Sitting of 6 February 1989

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

    Disability Benefit
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received disability benefit in the present financial year; and how many received it in 1978–79.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Since 1978–79 there have been large increases in the numbers of people receiving benefits because of long-term sickness or disability. For example, the numbers receiving invalidity benefit have increased by 88 per cent. to 1·1 million; attendance allowance by 186 per cent. to 760,000; and mobility allowance by 458 per cent. to 530,000. I shall, with permission, circulate full details in the Official Report.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. It shows the Government's continuing commitment to helping those with disabilities. I am sure that it will be welcomed not only by disabled people, but by all members of the community. Will my hon. Friend comment on the expenditure required in real terms in the present year compared with that in 1978–79?
    Mr. Scott: This year expenditure will amount to some £7·3 billion, which represents a £3·5 billion real terms increase over the 1978–79 figure.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are quite a number of people who are registered as disabled, yet who do not qualify as disabled for the purpose of housing benefit? Does he have any idea of the numbers involved? Does he have any proposals to remedy this, and to ensure that those who qualify receive their benefit more quickly than is sometimes the case?
    Mr. Scott: We are always anxious to ensure that benefits are paid speedily once people have qualified for them. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about housing benefit.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, while we can take pride in the fact that, as a party and a Government, we have been far more generous—quite rightly so—to the disabled than the Labour party, it is also fair to point out that, at this important Question Time, there are only four Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?
    Mr. Scott: I am afraid that the Opposition must answer for that.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: While everyone knows that more claimants means higher costs, how many disablement benefits have not increased in real value since 1979? How many disabled people lost free prescriptions and free school meals last April? How many are on transitional protection and will thus have no increase in their benefits this April? Will their standard of living not, therefore, slump as rising prices eat further into this so-called protection? Again, how many disabled people have had their housing benefit cut?
    Mr. Scott: I can understand the hon. Gentleman clutching at straws as he tries to protect the Labour Government's record. Of the £3·5 billion extra money in real terms which this Government are spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, some £3 billion is because of the wider scope of those benefits—more people are applying for them—and £½ billion is because of increases in real terms in the level of benefits.
    Following is the information:

    Estimated average numbers of weekly benefit payments at any one time

    Numbers

    Benefit

    1978–79

    1988–89

    Invalidity Benefit

    600,000

    1,130,000

    Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit

    210,000

    210,000

    War Disablement Pension

    291,000

    195,000

    Attendance Allowance

    265,000

    760,000

    Invalid Care Allowance

    6,000

    100,000

    NCIP/SDA

    150,000

    265,000

    Mobility Allowance

    95,000

    530,000

    Income-related benefits

    355,000

    450,000

    1,972,000

    3,640,000

    Notes: Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any one time.

    Social Fund
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund to date.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): We have been closely monitoring the social fund, and the original fears which were expressed about the adequacy of its budget, the introduction of loans, the discretionary nature of the scheme and the review system, have proved to be unfounded. Loans have reached anticipated levels of expenditure and community care grants have steadily risen to 77 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure.
    Over 600,000 interest-free loans have been made and more than 86,000 community care grants have been awarded. The review system is proving to be a speedy and effective means of handling disputed decisions. Reviews are completed in a matter of days rather than the weeks it took for an appeal to be completed.
    Ms. Quin: Despite what the Minister has said. will he agree that urgent changes in the way that the social fund works are needed, especially if those who deserve grants are to be in a position to take them up? Will he agree that

    623
    so far all the independent evidence shows that the social fund has failed to relieve the poverty which the Government said it was designed to tackle?
    Mr. Moore: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would have listened to what I said before she read out her prepared question. I shall continue, as the Government must and should, to monitor the situation. I am not completely content because I believe that the officers have been applying the conditions for the community care grants too rigidly. I am determined to ensure that it is a success and that all of the fundamental objections raised when the social fund was first introduced are disproved.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome a large part of my right hon. Friend's reply. Does that mean that the fears that have been expressed by some—dare I remind him, on both sides of the House—that the cash-limited arrangements may prove inadequate, are likely to be allayed? Is he satisfied that the money allocated will be adequate at least in this financial year? To put this matter in perspective, will my right hon. Friend remind the House what would happen if the amount allocated proved to be inadequate?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we announced in the uprating statement the allocation for 1989–90, which was confirmed in the autumn statement and in the recent public expenditure White Paper. Despite a happy massive reduction in unemployment and therefore a major reduction in case load, those allocations have been maintained. Therefore there should be an increase per case in the funds available. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend. I know that he takes a serious interest in this and I know that he will have noted carefully what I said in my opening answer.
    Miss Lestor: When the Minister reviews the social fund, will he consider particularly some of the problems that have arisen in Salford—I am sure similar problems have been encountered in other places—where people who have been in hospital a long time and those in residential care who cannot get other accommodation, have had to refuse private rented accommodation because the social fund does not cover deposits that are required in that sector? He also said that he would make some comment to the House on the Barnado's report on the problems of youngsters coming out of care and their accommodation difficulties. Will he do so now?
    Mr. Moore: Obviously I will watch carefully how the social fund works because I am determined to ensure that this much more effective method of helping those in need is monitored and adjusted if necessary. Recently I met representatives of certain organisations who raised the difficulties that they believe are being faced by a particular group of 16 and 17-year-olds. Obviously I shall consider that matter with care.
    I should stress to the hon. Lady that if one considers the different offices and the differential way in which the rules on community care grants in particular are applied, one realises that serious application by social workers, by local authorities and by diligent Members of Parliament—I know that the hon. Lady is such a Member—will ensure that community care grants are effectively spent.
    Mrs. Roe: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any items or expenses, previously excluded from the single payment expenses, which are now covered under the social fund?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind me that, because it is a discretionary fund, there are many examples of local expenditure that all sides of the House would welcome. One office, for example, paid for a holiday for a family whose young daughter had been seriously sexually abused—not surprisingly all the family had been under considerable stress. In another case a £500 grant was given for a teletext television for a deaf elderly pensioner, living alone, who had become extremely isolated. I could give many other illustrations of payments which could not have been covered under the old single payments system.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many offices are now reporting problems because people are having great difficulty in trying to fill in the 17-page form? Has he any ideas for changing that form, which is causing a great deal of trouble?
    Mr. Moore: On a previous occasion my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that we were looking at the form and we shall continue to do so. When that form is filled out with the help of the staff at local offices, it is producing considerable success in terms of the numbers of applications for grants. I am constantly looking at all of our forms because I am anxious to ensure that those who are entitled to receive those benefits with the help of the form and our offices.

    Personal Pension Schemes
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personal pension schemes have been established at the latest available date.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Nearly I million people have opted so far to take out a personal pension, through 122 personal pension schemes.
    Mr. Stern: I am most grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend recollect the way in which the Opposition fought the principle of personal pensions line by line and clause by clause during consideration of the Social Security Bill 1986? Does he agree that that shows, once again, how the Opposition object to any extension of freedom, although more than I million people have so far supported this extension of freedom?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that there was no enthusiasm by the Opposition for personal pensions. The figures that I have just given my hon. Friend show that there is enormous enthusiasm among those sections of the work force which, by and large, were not eligible to join the occupational pension schemes. Quite clearly, they wanted to do so.

    "Businessr j 3–1 of Service" (Report)
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is acting on any of the recommendations made in the "Business of Service" report.
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how relocation of social security office work out of London will affect service to the customer.
    Mr. Moore: I have accepted most of the recommendations of the "Business of Service" report and I am in the process of implementing them. Relocating some social security work will enable us to improve the current unsatisfactory service that customers receive in some London offices. By moving backroom work out of London we shall be able to provide a better, more efficient and responsive service to our customers. All the affected London offices will remain open, some on better sites, and more branch offices will be opened in poorly served areas.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no social security offices in my constituency will be closed? If any are closed that will obviously result in a far worse service to my constituents.
    Mr. Moore: As I have said, there are no proposals to close offices although some are not regarded by our staff as being in the best locations to serve my hon. Friend's customers who are also, happily, his constituents.
    Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the effect of moving the London social security offices to the regions? Are any scheduled to go to Sheffield, Hallam? Assuming that the answer is no, will he consider moving some there because I am sure that that would benefit the city greatly?
    Mr. Moore: On this occasion I cannot give any joy to my hon. Friend. I commend him for the way in which he argues for his constituents. The three social security centres that I announced recently will be in Glasgow, Belfast and the Wigan area. We shall, of course, consider further relocation for parts of my headquarter operation. I shall take seriously the interests of the assisted areas in parts of the country where, tragically, there are still higher levels of unemployment than I would like.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the computer projects, on whose efficient operation the success of this proposal depends, the social fund program for example is now running on its sixth version and still contains 100 mistakes? Is he aware that when queries are made at local offices about delays and mistakes in the payment of benefits that are handled centrally, such as some disability benefits, the usual answer is, "That has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for Blackpool, Glasgow or Newcastle"—or wherever? It is widely believed that these delays occur because there is not enough staff at those locations to cope with the workload. Does the Secretary of State expect the House to believe that the proposals will lead to an improved service while still saving £4 million a year?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady is wrong, and not only on the detailed facts about the computer program. I had hoped that she would wish to commend it because, despite the initial teething troubles in parts of the computer program, it is one of the most successful operations by civil servants that I have seen in our country for generations. However, that is not relevant to the actual decisions. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the key problems relate to the difficulties of many employers in London about high wastage, rates, working conditions and the costs of London work. I noted carefully the warm reaction by
    626
    many hon. Members to the sensible relocation to those areas of the country that will benefit. That relocation also helps customers, staff and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: In his laudable attempts to improve the service to the customer by the relocation of Social Security Department facilities, will my right hon. Friend bend his mind to the facilities that have already been relocated? The attendance allowance delays that are reported to me in my surgery are getting far and away out of hand. There is inordinate delay in dealing with applications and appeals relating to attendance allowance. That needs to be corrected. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to do so?
    Mr. Moore: Of course. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are discussing relocation and the ability of our centres to give good customer service, whether on family credit or attendance allowance. I am determined to achieve such a service. Despite current difficulties we have seen considerable improvements in the last year.

    Social Fund (St. Helens)
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund allocation for his Department's offices in St. Helens for the next two years.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I will, with permission, circulate details of the social fund allocations for 1989–90 to offices in Great Britain in the Official Report. I shall also place a copy in the Library. The allocation to St. Helens is £806,802 comprising £574,468 for loans and £232,334 for grants. Decisions on the allocations for 1990–91 will be made nearer that time.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in St. Helens, the DSS has spent less than 40 per cent. of this year's budget for community grants? Does he accept that one of the reasons for this is the bewildering complexity of the forms that applicants have to fill in? I recently spent over an hour filling in one of those forms for a confused pensioner. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he fixes the budgets for the next two years, he will greatly simplify the application forms? That would greatly improve the take-up, because the problem is that people do not understand the forms.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the expenditure of his local office on grants in December went up to 50 per cent. I should like to place on record the appreciation of the local office of his interest in seeing that these grants are paid to the people who need them.
    Such a constructive approach will help to ensure that this money, which is intended for those in most need, gets to them. If we can also assist by improving the forms still further, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall certainly do so. As these grants go to those in the community in most need of assistance, we depend on other organisations, local Members of Parliament and social services departments to assist in ensuring that the money reaches the people for whom it is intended.
    Following are the details:

    627

    Social Fund Budget allocations 1989–90

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    1. London (North) Region

