the market itself.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Amendment No. 148M(44) introduces a new clause in effect similar to Clauses 119 and 120, which are deleted by Amendments Nos. 148M(43) and 148M(45). The new clause imposes a duty on any person who has control of any assets or documents relating to a defaulter to give such assistance as it may reasonably require to a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
In the light of comments received on the scope of those clauses, the new clause differs from its predecessor in two main ways. First, subsection (2) provides that information or documents subject to legal professional privilege cannot be subject to the requirement that they should be produced to an exchange or clearing house. Secondly, the new clause makes more explicit provision about the expense of an office holder who is required to give assistance under the clause. He is entitled to make a reasonable charge for any time and care. Where the defaulter's estate cannot meet such expense, the exchange or clearing house will have to agree to meet it before an office holder is required to undertake the work.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about justification. I do not want to repeat exactly what I said in Committee. The clause is essentially about co-operation. In practice, in the case of a default the exchange or clearing house concerned and the office
970
holder are going to need to work very closely together. It is unlikely that the expenses incurred will be significant. I suggest that in most cases it will be no more than a question of exchanging information on the telephone. As the assistance will be reciprocal it seems right that the costs should be borne where they fall on either side.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment Nos. 148M(37) to 148M(42):
Page 120, line 31, after ("1985") insert ("or section 123(3A) or 124(3) below").
Page 120 line 33, leave out ("of a market contract").
Page 120, line 35, at end insert ("of a market contract not dealt with under its default rules, or").
Page 120, line 37, at end insert ("; but this does not prevent the court from afterwards making an order under section 123(3A) or 124(3) or any such order or decree as is mentioned in section 125(1) or (2).").
Page 120, line 39, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("the above provisions").
Page 120, line 46, at end insert—
("(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) the default proceedings shall be taken to be completed in relation to a person when a report is made under section 122 stating the sum (if any) certified to be due to or from him.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 119 [Duty to give assistance for purposes of default proceedings]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(43):
Leave out Clause 119.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(44):
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to give assistance for purposes of default proceedings
—

(1) It is the duty of—

(a) any person who has or had control of any assets of a defaulter, and

(b) any person who has or had control of any documents of or relating to a defaulter,

to give a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house such assistance as it may reasonably require for the purposes of its default proceedings.

This applies notwithstanding any duty of that person under the enactments relating to Insolvency.

(2) A person shall not under this section be required to provide any information or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to provide or produce on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court or on grounds of confidentiality as between client and professional legal adviser in proceedings in the Court of Session.

(3) Where original documents are supplied in pursuance of this section, the exchange or clearing house shall return them forthwith after the completion of the relevant default proceedings, and shall in the meantime allow reasonable access to them to the person by whom they were supplied and to any person who would be entitled to have access to them if they were still in the control of the person by whom they were supplied.

(4) The expenses of a relevant office-holder in giving assistance under this section are recoverable as part of the expenses incurred by him in the discharge of his duties; and he shall not be required under this section to take any action which involves expenses which cannot be so recovered, unless the exchange or clearing house undertakes to meet them.

971

There shall be treated as expenses of his such reasonble sums as he may determine in respect of time spent in giving the assistance.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the duties of persons to give assistance to a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house for the purposes of its default proceedings, and the duties of the exchange or clearing house with respect to information supplied to it.

The regulations may add to, amend or repeal the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above.

(6) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Duty to supply and return documents]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(45):
Leave out Clause 120.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Supplementary provisions as to default proceedings]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(46) and 148M(47):
Page 122, line 17, after ("sections") insert ("10(1)(c),").
Page 122, line 17, after (",11(3)") insert (",126, 128,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122 [Duty to report on completion of default proceedings]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(48) to 148M(52):
Page 122, line 22, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("

(1) A recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house shall, on the completion of proceedings under its default rules, report to the Secretary of State on its proceedings stating in respect of each creditor or debtor the sum certified by them to be payable from or to the defaulter or, as the case may be, the fact that no sum is payable.

(2) The exchange or clearing house may make a single report or may make reports from time as procedings are completed with respect to the transactions affecting particular persons.

").
Page 122, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
Page 122, line 34, leave out ("its report") and insert ("every report under this section").
Page 122, line 35, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 36 and insert ("relevant office-holder acting in relation to him or his estate").
Page 122, line 37, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("

(4) When a report under this section is received by the Secretary of State, he shall publish notice of that fact in such manner as he thinks appropriate for bringing it to the attention of creditors and debtors of the defaulter.

(5)An exchange or clearing house shall make available for inspection by a creditor or debtor of the defaulter so much of any report by it under this section as relates to the sum (if any) certified to be due to or from him or to the method by which that sum was determined.

(6)Any such person may required the exchange or clearing house, on payment of such reasonable fee as the exchange or clearing may determine, to provide him with a copy of a report which he is entitled to inspect.

").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 123 [Net sum payable on completion of default proceedings]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(53) to 148M(55):
Page 123, line 11, leave out ("or winding-up") and insert ("the date on which the body corporate goes into liquidation (within the meaning of section 129 of the Insolvency Act 1986) or, in the case of a partnership, the date of the winding-up order").
Page 123, line 22, at end insert—
("

(3A) However, where (or to the extent that) a sum is taken into account by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b) which would otherwise have been excluded from set-off—

(a) by virtue of its arising from a contract entered into at a time when the creditor had notice that a bankruptcy or winding up petition was pending, or

(b) by virtue of its arising from a contract entered into at a time when the creditor had notice that a meeting of creditors had been summoned under section 98 of the Insolvency Act 1986,

the value of any profit or benefit to him arising from the sum being so taken into account (or being so taken into account to that extent) is recoverable from him by the relevant officeholder unless the court directs otherwise.