    Acton

    285,951

    124,062

    410,013

    Aylesbury

    133.151

    59,100

    192,251

    Banbury

    87,735

    38,153

    125,888

    Barking

    313,684

    140,139

    453,824

    Barnet

    100,310

    46,161

    146,471

    Basildon

    515,435

    228,294

    743,729

    Bedford

    247,883

    107,485

    355,368

    Braintree

    133,622

    59,026

    192,647

    Bury St. Edmunds

    150,749

    66,576

    217,325

    Cambridge

    258,778

    117,435

    376,213

    Canning Town

    263,616

    110,592

    374,208

    Chelmsford

    133,780

    60,757

    194,537

    Clacton

    109,000

    48,123

    157,124

    Colchester

    179,783

    77,927

    257,710

    Cricklewood

    250,516

    107,215

    357,731

    Diss

    34,061

    15,683

    49,745

    Dunstable

    89,722

    40,087

    129,809

    Ealing

    266,310

    115,991

    382,301

    Edgware

    161,636

    69,648

    231,284

    Edmonton

    228,510

    101,596

    330,105

    Euston

    254,847

    109,969

    364,816

    Finsbury Park

    505,202

    217,845

    723,047

    Grays

    234,643

    104,912

    339,555

    Great Yarmouth

    203,304

    92,448

    295,752

    Hackney

    654,199

    275,244

    929,443

    Harlesden

    437,683

    190,576

    628,259

    Harlow

    201,413

    89,825

    291,238

    Harrow

    194,377

    82,843

    277,220

    Hemel Hempstead

    117,928

    53,616

    171,544

    Hendon

    231,161

    101,149

    332,310

    Hertford

    111,065

    49,724

    160,790

    High Wycombe

    160,748

    74,785

    235,532

    Highgate

    391,619

    169,589

    561,208

    Hoxton

    385,192

    169,034

    554,226

    Ilford

    378,610

    167,826

    546,436

    Ipswich

    263,156

    114,982

    378,138

    Kings Lynn

    247,648

    108,361

    356,009

    Leytonstone

    327,224

    144,319

    471,543

    Lowestoft

    186,885

    82,482

    269,366

    Luton

    348,434

    143,619

    492,053

    Milton Keynes

    290,573

    124,913

    415,486

    Neasden

    398,912

    166,445

    565,357

    Norwich Chantry

    286,113

    125,940

    412,054

    Norwich Mountergate

    454,483

    192,742

    647,225

    Notting Hill

    236,467

    100,841

    337,309

    Oxford

    442,510

    188,702

    631,212

    Paddington

    364,673

    168,491

    533,164

    Peterborough

    646,116

    273,462

    919,578

    Plaistow

    357,728

    152,462

    510,190

    Poplar

    366,524

    155,452

    521,976

    Romford

    213,071

    97,879

    310,950

    Shoreditch

    342,534

    153,003

    495,537

    Southall

    209,844

    95,113

    304,957

    Southend

    274,268

    120,203

    394,471

    St. Albans

    120,455

    55,978

    176,434

    Stepney

    198,289

    84,902

    283,191

    Stevenage

    198,476

    85,672

    284,148

    Stoke Newington

    308,676

    132,623

    441,299

    Thames North

    19,115

    6,861

    25,976

    Tottenham

    440,379

    187,222

    627,601

    Uxbridge

    121,234

    52,991

    174,225

    Walthamstow

    262,535

    118,346

    380,881

    Watford

    119,905

    55,380

    175,285

    Wood Green

    201,433

    92,723

    294,155

    Woodgrange Park

    587,725

    246,991

    834,716

    Totals

    17,241,606

    7,512,537

    24,754,143

    2. London (South) region

    Aldershot

    169,186

    72,675

    241,861

    Andover

    66,391

    30,294

    96,685

    Ashford

    104,572

    47,027

    151,599

    Balham

    418,883

    179,798

    598,680

    Basingstoke

    83,582

    35,833

    119,415

    Battersea

    424,376

    191,711

    616,087

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Bexley

    243,385

    108,041

    351,426

    Bloomsbury

    181,066

    84,079

    265,145

    Bognor Regis

    108,363

    48,769

    157,132

    Bracknell

    104,382

    47,919

    152,301

    Brighton

    358,554

    161,888

    520,443

    Brixton

    381,073

    170,379

    551,452

    Bromley

    157,237

    72,107

    229,344

    Camberwell

    409,866

    175,936

    585,802

    Canterbury

    123,008

    58,173

    181,181

    Chatham

    270,121

    109,755

    379,876

    Chelsea

    331,875

    143,897

    475,772

    Chichester

    60,968

    28,308

    89,276

    City (London)

    99,362

    44,892

    144,254

    Crawley

    122,128

    54,771

    176,899

    Croydon

    346,726

    151,909

    498,635

    Crystal Palace

    394,266

    179,061

    573,329

    Dartford

    99,943

    45,234

    145,176

    Dover

    92,882

    40,139

    133,021

    Eastbourne

    166,062

    75,210

    241,272

    Eltham

    73,952

    30,853

    104,705

    Epson

    55,197

    25,109

    80,307

    Fareham

    199,443

    82,192

    281,635

    Folkestone

    116,633

    50,778

    167,412

    Gravesend

    112,102

    47,824

    159,926

    Greenwich Park

    518,737

    221,658

    740,394

    Guildford

    118,566

    55,356

    173,922

    Hastings

    216,838

    105,866

    322,704

    Havant

    213,702

    88,386

    302,088

    Hither Green

    124,471

    55,010

    179,481

    Hounslow

    379,484

    165,053

    544,537

    Hove

    165,047

    78,407

    243,453

    Isle of Wight

    219,260

    94,957

    314,217

    Kennington Park

    369,213

    153,717

    522,931

    Kensington

    194,750

    84,225

    278,974

    Kingston

    147,986

    66,848

    214,834

    Lewes

    104,012

    46,160

    150,172

    Lewisham

    562,602

    239,216

    801,818

    Maidstone

    153,068

    67,957

    221,025

    Mitcham

    124,714

    57,076

    181,790

    New Forest

    142,157

    60,615

    202,772

    Newbury

    79,425

    36,403

    115,828

    Orpington

    87,293

    39,371

    126,664

    Oval

    368,777

    164,364

    533,140

    Peckham

    329,774

    145,861

    475,635

    Portsmouth North

    174,625

    76,515

    251,140

    Portsmouth South

    159,300

    68,800

    228,101

    Reading

    373,843

    159,827

    533,670

    Redhill

    99,776

    45,275

    145,050

    Rochester

    115,513

    49,712

    165,225

    Sittingbourne

    169,896

    70,100

    239,996

    Slough

    218,278

    94,424

    312,701

    Southampton

    482,712

    201,592

    684,304

    Southwark

    449,003

    208,657

    657,660

    Streatham

    353,899

    150,008

    503,907

    Surbiton

    62,437

    27,105

    89,543

    Sutton

    76,670

    33,951

    110,621

    Thames South

    24,631

    9,558

    34,188

    Thanet

    251,531

    113,336

    364,866

    Tunbridge Wells

    113,626

    51,854

    165,480

    Twickenham

    76,998

    35,246

    112,244

    Wandsworth

    207,195

    90,505

    297,700

    Westminster

    157,312

    70,120

    227,432

    Wimbledon

    167,140

    71328

    238,469

    Winchester

    94,606

    40,696

    135,302

    Woking

    150,769

    65,440

    216,209

    Woolwich

    733,974

    310,327

    1,044,301

    Worthing

    152,338

    68,600

    220,938

    Totals

    15,361,432

    6,734,045

    22,095,477

    3. Midlands Region

    Birmingham Bradford Street

    320,370

    130,510

    450,881

    Birmingham Edgbaston

    598,925

    255,223

    854,147

    Birmingham Erdington

    558,105

    243,468

    801,573

    Birmingham Handsworth

    770,837

    319,141

    1,089,978

    Birmingham Ladywood

    460,311

    196,366

    656,677

    Birmingham Northfield

    522,226

    219,897

    742,124

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Birmingham Perry Barr

    386,241

    157,206

    543,447

    Birmingham Ravenshurst

    281,772

    130,204

    411,975

    Birmingham South Yardley

    526,576

    226,042

    752,619

    Birmingham Sparkhill

    217,807

    92,197

    310,004

    Birmingham Washwood Heath

    476,779

    200,111

    676,890

    Boston

    121,624

    53,006

    174,631

    Burton on Trent

    120,875

    53,787

    174,663

    Cannock

    206,560

    83,324

    289,883

    Chesterfield

    394,692

    168,124

    562,816

    Corby

    183,483

    77,647

    261,130

    Coventry East

    708,200

    288,114

    996,314

    Coventry West

    466,926

    189,889

    656,815

    Derby Becket Street

    223,321

    100,276

    323,597

    Derby Heritage Gate

    133,854

    58,280

    192,134

    Derby London Road

    322,844

    135,672

    458,517

    Dudley North

    454,371

    185,705

    640,076

    Dudley South

    206,145

    92,016

    298,161

    Grantham

    119,829

    49,610

    169,439

    Hereford

    205,712

    93,538

    299,249

    Ilkeston

    201,578

    86,709

    288,286

    Kidderminster

    242,695

    98,136

    340,831

    Leamington

    194,228

    86,954

    281,182

    Leicester Burleys Way

    235,126

    102,735

    337,860

    Leicester Lower Hill Street

    357,728

    152,658

    510,386

    Leicester Norton Street

    408,438

    177,152

    585,590

    Leicester Yeoman Street

    575,257

    249,696

    824,953

    Lichfield

    315,354

    128,305

    443,659

    Lincoln Newland

    317,210

    137,289

    454,499

    Lincoln Orchard Street

    367,347

    170,103

    537,451

    Loughborough

    173,927

    75,223

    249,150

    Mansfield

    368,727

    159,906

    528,634

    Newcastle (Staffs)

    241,422

    99,542

    340,964

    Northampton

    353,813

    155,376

    509,189

    Nottingham Castle Gate

    327,027

    139,345

    466,371

    Nottingham David Lane

    369,118

    157,536

    526.654

    Nottingham Shakespeare Street

    481,403

    204,264

    685,667

    Nottingham Station Street

    367,211

    160,323

    527,534

    Nuneaton

    272,889

    110,862

    383,751

    Redditch

    186,886

    77,378

    264,265

    Rugby

    114,732

    51,024

    165,756

    Shrewsbury

    295,080

    127,783

    422,863

    Skegness

    88,564

    39,180

    127,745

    Smethwick

    500,587

    207,507

    708,094

    Stafford

    128,752

    56,649

    185,401

    Stoke North

    404,010

    177,656

    581,666

    Stoke South

    237,625

    110,928

    348,553

    Sutton-in-Ashfield

    183,187

    80,047

    263,234

    Telford

    445,432

    191,335

    636,766

    Walsall East

    330,676

    134,490

    465,166

    Walsall West

    445,097

    198,232

    643,329

    Wellingborough

    298,713

    136,920

    435,633

    West Bromwich

    559,297

    239,122

    798,419

    Wolverhampton North

    713,287

    296,127

    1,009,414

    Wolverhampton South

    579,231

    249,684

    828,914

    Worcester

    278,947

    133,726

    412,674

    Worksop

    237,560

    99,684

    337,244

    Totals

    21,186,545

    9,058,942

    30,245,487

    4. North East Region

    Ashington

    221,427

    94,749

    316,175

    Barnsley East

    602,431

    251,189

    853,620

    Barnsley West

    355,031

    145,756

    500,787

    Berwick-On-Tweed

    26,112

    12,023

    38,134

    Bishop Auckland

    381,643

    158,242

    539,885

    Blyth

    217,724

    93,681

    311,404

    Bradford East

    442,986

    196,697

    639,683

    Bradford South

    397,200

    161,282

    558,482

    Bradford West

    443,796

    186,072

    629,867

    Bridlington

    109,409

    52,436

    161,845

    Castleford

    190,138

    77,631

    267,769

    Chester-Le-Street

    202,581

    85,079

    287,660

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Darlington

    449,667

    188,278

    637,944

    Dewsbury

    299,865

    127,316

    427,179

    Doncaster East

    352,879

    143,325

    496,204

    Doncaster West

    543,032

    231,410

    774,442

    Durham

    158,232

    66,319

    224,551

    Eston

    291,568

    113,030

    404,597

    Gateshead

    593,458

    241,873

    835,331

    Goole

    115,095

    52,322

    167,417

    Grimsby

    542,123

    219,244

    761,367

    Halifax

    449,551

    197,962

    647,512

    Harrogate

    145,803

    64,113

    209,916

    Hartlepool

    338,628

    134,655

    473,282

    Hemsworth

    153,033

    69,354

    222,387

    Hexham

    50,085

    21,885

    71,970

    Houghton Le Spring

    161,336

    66,348

    227,634

    Huddersfield

    358,945

    154,968

    513,913

    Hull East

    671,197

    295,477

    966,674

    Hull West

    558,973

    251,564

    810,536

    Jarrow

    325,384

    138,204

    463,588

    Keighley

    195,704

    84,032

    279,736

    Leeds East

    591,480

    246,151

    837,632

    Leeds North

    699,290

    299,660

    998,950

    Leeds North West

    362,307

    166,967

    529.274

    Leeds South

    243,725

    105,300

    349.024

    Leeds West

    326,381

    142,116

    468.498

    Middlesbrough

    896,332

    354,181

    1,250.513

    Newcastle East

    430,341

    174,752

    605,093

    Newcastle St. James

    502,248

    207,770

    710,018

    Newcastle West

    417,995

    170,806

    588,801

    North Shields

    336,436

    145,451

    481,887

    Northallerton

    84,243

    37,599

    121,841

    Peterlee

    202,186

    87,199

    289,385

    Pontefract

    191,449

    81,057

    272,507

    Redcar

    296,301

    138,058

    434,359

    Rotherham North

    167,787

    71,922

    239,709

    Rotherham South

    537,689

    230,351

    768,040

    Scarborough

    161,228

    67,263

    228,492

    Scunthorpe

    370,961

    153,256

    524,217

    Seaham

    77,923

    34,894

    112,817

    Sheffield North East

    974,273

    411,432

    1,385,705

    Sheffield North West

    723,208

    303,988

    1,027,196

    Sheffield South East

    474,642

    196,972

    671,614

    Sheffield South West

    624,974

    274,772

    899,745

    Skipton

    30,337

    13,861

    44,199

    South Shields

    433,545

    183,063

    616,607

    Stanley

    308,225

    126,013

    434,237

    Stockton

    634,110

    263,453

    897,562

    Sunderland North

    851,567

    338,682

    1,190,249

    Sunderland South

    533,100

    212,467

    ^45,567

    Wakefield

    324,752

    142,422

    467,174

    Wallsend

    273,606

    115,442

    389,047

    Wath-On-Dearne

    336,146

    134,286

    470,432

    York

    299,802

    133,022

    432,824

    TOTALS

    24,063,620

    10,141,138

    34,204,758

    5. North West Region

    Accrington

    196,613

    88,540

    285,154

    Ashton-Under-Lyne

    262,459

    117,239

    379,698

    Barrow in Furness

    156,293

    73,195

    229,488

    Birkenhead North

    640,278

    265,117

    905,395

    Birkenhead South

    301,152

    124,202

    425,354

    Blackburn

    356,591

    152,858

    509,449

    Bolton

    598,568

    246,144

    844,712

    Bootle

    533,794

    209,972

    743,766

    Burnley

    386,276

    172,747

    559,023

    Bury

    347,978

    155,287

    503,265

    Buxton

    25,170

    11,528

    36,698

    Carlisle

    182,115

    82,342

    264,456

    Chester

    236,354

    98,035

    334,389

    Crewe

    240,214

    104,319

    344,533

    Crosby

    393,660

    162,090

    555,750

    Ellesmere Port

    225,953

    89,094

    315,047

    Failsworth

    415,759

    176,443

    592,202

    Farnworth

    214,098

    95,433

    309,531

    Fylde North

    297,865

    130,674

    428,539

    Fylde South

    144,366

    65,546

    209,912.

    Huyton

    666,622

    264,259

    930,881

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Hyde

    333,371

    134,023

    467,394

    Kendal

    33,667

    14,892

    48,559

    Kirkby

    684,935

    273,433

    958,368

    Lancaster

    344,134

    139,283

    483,417

    Leigh

    267,583

    112,642

    380,225

    Liverpool Belle Vale

    384,710

    157,853

    542,563

    Liverpool Breckfield

    631,306

    253,475

    884,782

    Liverpool City

    396,197

    162,917

    559,113

    Liverpool Edge Hill

    668,835

    258,026

    926,861

    Liverpool Garston

    330,728

    131,583

    462,311

    Liverpool Norris Green

    300,273

    120,474

    420,746

    Liverpool Toxteth

    799,340

    331,820

    1,131,160

    Liverpool West Derby

    173,159

    72,764

    245,923

    Macclesfield

    88,927

    40,220

    129,147

    Manchester Central

    204,566

    89,425

    293,992

    Manchester Cheetham

    380,254

    163,217

    543,471

    Manchester Chorlton

    353,314

    172,218

    525,532

    Manchester Longsight

    450,612

    191,988

    642,600

    Manchester Openshaw

    331,198

    142,854

    474,052

    Manchester Rusholme

    559,432

    244,743

    804,175

    Manchester Wythenshawe

    456,196

    192,343

    648,539

    Middleton

    249,628

    103,342

    352,971

    Northwich

    240,913

    100,537

    341,450

    Oldham

    433,409

    191,246

    624,655

    Penrith

    25,264

    11,831

    37,095

    Preston North

    330,911

    126,254

    457,165

    Preston South

    235,863

    102,480

    338,343

    Rochdale

    333,564

    140,740

    474,304

    Rossendale

    119,022

    52,248

    171,270

    Sale

    317,676

    136,578

    454,254

    Salford North

    381,113

    167,969

    549,082

    Salford South

    251,327

    106,731

    358,058

    Skelmersdale

    384,801

    162,618

    547,419

    Southport

    120,735

    52,833

    173,568

    St. Helens

    574,468

    232,334

    806,802

    Stockport North

    336,623

    137,503

    474,126

    Stockport South

    322,694

    138,202

    460,896

    Wallasey

    418,170

    169,337

    587,507

    Warrington

    454,245

    186,157

    640,401

    Whitehaven

    109,546

    45,323

    154,869

    Widnes

    669,999

    278,390

    948,389

    Wigan

    540,889

    237,170

    778,059

    Wilmslow

    59,321

    27,908

    87,229

    Workington

    155,151

    70,633

    225,784

    Totals

    22,060,244

    9,263,618

    31,323,862

    6. Scotland Region

    Aberdeen North

    324,995

    136,664

    461,658

    Aberdeen South

    288,795

    125,366

    414,161

    Airdrie

    659,396

    269,305

    928,701

    Arbroath

    156,677

    71,030

    227,707

    Ayr

    743,508

    301,989

    1,045,498

    Bathgate

    524,997

    223,124

    748,121

    Bellshill

    489,243

    193,990

    683,233

    Campbeltown

    39,008

    16,540

    55,548

    Clydebank

    479,332

    193,619

    672,951

    Coatbridge

    475,741

    192,395

    668,136

    Cowdenbeath

    149,213

    69,269

    218,482

    Cumbernauld

    474,682

    211,784

    686,466

    Dumbarton

    461,624

    194,681

    656,305

    Dumfries

    224,927

    98,655

    323,582

    Dundee East

    452,227

    188,946

    641,172

    Dundee West

    372,589

    154,368

    526,958

    Dunfermline

    223,093

    96,750

    319,843

    East Kilbride

    277,067

    121,959

    399,026

    Edinburgh City

    518,955

    222,994

    741,949

    Edinburgh East

    471,904

    202,701

    674,604

    Edinburgh North

    411,233

    167,807

    579,039

    Edinburgh South

    432,974

    179,642

    612,616

    Edinburgh West

    442,024

    182,844

    624,869

    Elgin

    164,853

    69,520

    234,373

    Falkirk

    616,125

    252,999

    869,124

    Fort William

    75,106

    33,202

    108,308

    Galashiels

    158,789

    75,861

    234,600

    Glasgow Anniesland

    684,448

    284,249

    968,698

    Glasgow Bridgeton

    456,354

    203,051

    659,405

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Glasgow City

    565,884

    250,765

    816,650

    Glasgow Craigton

    844,419

    347,990

    1,192,409

    Glasgow Cranstonhill

    98,759

    37,207

    135,965

    Glasgow Laurieston

    847,613

    357,390

    1,205,003

    Glasgow Maryhill

    713,217

    299,598

    1,012,815

    Glasgow Parkhead

    892,547

    368,309

    1,260,856

    Glasgow Partick

    398,764

    166,606

    565,371

    Glasgow Provan

    1,035,477

    416,294

    1,451,772

    Glasgow Rutherglen

    1,079,128

    429,846

    1,508,974

    Glasgow South Side

    865,646

    355,586

    1,221,231

    Glasgow Springburn

    927,660

    380,519

    1,308,179

    Greenock

    654,289

    265,969

    920,258

    Hamilton

    1,063,192

    447,633

    1,510,824

    Inverness

    326,136

    149,629

    475,765

    Irvine

    746,994

    321,952

    1,068,946

    Johnstone

    331,768

    136,878

    468,646

    Kilmarnock

    403,821

    166,720

    570,541

    Kirkcaldy

    424,204

    172,952

    597,156

    Lerwick

    22,216

    9,455

    31,671

    Leven

    156,076

    63,128

    219,203

    Motherwell

    653,179

    263,883

    917,062

    Oban

    49,263

    21,678

    70,941

    Paisley

    823,936

    325,259

    1,149,195

    Perth

    203,370

    84,464

    287,833

    Peterhead

    136,006

    60,290

    196,296

    Port Glasgow

    406,643

    165,995

    572,637

    Stirling

    399,921

    160,146

    560,067

    Stornoway

    72,129

    32,710

    104,840

    Stranraer

    90,519

    39,199

    129,718

    Wick

    91,977

    41,362

    133,339

    Totals

    26,574,580

    11,074,717

    37,649,297

    7. Wales and South West Region

    Aberdare

    281,323

    123,789

    405,112

    Abertillery

    119,094

    49,186

    168,280

    Aberystwyth

    94,095

    41,905

    135,999

    Ammanford (Group)

    81,360

    38,263

    119,623

    Anglesey

    183,796

    76,180

    259,976

    Bargeoed

    228,385

    92,738

    321,123

    Barnstaple

    169,204

    78,802

    248,006

    Barry

    195,243

    80,865

    276,108

    Bath

    190,540

    83,703

    274,243

    Blackwood

    141,463

    57,868

    199,331

    Bournemouth

    277,466

    120,995

    398,461

    Bridgend

    273,323

    118,509

    391,833

    Bridgwater

    138,064

    54,339

    192,403

    Bristol Central

    264,123

    116,999

    381,122

    Bristol East

    298,880

    132,396

    431,276

    Bristol Horfield

    166,519

    70,157

    236,676

    Bristol South

    390,871

    161,817

    552,689

    Bristol West

    122,689

    53,334

    176,023

    Caernarfon

    132,703

    53,382

    186,085

    Caerphilly

    329,926

    139,599

    469,526

    Cardiff Central

    299,032

    125,895

    424,927

    Cardiff East

    526,381

    213,772

    740,153

    Cardiff West

    382,057

    164,352

    546,410

    Carmarthen

    79,550

    32,716

    112,266

    Cheltenham

    191,199

    81,329

    272,528

    Chippenham

    75,112

    35,553

    110,664

    Colwyn Bay

    172,355

    73,246

    245,601

    Cwmbran (Group)

    333,846

    140,110

    473,958

    Deeside

    140,614

    61,423

    202,037

    Devonport

    345,648

    149,804

    495,452

    Ebbw Vale (Group)

    209,720

    84,673

    294,394

    Exeter

    425,041

    188,942

    613,983

    Gloucester

    364,755

    158,551

    523,306

    Haverfordwest

    184,884

    73,398

    258,282

    Launceston

    86,634

    37,376

    124,010

    Llanelli

    238,119

    95,571

    335,690

    Merthyr Tydfil

    267,040

    105,445

    372,485

    Morriston

    307,767

    135,427

    443,194

    Neath

    161,257

    67,077

    228,333

    Newport (Gwent)

    662,077

    278,899

    940,975

    Newtown (Group)

    96,349

    42,481

    138,829

    Pembroke Dock

    119,492

    50,949

    170,441

    Penzance

    158,004

    63,956

    221,959

    Plymouth

    401,787

    174,891

    576,678

    Loans

    Grants

    Total

    Pontypridd

    228,791

    103,227

    332,018

    Poole

    223,173

    97,670

    320,843

    Port Talbot

    177,096

    74,259

    251,355

    Porth

    133,229

    54,975

    188,204

    Porthmadog-Dolgellau

    78,123

    32,779

    110,903

    Rhondda West

    229,361

    92,610

    321,970

    Rhyl

    262,960

    115,581

    378,541

    Salisbury

    117,921

    51,043

    168,964

    St. Austell

    196,298

    82,422

    278,720

    Stroud

    113,271

    48,652

    161,923

    Swansea

    587,165

    268,015

    855,181

    Swindon

    240,052

    102,929

    342,981

    Taunton

    186,496

    83,497

    269,993

    Torbay

    388,969

    171,024

    559,993

    Trowbridge

    87,608

    39,339

    126,946

    Truro

    235,100

    102,242

    337,341

    Weston-Super-Mare

    138,411

    59,489

    197,901

    Weymouth

    128,919

    57,336

    186,255

    Wrexham (Group)

    349,058

    148,016

    497,074

    Yeovil

    101,032

    48,067

    149,099

    Totals

    14,510,822

    6,215,834

    20,726,656

    Note: The totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Centenarians
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) males and (b) females according to national insurance records have become centenarians in each of the past five years, and in the same period between 1965 and 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: I regret that the precise information requested is not available, but over the past five years there has been a significant increase in the number of people aged 100. The number of women has increased from 1,150 to 1,550 and the number of men has more than doubled from 100 to 210. Today is the 100th birthday of four people and the 106th birthday of another, and one person, Brigadier Mrs. Mary Fewster of the Salvation Army, is celebrating her 111th birthday today. I offer them all my warmest congratulations and good wishes and I shall, with permission, publish a full breakdown of the figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Greenway: I echo those congratulations. Are not these figures yet another sign of the success of the Government's policies, and a clear confirmation of which is the stronger sex? What does the trend of those figures imply for male members of the Cabinet who are hoping to succeed?
    Mr. Scott: I shall steer clear of the latter point. Yes, I am encouraged by the fact that men are improving their achievement of this target at a more rapid rate than women. I understand that my hon. Friend runs a club in his constitutency for centenarians. I hope that one day he may qualify for membership.
    Mr. Eastham: Does not this question reinforce the fact that as more people are living longer, there is a greater strain on the NHS? Does not the great number of old people who have been added to the figures justify the Labour party's case for spending more on the NHS?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The shift in the demographic pattern in our society will mean more old people, and more old frail people. That has
    634
    implications for the Health Service, the social security system and other matters. All these are being considered well in advance by the Government.
    Mr. Holt: In his list, my hon. Friend omitted Britain's oldest person, who lives in my constituency. The House will be pleased to know that she is still living on her own, and she answered the phone this morning when we rang t o find out how she was. She is now well on her way to her 112th birthday.
    Mr. Scott: I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend.
    Following is the information:
    The number of people who became centenarians in each of the last five years is not available. The number of men and women aged 100 years as at 31 March in each of the last five years is as follows:

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1 1987

    1988

    Males

    100

    170

    170

    200

    210

    Females

    1,150

    1,250

    1,230

    1,420

    1,550

    Corresponding figures for 1965 to 1969 are not available as records did not begin until 1983.