(3B) Any sum recoverable by virtue of subsection (3A) ranks for priority, in the event of the insolvency of the person from whom it is due, immediately before preferential debts.

".
Page 123, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Disclaimer of property, rescission of contracts, amp;c.]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(56) and 148M(57):
Page 124, line 6, leave out ("has the same") and insert ("ranks for").
Page 124, leave out line 8 and insert ("immediately before preferential debts").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(58):
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Directions by Secretary of State.
.—

(1) Where there has been made or passed in relation to a member or designated non-member of a recognised investment exchange or a member of a recognised clearing house—

(a) a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration of his estate, or an order appointing an interim receiver of his property, or

(b) an administration or winding up order, a resolution for voluntary winding up or an order appointing a provisional liquidator,

and the exchange or clearing house has not taken action under its default rules in consequence of the order, award or resolution or the matters giving rise to it, a relevant office-holder appointed by, or in consequence of, the order, award or resolution may apply to the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, not later than three business days after the day on which the application is received, direct the exchange or clearing house to take or not to take action under its default rules.

For this purpose a "business day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.

(3)If the Secretary of State directs that no action shall be taken, sections 118 to 125 above (and any regulations under section 116(2)) do not apply in relation to market contracts to which the member or designated non-member in question is a party or to anything done by the exchange or clearing house for the purposes of, or in connection with, the settlement of any such contract.

973

(4) where a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house has decided, or been directed, to take action under its default rules, the Secretary of State may direct it to take or not to take such action (being action which it has power to take under its default rules) as is specified in the direction.

(5) A direction under this section is enforceable, on the application of the Secretary of State, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 126 [Adjustment of prior transactions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(59) and 148M(60):
Page 124, line 41, at end insert (", with the exception of his functions with respect to the making of orders and regulations").
Page 125, line 4, leave out from ("transferring") to end of line 5 and insert ("to that agency all the functions which may be transferred by virue of this section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M (61):
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions.
("—

(1) Section 61 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (injunctions and restitution orders) applies in relation to a contravention of any provision of the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house relating to the matters mentioned in Schedule 16 to this Act as it applies in relation to a contravention of any provision of such rules relating to the carrying on of investment business.

(2) The following provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986—

section 12 (compliance orders), as it applies by virtue of section 37(8) or 39(8).

section 37(7)(b) (revocation of recognition of UK investment exchange), and

Section 39(7)(b) (revocation of recognition of UK clearing house),

apply in relation to a failure by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house to comply with an obligation under this Part as to a failure to comply with an obligation under that Act.

(3) Where the recognition of an investment exchange or clearing house is revoked under the Financial Services Act 1986, the Secretary of State may, before or after the revocation order, give such directions as he thinks fit with respect to the continued application of the provisions of this Part, with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as may be specified in the direction, in relation to cases where a relevant event of any description specified in the directions occurred before the revocation order takes effect.

").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Certain overseas exchanges and clearing houses]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(62) and 148M(63):
Page 125, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.").
Page 125, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 128 [Listed money market institutions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(64):
Page 125, line 40, leave out from ("contracts') to ("as") in line 42 and insert ("of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided—

(a) by a person for the time being included in a list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of this section (a "listed institution"), or

(b) by the Bank of England itself,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment does two things. First, it makes it clearer that the clause is concerned with contracts where settlement arrangements are provided by a person on a list kept by the bank. This was not immediately apparent from the earlier wording, which made no reference to settlement arrangements. Secondly, it extends the scope of the clause to contracts in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by the Bank of England itself. The arrangements of the Central Money Markets Office, currently under development, will be of this kind. The amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that it will be possible to make regulations under the clause in connection with the Central Money Markets Office and any other arrangement which the bank might operate in future if that is thought appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I know that the list was in the Bill before this amendment was tabled, but can the noble Lord expand a little on what this list means? Who will be on it and what are the criteria for getting on the list?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. The clause is intended to deal with systems dealing wholly or predominantly with transactions in markets which it is appropriate for the Bank of England to supervise. It may be desirable to make this plainer in the clause itself. The Government will consider bringing forward an amendment to this effect. In principle it is right that any system operated by the bank should be subject to the same regime as an equivalent system operated by an institution on its list. I believe that I have said enough on this point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he imply that the Government are going to bring forward an amendment to clarify what this list is about?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that at present there is no actual system, but there may be one in the future. The criteria will be set by the bank and approved by the Treasury. As regards the specific question, the Government are considering bringing forward an amendment to make matters clearer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to abuse the Report procedure because I do not wish to do so. Can the Minister expand on what he is saying? Are the Government going to bring forward an amendment to define the criteria by which the bank includes people on the list? What: is it all about and when are the Government going to bring forward this amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I thought that I had made myself quite plain. I apologise to the noble Lord because I thought we had been going so well so far. I maintain that the Government are considering further amendments and will look at this matter again in the light of what the noble Lord has said. We shall see what can be done. However, I must make it plain that there will be no amendment to define the criteria themselves. It may be made plainer in the clause itself where the clause is intended to deal with systems relating wholly to transactions in markets which it is appropriate for the Bank of England to supervise.
9.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 148M(64)) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
9.48 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55, I declare that the Question is not decided, and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  POLLUTION CONTROL: CHARGING ARRANGEMENTS
  POLLUTION CONTROL: CHARGING ARRANGEMENTS
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL
  SOCIAL FUND: APPEALS
  SOCIAL FUND: APPEALS
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY: SUPERVISION
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY: SUPERVISION
  WARREN SPRING LABORATORY
  WARREN SPRING LABORATORY