    1 30 September 1987.

    Social Security Payments
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce amendments into the regulations governing social security payments in order to restore transitional protection to those who now lose it due to such changes in their circumstances as a stay in hospital.
    Mr. Scott: No, Sir. I would point out to the hon. Member that the new income support rules for single people who go into hospital are far more generous than the old. Income support for these people now remains unchanged for the first six weeks after admission, by which time about 94 per cent. of people are discharged from hospital. Supplementary benefit used to be reduced from the first week of admission.
    Mr. Michael: Does not the Minister's reply amount to a confession that the Government's promise of transitional protection was not worth the paper on which it was written? Does the Minister realise that many people are losing out through having to go into hospital and through many other changes in their lives that are irrelevant to their circumstances? What does he have to say to the lady who discovered that her husband's death triggered a cut in the payments that were meant to assist with her own health? Will he confess that the Government have tried to con the poor?
    Mr. Scott: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman listened to my main answer. Perhaps he was too busy preparing his supplementary question when I was delivering it. Transitional protection will cost about £200 million in its first year. It has been of significant help to many people.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that the appalling examples of those who have lost transitional protection over the past few months would all have been included in the figure which he used repeatedly last April? He told us then that 88 per cent. would be no worse off at the point of change. Does not that which has happened

    635
    since then expose how bogus that figure always was? Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the parallel provision for housing benefit, which effectively ceases after six weeks in hospital? There are many frail and elderly patients who find after a spell in hospital that they have arrears amounting to hundreds of pounds? That cannot be justified, and I am even prepared to believe that it cannot have been intended. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to change this vindictive rule before it causes any more distress?
    Mr. Scott: I do not agree for one moment with the hon. Gentleman's description of the system. The essence of transitional protection is that it is eroded after time. It is right that we introduced the protection in April 1988 to ensure that no one faced a cliff-edge drop in cash terms. As I said earlier, over 94 per cent. of patients are discharged from hospital within six weeks. We are monitoring the effect on the balance.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister note that many come off transitional protection for short-term employment reasons? My constituency is an example of an area where much of the employment is seasonal and short-term by definition, and those who are engaged in it lose transitional protection. I cannot believe that that was intended as in many instances the effect of the loss of transitional protection is severe. I ask the Minister to review the scheme because the issue goes much wider than the strict definition of the question. There are many who are losing a great deal.
    Mr. Scott: We have made concessions for some who are in vulnerable groups. We are monitoring the effect of the present scheme.

    Income Support
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that the new income support scheme is easier to operate than supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Moore: Claims for income support are being processed more quickly and accurately than claims for supplementary benefit. Error rates are down from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent. and will fall further. Claims are being processed in five days as opposed to as many as 11, and we shall improve further. People find the scheme easier to understand and the rate of successful claims has increased from 74 per cent. to 80 per cent.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks, which confirm the impression which I have gained from my local office. What is the average clearance rate under the new scheme compared with that under the old? I invite my right hon. Friend to say more about whether applicants are finding it an easier scheme to use than the previous one.
    Mr. Moore: There has been a reduction from the worst rate of about 11 days, which we saw in the latter part of 1987. The average number of days last year was seven, and we are now down to five. Our customers are finding the scheme a great deal easier to use, and the staff are finding it enormously simpler. We should all be pleased to know that as a result the success rate has increased.
    Mr. Wareing: How is the new system helping people like Mr. Wyatt, a constituent of mine, who was asked at
    636
    the Department of Employment office how much he expected to receive if he was lucky enough to get a job? When Mr. Wyatt answered £120 a week, my 58-year-old constituent found that his income support was stopped. It was resumed only a few weeks later and the payments were reduced by £6 per week. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the way in which people like my constituent are discriminated against?
    Mr. Moore: I have learnt how important and wise it is to get all the details about individual cases before trying to comment on any particular one. The new income support, in comparison with the old supplementary benefit, has not only made the system simpler, but has improved turnround and the way in which people get their claims settled. I should have thought that all hon. Members would regard that as important, because nearly 4·5 million people are on our live income support load. The new system has reduced the error rate and improved the success rate. I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome that.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems with the old system continues with the present system? There is a tendency among some officers to assure constituents, including some of mine, that a giro is in the post when they inquire about benefit. However, the inquirer finds, after several days' wait and many complaints to the Post Office, that the giro is not in the post. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that officers tell people that a giro is in the post only when they have a document before them which makes it clear that the giro is in the post? That would stop them misleading people.
    Mr. Moore: I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has made because I have experience of similar cases in my constituency which is an urban area. Overall, the system is working infinitely better than the old, highly complex and very difficult supplementary benefit system.

    Fraud
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to cut down on social security fraud.
    Mr. Moore: Since this Government took office, we have nearly doubled the number of staff on anit-fraud work to over 3,300. Cheats are nothing more than spongers on the rest of us and my Department has stepped up its drive against claimants who cheat. Resources are being used more efficiently. Investigations into high-risk areas are producing good results. More people are being found out. As a result, this year we shall produce the best savings ever, around £250 million—up from £100 million five years ago, but still only one eighth of what the Inland Revenue recovered last year through its compliance work.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on that not just from Conservative Members, but from people who genuinely claim social security and those on modest incomes who pay taxes towards the people who are cheating the system? Will he assure the House that, when people are found to be defrauding the system, they will be prosecuted and that the widest possible publicity is given to that to deter others from taking that line?
    Mr. Moore: Of course I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. No hon. Member can endorse cheating. However, I should stress that. this Government are pursuing this problem sensibly, unlike the Labour Government who believed in a high prosecution policy, did not collect figures for fraud and saw no reason to account for or demonstrate value for money. Last year, 7,231 people were prosecuted whereas during the last full year of the Labour Government's term of office, 21,913 people were prosecuted. That is a sign of the less-than-humane pursuit of a very serious problem.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree that if claimants at the Department of Social Security are not informed of their due rights, that can also be classed as fraud? Will he restate to DSS officers throughout the country that they are there to help, advise and guide people who make rightful claims and that the duty rests with the DHS to assist those people or they will lose benefit, which would be fraud by the state?
    Mr. Moore: There is a duty on the individual and I also fully accept that there is a duty on my offices and staff. In the "Business of Service" report which I am seeking to implement, I strongly endorse not necessarily the hon. Gentleman's words, but ways in which I encourage my staff to treat and serve their customers so that their entitlement to benefit is fully and well understood.
    Mr. David Nicholson: While the House welcomes my right hon. Friend's administrative measures to reduce fraud, is he aware that there is a widespread welcome in the country for the legislative measures he is taking—in particular, the Social Security Bill, which is proceeding upstairs? It is unacceptable that in large areas of the country where there is work, people are able successively to refuse jobs and continue living on benefit.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I read with continued interest, and sometimes with amazement, the Hansard reports of the proceedings of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the Opposition in the Committee on the Social Security Bill and I cannot begin to understand how an Opposition can be so far removed from the basic attitudes, beliefs and views held by the majority of our people—with whom my hon. Friend is so closely connected.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to amend the relevant legislation in order to restore the age limit for widows' pensions to 40 years.
    Mr. Scott: No, Sir.
    Mr. Banks: It did not take the Minister very long to come up with that reply, and I am very disappointed with it. Is he aware that about 2,000 women were widowed between September 1987 and April 1988, and therefore fell foul, retroactively, of the changes made in the social security provisions? All those widows will lose about £32,000 each. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going around bragging, at every dinner to which he can get an invitation, that the country's coffers are overflowing, what justification is there for him to deprive the country's bereaved of what is justifiably theirs? If the Minister will
    638
    not reconsider his terse reply, will he at least drop the mean-spirited approach that the Government adopt towards widows whose cases have been upheld by the appeal tribunal? The Government are trying to reverse such decisions? That is mean-spirited, and the Minister should have a heart.
    Mr. ScottAn important case is shortly to go before the social security commissioner and it would be unwise of me to comment on it. The whole thrust of the policy is to focus on older widows and widows with children. About 55,000 of them benefited as a result of our reforming the system.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it does no service to younger widows to exempt them from the necessity of earning a living? Nothing can be better for their morale than to get out and come to grips with life again.
    Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point that widows should be encouraged back into employment. Also, I am advised that about 90 per cent. of widows aged between 40 and 44 remarry.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister accept that it may be difficult for many widows to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) if they live in constituencies such as Glasgow, Maryhill where the official unemployment rate is 22 per cent.? Furthermore, is it not insulting to tell widows that their only hope, if they cannot find work, is that they had better find themselves husbands? How would the Minister like to be told, in similar circumstances, that he had better find himself a wife?
    Mr. Scott: I am saying that we are helping older widows and widows with dependent children. It is right to give them our highest priority. It is worth reminding the House yet again that about 55,000 widows benefited as a result of our reforms.
    Mr. McCrindle: Was not the change made on the supposition that it should be easier for younger widows to obtain employment? That must still apply. However, will my hon. Friend note that a number of employers continue discriminating against women because they are—to use their word, not mine—"older"? Will my hon. Friend take the initiative in persuading employers that, particularly as the number of teenagers coming on to the labour market falls, older women represent a particularly important source of future employees, and that age discrimination is not acceptable?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. Any employer taking such an attitude is being very short-sighted. As we get into an increasingly tight employment situation, with a reduction in the number of young people coming on to the labour market, wise employers will be looking throughout the age range for skills and experience.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister reconsider his appalling answer in the light of the experience of Mrs. Valerie Jones of Cwmlas Llanbradach? Her husband died tragically of cancer a year ago, 35 days before her 45th birthday and two months before this law came into effect. Her appeal was upheld by the social security tribunal, and the Government are appealing against that decision.
    The DSS and the Government believe that Mrs. Jones should go out to work. Tragically, she herself is now

    639
    suffering from cancer. She is one of the millions of victims of the Government, who have pursued and cheated people relentlessly under their social security legislation. In pursuing this woman to appeal to save a few pennies, the Government stand condemned 2,000 times over of mean, pitiless theft of the widow's mite.
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been carried away by his oratory. His description of the system is a travesty of the truth. As I have said, an important case—that of Mrs. Doreen Whitbread—is going to the social security commissioner soon: an early hearing is being arranged. I think that we should await that decision.

  THE ARTS

    British Theatre Association
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the number of texts in the British Theatre Association library.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I am advised by the British Theatre Association that it has nearly 300,000 texts in its library. I attach importance to ways being found of preserving public access to this collection. The House may like to know that discussions are taking place between the BTA, the British library and the Victoria and Albert Museum, and I understand that the BTA is actively exploring possible options.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept, then, that the library is the definitive theatre library, used by theatre companies and academics throughout the world? Does he accept that its closure would be a major loss to the country's theatres? Regardless of whatever talks may be going on, may I ask the Minister to guarantee that the Government will find the mere £150,000 that the library needs to continue to function?
    Mr. Luce: I certainly accept what the hon. Lady says about the importance of the collection to the world of drama. I know that it is a substantial collection, and that is why I have called the parties together—in particular the British library, which has considerable expertise at its disposal and has already offered the association a management consultancy advisory service free of charge, and the Victoria and Albert, which has a theatre museum—to give their advice. I am keen to find a viable solution based on value for money and the right location, and I am doing what I can with the parties concerned to facilitate that.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are extremely concerned about the future of this irreplaceable institution, and place great hopes in his determination to ensure that a solution is found to enable it to go on providing services to both the theatre and the general public?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure that he is right in stressing the importance of the collection to the drama world. I am also sure that it is right to look at every option, and to call on the expertise of the British library and other organisations to seek the best way of solving the problem. I shall continue to take a close interest.
    Mr. Sheldon: I think that the whole House will accept the right hon. Gentleman's interest, but will he accept that that it is not only advice that is wanted? What we need now is some money, and not a great deal. This is an invaluable collection and it must be preserved.
    Mr. Luce: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, about 6·5 per cent. of total resources was provided by the public sector in the last financial year. I think it right at this stage to consider what is the most viable proposition for the future of the collection. I entirely accept that it is an important collection which ought to be accessible to the drama world; my obligation is to see what can be done to find the most viable answer, and I think that the way in which we are now proceeding is the right way at this stage.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action that he has already taken is warmly welcomed? The library must be kept together, because its 300,000 volumes comprise a resource that commands respect and admiration throughout the world.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says is absolutely right. Again I stress that it is important to find a solution that is based on the best value for money and on the most viable proposition that we can find.
    Mr. Fisher: Is it not the case, as I believe the Minister knows, that Victoria and Albert museum and British library officials met on the Friday before last and expressed their concern and willingness to help but that they made it clear to the Minister that without money from him they were unable to do anything? The Minister's interest is welcome, but it is meaningless unless he provides some money. He is responsible for a national resource; his is the responsibility to fund it. Will he now stop wringing his hands and start providing money to save this institution, if he believes that it is worth saving?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I am wringing my hands is far from the truth. Neither the British library nor the V and A has come to me and said that it is essential that at this stage additional public money is provided. They are trying to find the most viable answer to the problem, and that is the right way to proceed. The Government are strongly committed to the library system. We have injected an additional £300 million of taxpayer's money into the construction of the new British library. Expenditure on public libraries, in real terms, in the last two years has increased by 9 per cent. There is no lack of commitment by the Government to the library system. However, it is right to seek a viable alternative solution for the library. That is what I am doing with all the expertise at my disposal.
    Mr. Maclennan: Although I recognise that talks with the British library make sense, the Minister is conveying the impression that he is acquiescing in the write-off of the British Theatre Association, which has other functions than the guarding of library resources. They include valuable national advice and courses that are not provided by any other national institution. Why is the Minister not illustrating his concern in a more practical way?
    Mr. Luce: The representations that have been made to me have been principally concerned with the importance of this collection, which is made up of 300,000 texts and other reference sources. I accept that it is important, and

    641
    it is right that I should be concerned about its importance. I believe that we must look at every option to ensure that we get the best value for money in the right location and in the right circumstances.

    Business Sponsorship
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of the business sponsoring incentive scheme.
    Mr. Luce: New sponsorship under the scheme continues to increase. It has brought over 900 businesses into arts sponsorship since 1984, but there is still room for growth. I therefore propose to allow individual arts organisations to be eligible for up to two awards next year, instead of one as at present, up to the maximum of £25,000. This will help smaller arts organisations and encourage more businesses to support the arts.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend knows that I warmly welcome the progress of this excellent scheme. Will he tell me what progress had been made in the north of England, as he knows that the regions derive particular benefit from the scheme?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has shown consistent support for the business sponsoring incentive scheme, which has brought, overall, an additional £23 million of extra money to the arts since its inception. There have been a number of sponsorships in the north-western area. For example, there have been recent awards to the Northern chamber orchestra, the Manchester museum, the Buxton arts festival and the Guildhall at Preston. Those are just some examples which demonstrate how widespread is the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise how important it is to ensure that the regions and sub-regional centres get an even bigger share of the money that is available from the scheme? Many centres, such as Burnley, which makes excellent provision for the arts and the theatre as a sub-regional centre, will be unable to maintain that provision, as a result of the poll tax legislation, unless it receives more support from this type of scheme.
    Mr. Luce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the scheme should be spread widely throughout the nation. I am glad that at least 70 per cent. of all the resources that have been allocated to the scheme have been for projects outside London. That is important. Sponsorship in Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, has been at a faster rate than in any other area. The evidence suggests that the scheme is becoming widespread. I urge sponsors with headquarters in London to ensure that adequate attention is given to the recommendations of their regional managers.

    Arts Funding (Wilding Review)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the obligations and time scale for the Wilding review of arts funding.
    Mr. Luce: As I announced on 8 December, I have invited Mr. Richard Wilding to conduct a review into the structure and organisation for support of the arts in
    642
    England. He will consult the parties concerned and report to me by 31 October 1989. I shall send a copy of the press notice to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he give us some idea of the matters of current concern that have necessitated this wide-ranging review?
    Mr. Luce: There is no doubt that, since the inception of the Arts Council of Great Britain after the second world war, and the starting of the regional arts associations, there has, in recent years, been a substantial shift of resources to regional arts. They now handle about £30 million of resources. I am concerned to ensure, with all the changes that have taken place, that there is coherence in the funding system and proper accountability to Parliament and me, through the Arts Council of Great Britain, for the use of taxpayers' money. There is no suggestion that funds are not being properly used now. I also want to ensure proper and improved structures and procedures for channelling the money, the large majority of which should go to the performing arts.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Secondments
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans for the secondment of civil servants from other civil services within the European Economic Community.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Apart from reciprocal training arrangements, for a number of years there have been formal bilateral arrangements which provide for a small number of secondments between the United Kingdom Civil Service and the civil services of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic of Ireland. Exchanges also take place outside the scope of the formal arrangements.
    Mr. Barnes: Is it not a pity that there are not more arrangements for secondment, and moving in and out of Europe, of civil servants? The Civil Service in this country faces many problems. There is tremendous pressure from the Government to make civil servants operate as political hacks, rather than to maintain their former neutrality. The movement of civil servants from other countries in and out of this country on short-term secondments, might help to re-establish the neutrality of the Civil Service. I should prefer a "Yes Minister" approach to be more prevalent than the current "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, Minister."
    Mr. Luce: Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight on the last part of his question. There is no shadow of doubt that the Civil Service today is as impartial and professional as ever. That conclusion was reached by the all-party Select Committee in 1988. To suggest that civil servants are political hacks is a gross misrepresentation of the job that they are trying to do. The level of exchanges on a bilateral basis, particularly of secondments—the hon. Gentleman is right—is fairly low. It is difficult to achieve, but exchanges between groups of civil servants within and between countries is happening on a bigger and bigger scale. The courses provided on a European scale at the Civil Service college to prepare for 1992 are becoming stronger and stronger.
    Mr. Gow: Do not the British people and the British civil servants bear sufficient burdens already without adding to them by introducing civil servants from the republics of Greece and Portugal who would merely add to the confusion that already exists?
    Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is not particularly easy to facilitate exchanges on the basis of secondments that last for several months. Clear criteria are laid down for entry into the Civil Service, which impose strict controls. The best way to proceed if we want better knowledge of how different systems work, is to have exchanges of delegations. That occurs from time to time within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Winnick: Are there any plans to second, perhaps for a year or more, Mr. Bernard Ingham to another EC country?
    Mr. Luce: Mr. Bernard Ingham is so valuable here that no such proposal exists.

    Training
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what training is given to civil servants who deal directly with the public.
    Mr. Luce: The next steps initiative gives added emphasis to the training Departments already provide in the delivery of services to the public. In addition, the Civil Service college has introduced a new course on service delivery.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any steps taken to improve the Civil Service's service to the public are to be welcomed? Will he say what proportion of training for such civil servants is given by the private sector, particularly based on the example of major retailers?
    Mr. Luce: A large proportion of training for the Civil Service is provided by the private sector. Of course, there are a whole variety of ways in which training can be provided in the Civil Service. Some of it is done by Departments themselves. The Civil Service college provides 5 per cent. of the training, with special emphasis on senior civil servants. I am setting aside an additional £1 million this coming year for challenge funding training to improve still further the standard of management in the senior echelons of the Civil Service, in preparation for the creation of the agencies.

    "Service to the Public" (Report)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what were the conclusions of the report "Service to the Public"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: The "Service to the Public" occasional paper is the result of a management study by a team of my officials and has been published to stimulate debate on this import subject, to which I attach great importance. Part I sets out the team's views on the essential elements of a service to the public strategy; part II provides examples of good practice. I am placing copies in the Library of the House, and the paper is on sale to the public through Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
    Mr. Cran: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the public will benefit by this initiative, and what it is actually going to mean for civil servants?
    Mr. Luce: The important thing, is that, about all else, civil servants are anxious to ensure that the best possible service is provided to the public. The creation of agencies within the Civil Service is another way of strengthening the quality of service to the public, because performance targets and performance measurements will be provided. But one of the purposes of the paper is to highlight the best practices in the Civil Service, particularly in respect of such things as access by telephone, communications, the use of plain English, giving personal names, and ensuring that reception areas are adequate. All these and other things are being done in the Civil Service to make sure that the quality of service to the public is as good as possible.
    Dr. Marek: Can the Minister confirm the existence of the Privatisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1990, as revealed by Touche Ross to the staff at the national engineering laboratory, and can he, further, confirm that the purpose of the Bill is to strip employees and civil servants of their rights.? How can the Minister get the best possible service from civil servants for the public and say that he wants that, and, at the same time, plot with his right hon. and hon. Friends to deprive loyal civil servants of their jobs and pensions? The moral character of Britain is changing for the worse, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said yesterday, but it is led by an immoral Government. When is he going to stand up for morality?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman appears actually to believe what he reads in an article in a newspaper. His imagination appears to be running rather wild—rather unusually so. All I can say is that his question appears to be one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Our policy on privatisation remains absolutely consistent: if we think that certain operations within the Civil Service would be better performed, with a better service to the public, by privatisation we will take that course. Otherwise, in terms of other services to the public, we regard agencies as a very good way of moving forward and of providing a better service.
    Mr. Butler: Sometimes it is very difficult to get through on the telephone to Government Departments. The passport office is particularly bad. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the improved access by telephone that he mentioned.?
    Mr. Luce: The point about the passport office should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as my hon. Friend will no doubt do, but there are a number of experiments going on to improve telephone contact between various Departments and the public. For example, there is a freephone service in the Department of Social Security at Newcastle, and there is a telephone queuing system at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. There are a number of ways in which the system is being improved for the benefit of the public.

    Civil Servants (Foreign Languages)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are able to speak any language of the European Economic Community other than English.
    Mr. Luce: More than half the staff in grades 1 to 3 are able to speak a second European language. Information on other grades is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Fisher: Is it perhaps the case that the Minister does not have figures for other grades because they are very poor and because, throughout the Civil Service, there is some complacency which is based on the idea that, if one shouts loud enough, foreigners will understand? Is it not a matter of courtesy that our civil servants should learn other languages? Would it not make good financial sense for the Government to invest in helping them to learn other languages?
    Mr. Luce: I am not sure of the standard of foreign languages in the House. It is important that 50 per cent. of the top grades in the Civil Service speak another language. It is for each Department to say what proportion of its employees speak a foreign language. A range of courses is now available at the Civil Service college, at universities and through the diplomatic service which attempts to ensure that we are better prepared for 1992. Priority is being given to this matter.

    "Service to the Public" (Report)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how much money he expects to be spent in meeting the recommendations of the report "Service to the Public".
    Mr. Luce: There are no formal recommendations in the "Service to the Public" occasional paper. The views expressed in it are those of the officials who undertook the management study. The resources devoted to service to the public are a matter for Ministers of individual Departments. The paper is about how best to improve services within a given level of resources or how most cost effectively to provide a specified level of service.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the courtesy shown by civil servants when dealing with hon. Members' problems and those of their constituents is second to none? It is not always so, however, when it comes to responding to the general public. Does my right hon. Friend agree that being a civil servant means providing a service and being civil? What can he do to improve the manner in which civil servants treat members of the general public?
    Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of what he mentions. There should be good relations between civil servants and the public. It is interesting to note that 95 per cent. of civil servants deal in some way with the provision of services, whether to the public or to specialist groups. A wide range of training courses is available to help civil servants achieve a good relationship with the public. We should be in no doubt that civil servants want to be able to provide a service—it provides much more job satisfaction. It is right to give priority to better training facilities.

Legionnaires' Disease
3.31 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in central London.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): An outbreak of Legionnaires' disease has been identified in the central London area. Ten people are currently suspected of being associated with the incident. I am confident that it is being dealt with in the best possible way by all the appropriate authorities. Westminster city council is in the lead because it enforces the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in offices, shops and hotels in the area. The Health and Safety Executive is assisting the environmental health team at Westminster city council.
It is important to keep this outbreak in perspective. If employers follow the procedures set out by the HSE in its guidance material, the problem of Legionnaires' disease is a controllable one. This outbreak emphasises the importance of doing so.
Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that responsibility for ensuring compliance by employers with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in general, and their duties in respect of Legionnaires' disease in particular, rests with him because of his responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive?
Does the Minister know that the Select Committee on Employment has for several years been profoundly concerned at the increase in the number of incidents of Legionnaires' disease in various parts of the country, of which the most serious were in Stafford, where there were 101 cases and 28 deaths, at the BBC, where there were 58 cases and three deaths, and now at British Aerospace, where there are 36 confirmed cases and, happily, no deaths so far? Does he accept that the BBC case has not been dealt with properly by the courts and that the fine of £3,600 was derisory, disgraceful and utterly inadequate in dealing with what could have become a plague? Does he not understand that his Department has not provided facilities for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive properly to do their jobs in inspecting those air cooling towers which are causing these problems?
In the circumstances, while expressing sympathy to the sufferers and the hope that they will soon be well, may I ask him to reassure the House and the public that he is taking the matter seriously? Will he urge the courts to treat the causing of death in industry as a hugely serious matter that deserves appropriate penalties? Will he please tell the House in far more detail what is being done to contain the outbreak and to find people who may believe that they are suffering from pneumonia but in fact are suffering from Legionnaires' disease?
Mr. Cope: I shall endeavour to respond to all those questions from the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, I did my best to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that we are certainly taking the outbreak seriously. As for the BBC case, I do not think that I should comment today on individual decisions of the courts, but it is certainly very important that the courts consider the penalties for individual cases involving health and safety
648
very carefully, subject to the Acts which govern it and their statutory responsibilities. I am aware of the cases that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned and of the interest of the Select Committee, with which I know that he has been involved. Responsibility is governed by the allocation regulations of 1977, which were made under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974. They allocate responsibility for inspection between the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities. As I said in my original reply, the responsibility for shops, hotels and offices rests with the city council—in this case Westminster city council—as the environmental health authority. It is taking action and doing its best to isolate the incidents caused by the outbreak. It has appealed—and I reinforce that appeal—for any doctors who suspect cases of Legionnaires' disease to contact it at once so that they may be taken into account in the inquiry and so that it can do its best to discover the cause and treat those who, unfortunately, are subject to the disease.
Mr. John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend absolutely sure that the guidance notes which go out to the managers and engineers of the various establishments, hospitals, office blocks and others using air cooling tower systems are clear enough in the directions that are necessary to carry out procedures to check and test the water supply and then to carry out very quick biocide treatment to ensure that any Legionnella that is discovered is dealt with immediately?
Mr. Cope: The guidelines are very clear and we know of no incidence of Legionnaires' disease when the guidelines have been followed. A new leaflet was put out just a few days ago and has received some attention in the press. It is quite short, extremely clear, and gives good initial guidance. Obviously the full guidance is much more elaborate, but the initial guidance in the new leaflet is extremely helpful.
Mr. David Young: Will the Minister take on board the fact that we are dealing not with an isolated case, but that this is the third series of cases in a relatively short period stretching between London and Bolton? As various groups share responsibility, and as there has been a series of outbreaks, will the Minister consider introducing some co-ordination so that we can bring together all the lessons that have been learned by examining the cases that have been investigated and apply them when dealing with any others that may arise?
Mr. Cope: It is important that the different authorities with responsibility in different areas co-ordinate the information they gather. That is particularly important in an incident such as this, in which people from a wide area might be affected. The Health and Safety Executive does co-ordinate information from all the different outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I know how serious Legionnaires' disease can be as I suffered from an air conditioning virus about two years ago. However, will the Minister ensure that this does not become the latest in a long line of panics? Will he put the problem into perspective and continue to act with determination, together with Westminster city council, to try to find the origins of the disease, rather than react as the press and some Opposition Members might and turn the incident into another great disaster?
Mr. Cope: I do not think that it qualifies for the great disaster stakes. There are up to 200 cases of Legionnaires' disease a year compared with 180,000 cases of pneumonia. About 15 or 20 people die each year die from Legionnaires' disease. It is important to keep things in perspective but we should do everything possible to control and look after the disease.
Mr. Tony Banks: Given the number of water-cooled plants in central London, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), this is potentially disastrous and the Minister must appreciate that. Will he consider introducing legislation requiring annual inspections of the plants, because that seems to be overdue? Will he give a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box that the Government will make all resources available to the House and Westminster city council, if they request them, in order to track down the current outbreak?
Mr. Cope: There is no indication that the resources currently available are inadequate for the purpose. In fact, as far as I know, they are entirely adequate. We would respond carefully to any request for further legislation from the HSC or the HSE, as we always do. So far, they have not suggested the need for further legislation.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such outbreaks are, in essence, unnecessary and avoidable? Will he recognise that every case investigated by the Select Committee on Employment has shown that the guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive—known as EH48—were known to the employers, management and staff but were not being followed? Therefore, will he think clearly and carefully about the need to make those guidelines legally enforceable so that it becomes an offence for anybody to fail to carry them out? Will he accept that, if he does that, he will find that we do not need question and answer sessions such as this in the House in future?
Mr. Cope: I do not want to cut off question and answer sessions in the House, but I would rather deal with the disease. I have already said that we shall consider any specific proposals for legislation made by the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission or by other people. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 states that employers must provide for the health and safety of their employees. It was under that Act that the BBC was recently taken to court. Therefore, it is already an offence not to provide for the health and safety of one's employees.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister say that more than five cases have already been confirmed? He mentioned only 10 suspected cases. Will he give instructions to staff to inspect the water coolers manufactured and used from 1972 because they seem to be causing the difficulties? Will he let the House know whether inspections of jacuzzis and whirlpools will be encompassed in the instructions?
Mr. Cope: The information I received just before I came to the House was that there were 10 suspected cases and five confirmed. I mentioned the figure of 10 in my original answer. All employers and others concerned should follow the advice which is already given in the guidance on Legionnaires' disease. If they have done that thoroughly,
650
their cooling systems should cause no problems. It is, of course, important to follow the specific advice of the environmental health officers who are on the spot dealing with this outbreak.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my hon. Friend assure us that this place is not affected by Legionnaires' disease? When were the water systems of this place last tested for Legionnaires' disease?
Mr. Cope: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific reply to his first question, but I understand that the guidance given by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in their leaflets is carefully followed throughout this building.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister look at international experience in this area, especially the work done by the World Health Organisation and by the European Parliament, which have seriously considered over a number of years the implications of diseases caused by air conditioning, of which Legionnaires' disease is the most extreme? Does he agree that the sick building syndrome, probably caused by air conditioning, has not been taken seriously enough in Britain? Surely it is time that much firmer and stronger guidelines were issued by the Government, as diseases caused by air conditioning can cause many days off work and other serious problems for people.
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the air conditioning system in this place is inspected? Because of the effect that the air conditioning has on me in this Chamber—sitting here for over an hour at a time—and looking at my hon. Friends., I believe that the air conditioning system needs proper inspection and regular cleaning. I do not believe that that happens.
Mr. Cope: I believe that that does happen. One has to be careful before blaming the air conditioning for behaviour of hon. Members.
The Health and Safety Executive is in close and continuous touch with its colleagues in Europe and elsewhere about this, and, of course, other health problems. It is important that we make the best use that we can of everything that can be learnt from overseas. This disease was first identified in the United States, from where we received our original information about it.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that, while two air conditioning systems have been closed down, there are another 31 within a 200-metre radius of the National Gallery which are currently being investigated? Will he name the two large office buildings affected, so that the office workers within them and those who have used them within the past six weeks can be alerted to seek immediate medical advice if they have any relevant symptoms? As any of the 33 air conditioning systems in the area may be the source, will the Minister order them all to be shut down and until tests are fully completed to eliminate any further risk?
When referring to the previous outbreak at the BBC, the Secretary of State said:
"any lessons learnt will be acted upon".—[Official Report, 5 July 1988; Vol. 136, c. 883.]
Is it not clear that lessons have not been learnt, because another outbreak has occurred only 10 months later and

651
only a few hundred yards away? Therefore, because wet cooling systems have been the source of previous outbreaks, will he consider the permanent closure of all wet cooling systems in urban areas?
Mr. Cope: I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave in the first part of his question, nor am I prepared to name individual systems which have been shut down, because I believe that to do so might give the impression that no other systems could be involved, and that anyone who was suspected of having Legionnaires' disease but who had not been involved with those two, or adjacent buildings, could not be affected. That is not the case. It could be extremely wider. I believe that the best guidance is that given by the Westminster city council and the environmental health people, which is that any doctor who suspects anybody of having Legionnaires' disease and who might be in any way connected with this outbreak should contact them. The wider the net is thrown, the better.
I do not believe that it would be right to close all such air conditioning systems. As I said earlier, if the guidelines are followed those systems are not dangerous. On the contrary. Therefore, there is no need to close them all, but it is necessary for people to follow the guidelines to ensure that they operate their systems correctly. That was one of the lessons learnt from the previous outbreak and that is the lesson that we are trying to get home to the public with the aid of the leaflets that I mentioned earlier.

Point of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order in connection with your role as protector of Back-Bench rights, particularly in relation to direct constituency cases. Question No. 10 to the Secretary of State for Social Security was about the age limit for widows' pensions. My constituent, Mrs. Doreen Whitbread was the one who won the important test case about that age limit and the tribunal ruled that the retrospective impact of the regulations was unfair and that they were invalidly introduced. Mrs. Whitbread stated that she felt that the rug had been pulled from under her feet—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, but he is only one of a large number of hon. Members in this House who have an equal interest in this question. If it is a point of order for me, I shall deal with it.
Mr. Cohen: The point of order is that it was a direct constituency case, because my constituent was involved and won that important test case. The points that Mrs. Whitbread made during and after that tribunal hearing were the ones I wanted to put to the Minister. Will you confirm that it was your choice that I was not given the opportunity to do so?
Mr. Speaker: Sadly, it was my choice and I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has already said that I am the protector of Back-Bench Members' rights and interests and I must pay regard to all hon. Members. We did not get far at Question Time today and if I took into account every hon. Member who wanted to be called on every question, I fear we would have gone even more slowly. Today we reached only question No. 12, which was not a very good score.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) because, although I understand the point that you have made, the Minister specifically mentioned Mrs. Whitbread on a number of occasions and she happens to be my hon. Friend's constituent.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I do not know who Mrs. Whitbread is.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister mentioned her.
Mr. Speaker: Well, he may know her, but I regret I do not.

Point of Order

  PESTICIDES (FEES AND ENFORCEMENT BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Water Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.52 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after 10 o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, he considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that

655
time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Water Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committe;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The House will need no reminding of the importance of the Water Bill to which my motion would apply a timetable. The Bill will greatly benefit consumers, taxpayers, workers in the industry, future shareholders, and above all the environment. It will do this through a number of measures, which, by now, are well known to the House. It will establish a National Rivers Authority to take responsibility in England and Wales for the control of water pollution, for water resource management, flood defence, fisheries and navigation. The Bill will provide a new statutory framework for setting river quality objectives and other standards, with effective means of enforcement. The utility functions of the water authorities will be transferred to new limited companies, and the role of the 29 statutory water companies will be maintained, with provision for them to convert to plc status if they wish.
Mr. David Winnick: The Leader of the House spoke about protecting the consumer. As early as possible in his speech will he explain how consumers will be assisted by the 30 per cent. increase that existing private companies will bring in as quickly as possible as a result of privatisation?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that the 30 per cent. price increase is not justified. Water charges would have to rise, irrespective of privatisation, to help to pay for higher standards of drinking water quality and sewage treatment. The price of water is still low compared with the price of other basic services in western Europe. I repeat
656
that there is nothing in our proposals that could justify statutory water companies raising their charges by 30 per cent. or more. The Bill will further seek to provide for the terms of the new companies' appointment and for the sale of their shares to the public towards the end of this year.
Dr. John Cunningham: It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that these price increases, ranging from 30 to 50 per cent., are not justified. However, they will happen as we predicted they would in December—a prediction that the Secretary of State for the Environment pooh-poohed. People will pay more simply because of the Government's dogma in insisting on privatising water. It is no good saying that the Government do not like the price increases, because consumers are being ripped off.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may have no faith in the ability to negotiate anything and perhaps in his case he is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss these matters with the water industry. These increases are not justified by anything to do with privatisation. Let us see what happens at the end of the discussions.
There will be a clear legal framework for the duties, functions and powers of the new companies, and water and sewarage law will be updated. A Director General of Water Services will be appointed to keep water and sewerage services under review and to protect the interests of customers. In all, it is the most far-reaching reform in the history of the water industry.
The Government's commitment to privatisation of the water industry is long-standing and well-known. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) first announced in February 1985 that the Government intended to examine the prospects for the privatisation of the water industry. A discussion document followed shortly thereafter. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced in February 1986 that the Government had decided to transfer the 10 water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership. A White Paper containing detailed proposals was issued, and this was followed by two consultation papers on sewerage law and the water environment respectively, which developed these aspects of the proposals. The Government consulted widely on all those documents.
In May 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the pollution control functions of the water authorities would remain in the public sector under a new National Rivers Authority. Privatisation on that basis was a feature of our manifesto for the June 1987 election, which saw the Government returned to office with a large vote of confidence. The detailed proposals were set out in two further consultation papers later that year. The result of all this is the extremely thorough and detailed Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading by 301 votes to 241.
The Bill has also received detailed scrutiny in the House. It had two full days for Second Reading, and the Standing Committee has so far devoted nearly 75 hours to the first nine clauses and four schedules. There are another 171 clauses yet to be considered. I welcome the careful attention that the Bill has received so far, but I am concerned that sufficient consideration be given to all parts of this large and wide-ranging Bill. Major issues still to be

657
covered include customer service standards, drinking water quality, the control of pollution, sewerage, flood defences and fisheries.
The House would wish these subjects to be considered no less carefully than our proposals on the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services, and the duties of the Secretary of State. But this consideration must be balanced against our commitment to ensure that the legislation is enacted this Session. If we are to arrange for the sale of shares towards the end of the year and leave sufficient time for the necessary regulations to be made after Royal Assent, we must speed up our pace. I regret that we simply do not have available the 80 weeks, or about 1,400 hours, that it would take the Committee to finish its scrutiny if it were to continue at its present rate.
I am not suggesting that there has been excessive filibustering in Committee, but I believe that a constructive timetable motion is now necessary. I have brought it forward to ensure proper, measured discussion of all parts of a complex and important Bill. It is also important that the Bill receives this full scrutiny before it goes to another place.
In devising my motion, I have had in mind also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament—that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage of a Bill can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on the Procedure Committee's reports towards the end of last year, while I argued that it was important for the Government to retain flexibility on timetable motions, I said that I shared the Committee's desire to move towards the introduction of timetable motions, if necessary and where possible, at a time that allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill.
Mr. Richard Livsey: By imposing this timetable, in which the crucial date appears to be 7 March, is not the Leader of the House assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce in the Budget that the assets of the water authorities will be included in the following year's accounts, to the benefit of the Government and their policies?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his plans, to which I am not party, did not form any part of the discussions that I had about whether this was the right time to introduce a timetable motion. We did so to ensure that the Committee and remaining stages are adequate to discuss the many remaining subjects in a balanced and sensible way.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: My right hon. Friend is being his usual polite and moderate self, and one welcomes the grounds that he is putting forward for the timetable motion. Will he bear in mind that we have had to listen to most of the contents of the Tatler magazine being read out by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and to the clubs and attainments of Lord Crickhowell? Those are just two illustrations of what we have had to endure over the long proceedings of the Committee.
Mr. Wakeham: The first draft of my speech said that there had been "no filibustering" and I changed that to "no
658
excessive filibustering" after I had read over the weekend the fascinating reports about the Tatler and one or two other incidents.
If the Committee continues to sit each week for 18 hours, which is about the number of hours that it has done so far, there is the prospect of another 78 hours or so of debate. As is customary, it would be for the Business Sub-Committee, which has the important task of allocating the amount of time for discussion of each part of the Bill within the total days available, to decide whether the present pattern of sittings should be maintained or might sensibly be increased. As a number of the remaining clauses are consequential or supplementary, I believe that the Business Sub-Committee will have considerable scope to ensure that time is allocated in such a way as to enable an adequate scrutiny of all the remaining parts of the Bill. In addition, there will be three full days of debate on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading. The motion provides that the first two of these days will run until midnight.
These generous provisions show that it is not our intention to cut short debate on this Bill. I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it represents the best and most realistic way to debate the Water Bill, a Bill of fundamental importance which will benefit the consumer and the industry and, at the same time, safeguard and improve the environment.
4.3 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I compliment the Leader of the House, or perhaps his Private Office, on the sweet reasons that he came up with for the second guillotine motion of 1989. The first one was that on the proceedings of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the Leader of the House argued that we had to rush it through before the current Act ran out. I half expected him to argue that we had to pass the Water Bill before the water ran out. Knowing the ineptitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that might have proved a more prudent argument than the one the Leader of the House used.
Last year, the Leader of the House introduced no fewer than six guillotine motions—a record for any parliamentary Session. Now, with this Session scarcely two months old, he is introducing his second guillotine motion in a fortnight. Some think that he is going for his own record, hyped up by the wonder drug that drives on all his cringing Cabinet colleagues—fear for his job and fear of the Prime Minister. Others attribute this guillotine-happy phase to the bicentenary of the French revolution. As the modern Tory party has little sense of history, I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman that Dr. Guillotine, the eponymous proposer of the then high tech instrument of decapitation, did not get it into operation until 1792, so any bicentenary celebration of the guillotine is premature. The guillotine on the Water Bill is equally premature.
Mr. Alistair Burt: While the right hon. Gentleman is going through history, could he tell the House whether it was a Conservative or Labour Government who tabled five guillotine motions in a day during the 1974–75 Session?
Mr. Dobson: It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He will probably be

659
along later, because he does not miss many sittings. He introduced a Bill that enacted five guillotine motions in one day, but they were the only five in that Session. The Leader of the House is the record holder, having introduced six guillotine motions. Those motions were introduced by a Government with a majority of 100 and a guaranteed majority in the other place, and came in the first long Session of a Parliament—something that has never before been done. That either says something about the incompetence of the Leader of the House or shows that we are rather better in opposition than some in the Press Gallery give us credit for.
We are faced with the second guillotine motion in two months at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. The Government have failed to answer practically every question put to them by the Opposition about the Water Bill. They have also failed to answer questions put to them by people outside who are concerned about the future of the water supply. The Government propose to curtail debate in Committee to reduce their embarrassment at not being able to cope both with what is happening in the real world and the questioning to which they are being subjected by my hon. Friends. Today, I shall try to put some of the most important points again, not with much hope of getting a reply but in the hope that at least people will know that here in Parliament we are asking questions even if the Government will not come up with answers.
The main basis of the Government's credo on the Bill is that they want to hand over our water industry to profit-seeking private water companies because that will ensure that market forces work to the benefit of the consumer. Even the most fanatical supporter of Adam Smith, and certainly anyone who has read his works, should know that market forces can work only when the consumer has a choice, but the Bill will not give the consumer a choice. How can it? There will still be only one water pipe to each home. The Government are proposing a simple transfer of the ownership of water from the publicly owned water authorities and the strictly regulated statutory water companies to a collection of semi-regulated, money-grabbing monopolists. A dissatisfied customer will get no choice. The Government are saying to the customers, "If you do not like your water supply, get a bucket and get water from somewhere else."
Another major question is who will own the new water companies. Will one company own the lot, so that there will not only be no choice, but no chance to compare the performance of one company with that of another? The Government said originally that they would prevent that happening by having a golden share. We understand, however, that one of their former colleagues, Sir Leon Brittan, may rule that the Government cannot play the golden share to stop such takeovers and the formation of one monopoly company. We could do with an answer from the Minister on that, but it is one that to date he has refused to give.
The next questions are who would be likely to buy the water industry, and why. The recent history of takeovers, combined with the recent history of the sale of some public assets, can fill the water consumer only with foreboding. The most recent takeovers have had more to do with asset stripping and property speculation than with a better deal for customers. The same can be said of some of the
660
privatisations. For example, the royal ordnance factories were sold to British Aerospace. The theory was that the sale would produce an all-purpose armaments company. In practice, it was merely a rip-off. When the factories were sold by the Government to British Aerospace, the land at the Enfield and Waltham Abbey sites was valued at only £3·5 million. The new owners immediately revalued the sites at over £400 million. The arms factories are to be closed so that the land can be sold.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is not true.
Mr. Dobson: If I have to choose between the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee and that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), I shall go along with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC.
The potential purchaser of the water industry will not be attracted by its pumping stations, its filtration plants, its thousands of miles of water connections and its customers. Not likely! All those facilities, including, perhaps, the customers, need money spent on them, as well as skilled staff and management skills. The real attraction of the industry—both the publicly owned water authorities and the regulated statutory water companies—is its land. We understand—I say "understand", because the Government will not produce the figures—that the industry owns over half a million acres. Some of that land comprises prime city centre sites while other land is in the suburbs, where it might be used for house building. Much more land is in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is on the land that potential purchasers' eyes are focused. They have their eyes on property for property speculation. We all know who gains and who loses from property speculation.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is inconceivable that planning permission would be given for such development in our national parks?
Mr. Dobson: I am dealing with what might be described as the Department of the Environment's twin-track approach to land sales and property speculation in the national parks. The Secretary of State intends to put the companies in a position in which they can sell off assets, and at the same time he is trying to relax planning restrictions on developments in the national parks. In other words, he will get the national parks both ways.
If Conservative Members believe that nothing is wrong with property speculation, let me remind them of the words that were used in 1909 in Lancashire by the grandfather of the hon. Member for Crawley. I refer to the occasion when Winston Churchill spelt out that the prows of the property speculator were reaped in direct proportion to the disservice done to the rest of society. That is how we can measure what the property speculators will be doing.
We are told that the Government appointed Schroder—[Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Baker: May I advise the hon. Gentleman to cease scraping the barrel? If he took the trouble to read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, he would discover that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has anwered the questions that have been put to him.
Mr. Dobson: We shall come on to that. I think that it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to refer to the hon. Member for Crawley as a barrel.
We know that the Government appointed Schroder to value the water industry's public assets. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State—glasnost in reverse—refuses to disclose the valuation to the British people. I have no doubt, however, that he will show the figures to would-be buyers. I have no doubt also that the Prime Minister hopes that some of the profits will eventually be siphoned back into Tory party funds. That might happen as a consequence of a novel use of the water companies, as revealed by Rosie Waterhouse in The Independent.
The people generally, not only potential purchasers, are entitled to know the value of the land assets if only so that they can calculate in the fullness of time how much the water rip-off has cost every family in the land. Perhaps the Secretary of State, in looking to his future and being fearful for his place in the Cabinet, is thinking of following the example of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and British Telecom. Perhaps ere long he, too, will be able to complement the sell-off that he organised with a pay-off by becoming a director of the privatised company.
Ministers have refused to disclose the value of the assets, but they have been suggesting that sell-offs would benefit customers as the proceeds would be devoted to investment in the industry and environmental improvements. As we read the Bill, especially if it remains unamended, that is not true. How do Ministers propose to stop land assets being hived off to subsidiary companies or incorporated in a part of a conglomerate that takes over a water company? It that happens, profits will not accrue to the benefit of the customers. Equally, they will not be ploughed back into the industry to improve the quality of water or to reduce pollution. Instead, the profits will go where they always go, to the shareholders.
Ministers have told us that there will be regulations, and so there will. However, as Keith Court, the boss of South West Water, said when he thought that he was not being reported, the job of the industry will be to outwit the regulators. As the Secretary of State is to be the principal regulator, the smart money will be on those who are intent on outwitting him. His record so far—[Interruption.] I shall produce evidence to support my assertion. As Secretary of State for Transport and as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has an unenviable record in the courts. He has lost rather a lot of cases at the expense of the taxpayer. His record is so bad that he was once rightly described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—one of my witty hon. Friends—as having more form than the Kray twins. That is all the more reason why there should be plenty of time to consider these matters carefully and at length in Committee, if only so that the Secretary of State can learn in advance what his own legislation means before he is up before the courts again.
The Bill has been put over the Government as a green measure. That is true, but it is not the green of the environment. Instead, it is the green of envy. Their Tory friends have their envious eyes on the disposable assets of the industry and on the monopoly supply of water, which no one, not even the hon. Member for Crawley, can do without. That is about as green as the Bill gets. Even the sensible proposal to set up the National Rivers Authority,
662
which we have welcomed, is undermined by both doubts and certainties. There are doubts about its powers and funding and certainties about its designated boss, Lord Crickhowell. In 1987, he appeared to be held as to either too old or too stupid to remain Secretary of State for Wales, or even as the right hon. Member for Pembroke. Yet now, along with all the other perks that he has had at the hands of the Government, he has been appointed to head the NRA.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the most offensive remarks that he has made about the former right hon. Member for Pembroke. He may know that Lord Crickhowell, as he now is, was seriously ill for a number of years as a result of a disease that he caught in the far east while on a Government visit to promote Wales. Thankfully, he has recovered from that illness and is now restored to his former health.
Mr. Dobson: If Lord Crickhowell was too ill to be a Member of Parliament, he is still too ill to be the boss of the National Rivers Authority. I stick to that position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will certainly not withdraw. There is nothing to withdraw.
Mr. David Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman's case so weak that he must disparage someone who served with honour in this House? Is that the hon. Gentleman's case?
Mr. Dobson: My case is that if the National Rivers Authority is to command the respect of everyone, it should not be headed by a partisan appointee who receives £40,000 a year for working a three-day week. That is my case.
Mr. James Pawsey: That is not the point. The point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made which we found particularly offensive was his reference to Lord Crickhowell being stupid or old. The hon. Gentleman has qualified that. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is well regarded in this House, should withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Dobson: I always thought that he was too stupid and old when he was a Member of this House, so I will not withdraw.
The Government claim that the Bill means that the new private owners of the water industry will invest in environmental improvements and in improving water standards. However, as we read the Bill, those provisions are subject to the new companies making enough profits from their water supply functions to make that investment. If, as I have explained, they are likely to siphon off the profits from land sales to non-water supply subsidiaries and holding companies, where will the money for that investment come from?
We do not really need an answer from the Minister to that question today because we know the answer already. The money will come from increases in water charges. Increases in those charges have been pushed above the rate of inflation for some years and there is more to come. Last week the Minister announced that water charges by the publicly-owned water authorities would increase by up to 13 per cent. this year. This weekend we heard that the private statutory water companies are planning to increase their charges by anything between 30 and 50 per cent. At

663
least for a moment, reality impinged again on the fantasy water world of the Minister for Water and Planning and he rushed to the news media to denounce those companies. He said that he was going to summon them to meet him.
The latest question for the Minister to answer is what increase will the statutory water companies levy this year. Can he confirm that they would not have considered increases of this size if they had not been threatened with this privatisation legislation? All those increases are making an impact now, even before the legislation is introduced. One of the reasons for the increases is that they are a preparation for what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act. That is usually called fattening the beast for market.
Who wants the Bill? The answer is a few of the self-same secretive, Right-wing weirdos who came up with the ideas behind the recent National Health Service White Paper—the loons who dare not speak their names. Most people do not want the Bill. They know that it is a rip-off and that it is designed to hand over a natural monopoly into private hands. If you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are even more fearful of the knowledge that those private hands have the ear of the Prime Minister.
The Government claim that the Bill is the only way to raise standards in the water industry. Those standards certainly need raising. Britain has been taken to court by the EEC for having poor quality water and foul beaches more often than any other country in Europe. The Government must take the blame for that. They have been in power for 10 years. The prosecutions have taken place under this Government and the responsibility is theirs. I am sure that people in this country will remember that responsibility when they listen to the Government giving answers to problems with the water supply about which people are not aware because the Government got us into this mess in the first place.
The Bill is long and complicated. It must be examined carefully. Questions must be asked and are being asked, but they are not being answered. The House and the public are entitled to answers. If Ministers do not know the answers, they should say so. If they do know the answers, they should make them public.
The timetable motion is intended to prevent that process of question and answer. We have been asking the questions, but the Government have not produced the answers. We reject the motion and in due course we believe that the country will reject the irrelevant and expensive Bill.
4.25 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: We have spent 74½ hours in Committee debating eight clauses out of a total of 180. I am sure that hon. Members can calculate the potential number of hours that would remain in Committee to complete consideration. It has taken 74½ hours to reach part II. Heaven knows how long it would take to reach part IV which is headed "Charges by undertakers." At the present rate of progress, that heading might have more relevance than hon. Members realise at the moment.
How has the time been used so far? Hardly had the ink dried on the extraordinary statement from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that the Government are stealing the water from the people and putting it into
664
private hands, a statement which neatly sidestepped the fact that 25 per cent. of the industry is already in private hands, than we entered the world of economics.
Early sessions of the Committee were enlivened by the economic views and political dogma of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They deserve the most extensive circulation. On 10 January the hon. Member for Bootle managed to say:
"If the water authorities are in the public sector after the next election, which the Labour party will win, we shall lift public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on borrowing for capital purposes."
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning intervened and said:
"If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, will he tell the Committee why the water industry was subject to public sector borrowing restrictions between 1974 and 1979?"
To which the hon. Member for Bootle, unabashed, continued:
"Yes, because the Labour party got it wrong. I was not a Member of this place during that period. If it had got it right, it might have won the election … I was first elected in 1979 and regrettably one of the things that contributed to the Labour party's general election defeat that year was the imposition of public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on bodies such as water authorities. We have learnt our lesson and rethought our policy. What I am advocating is now Labour party policy."
I asked him:
"Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour Government lost the 1979 election because they did not spend enough?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1988, c. 88–89.]
The hon. Member for Bootle answered "Yes." The hon. Member for Bootle does not appear to be particularly concerned with the detail—or should I say the trivia—of negotiations with the International Monetary Fund back in the 1970s.
Of course the hon. Member for Bootle did not claim the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who said:
"I am 41 years old and cannot remember a period of Socialist Government."
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was a mature student in the 1970s and therefore can take a detached view on these matters. It is possible that he is a late developer. If that is the case, it would cause a few shudders on the Conservative Benches.
We heard at great length the economic views of the hon. Member for Bootle—straightforward 1930s, mark one, clause 4 primitive Socialism. We did not hear on all those matters from certain other members of the Committee. We do not know whether the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for example, agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, when he says, "This is Labour party policy". It will be nice if the hon. Member for Copeland confirms that that is so. Does he agree that there should be no controls on public spending, and that the 1979 general election was lost because the then Labour Government did not spend enough?
Perhaps the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland demonstrates that he does agree with his hon. Friend, so there is no need for him to say anything. But his silence may mean that he disagrees, and that he does not wish to say anything because he wants to avoid a row in public. Again, the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland may be because he is shy—but that is not a general characteristic of right hon. and hon. Members, so I must consider instead the first two possibilities. We hope to hear from the hon. Member for Copeland soon—and I trust

665
that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to detach from him the information I seek as soon as possible.
Later, there were equally lengthy contributions by Opposition Members on conservation and the environment—all elevated to a science these days. I suppose that, seen from Sunderland, Brent, Bootle or Burnley, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks must seem like the ideal picnic spots to those who desire to visit them. There is an element of truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. Not once in Committee was there any shred of acknowledgement that people live in such areas and have to make their living there. There was no comprehension that national parks are not nationalised parks. Above all, there was no understanding that habitat is all important, and that nothing is more destructive of habitat than people.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the point that I made in Committee concerning the destruction done to the valley in the Lake District by the water authority there? Does he not acknowledge that the Committee debated at great length the problems of people living in the Lake District and the fears they have regarding development after privatisation?
Mr. Knapman: As I mentioned previously, about 25 per cent. of water authorities are in private hands. Perhaps people already congregate on the streets and say, "It is a pity that we live in a private water company area, because it is much worse than being under a public water authority." I am making the point that it is the balance between conservation and public access that is vital. It is that balance which we seek to achieve—as my hon. and learned Friend explained to the Committee, time and again.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the record of the Essex water company in private hands? It has consistently denied to ramblers the right to cross its land, when they have a legal right to do so—and when it is clearly in the interests of the environment and of the public that such access should be allowed. Is that the kind of record he wants to see other private companies emulate?
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Bill's purpose is strictly to separate the poacher and gamekeeper parts of the water industry. I thought that the hon. Member for Copeland explained on many occasions that that was so. He also mentioned that it was the function, and not the ownership, of the land that is of prime importanc—and in that he is absolutely right.
The Committee proceeded—as I fear that I am proceeding—at a snail's pace, listening to the comical view of Opposition Members that legitimate country sports include fishing, because 3 million people, including the hon. Member for Copeland, fish—but that for some reason shooting and hunting are not legitimate country sports. What sort of hypocrisy is that?
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): To do the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) justice, while agreeing with the Labour party's last general election manifesto that fox hunting should be banned, he made a special exception for his own constituency, which is in a national park, saying that it was all right for fox hunting to be allowed in national parks.
Mr. Knapman: I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for making that clear. The hon. Member for Copeland makes a habit of such exceptions. I believe that he has nuclear energy interests in his constituency, and that he sought to opt out of the Labour party manifesto's proposals in respect of nuclear power. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's exceptions are a more common occurrence than I previously understood.
The Committee heard also Opposition objections based on political dogma, yet there was no explanation of why there are private water companies in France, under a Socialist Government, but that it is deemed to be right that in this country, under a Conservative Government, the state should provide water and sewerage services. There were also objections to the sale in national parks of land that is surplus to requirements. Those objections were voiced despite my hon. and learned Friend's correct view, which he repeatedly expressed, that land function and land usage should be the determining factor, not land ownership.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the amendment that I and my hon. Friends tabled at the end of the Committee's proceedings, the substance of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to consider sympathetically, to see whether he can bring forward on Report a measure to provide extra protection for national parks, in the way of consultation? That may answer the only point of any substance raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Had he read the Committee's proceedings, he would have found the answer to his question there, too.
Mr. Knapman: I wish to spare the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the duty of reading the Committee's proceedings over 74½ hours. Opposition Members generally failed to specify why surplus land in national parks belonging to water companies is so different from all other land in national parks that it requires a vast amount of red tape and a huge bureaucracy to look after it.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Knapman: I trust that the hon. Gentleman has had time to look into the matter.
Mr. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in terms of access to the countryside, all manner of informal access agreements have been reached with water authorities that are not necessarily binding on their successors? Therefore, there are enormous tracts of land to which the public currently have access, but to which access will not be guaranteed when private owners have control of it—particularly if they wish to dispose of that land to other parties that intend doing something with it.
Mr. Knapman: No, I do not accept that. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spent a considerable time trying to explain to Opposition Members that a huge number of footpaths, bridle paths, and so on, will be respected. There are also concessionary paths. However, if one makes concessionary paths mandatory by subsequent legislation, who in future will grant such a concession?
The whole matter is summed up by an excellent leader in the Evening Standard:

667
"The Government has bent and bowed to so many … empire-defending water officials that its scheme to sell off the water industry to its customers is in danger of … over-regulation."
The Opposition objected today, as they have before, to price increases—yet they insist on higher standards. How can one have one without the other? Finally, in Committee we listened for hour after hour to amendments for amending sake. Typical of the Opposition's amendments was the one requiring the National Rivers Authority to publish an annual report setting out details of borrowing. There was a lengthy debate before my hon. and learned Friend was able to intervene, saying:
"I can hardly believe my ears. The Bill requires the NRA to produce an audited annual report."
But did that abash Opposition Members?
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Knapman: No, I have given way enough. I know that the hon. Gentleman is always brief, but I shall not give way any more.
Opposition Members merely continued with the debate on who the report should be sent to and then, in great detail, discussed the North West water authority accounts, which were supposed to be brilliant. It is to be hoped that they had studied all the accounts of all the companies. Eventually my hon. and learned Friend the Minister commented:
"I am just wondering why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to talk about every conceivable thing except the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 January 1989; c. 284.]
But it was too late: the afternoon had gone.
Most people want a clear and constant water supply. They want effluent to be disposed of quickly and efficiently. Their objectives will be best achieved through privatisation, and particularly by separating the provider of the service from those enforcing standards.
4.40 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned an occasion on which the Minister intervened after we had debated an amendment at some length to say that the amendment was not necessary because the annual reports were already required. If that is true, why did the Minister not intervene earlier? Was he deliberately allowing the Committee to discuss at length an amendment that need not have been debated?
The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): That was because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I lived in hope—as I have done throughout the Committee stage—that Opposition Members might have genuine points to raise. Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that my expectations were sadly disappointed?
Mr. Pike: That is no answer, and the Minister knows it. Despite his qualifications as a learned legal man, he merely does the job that he is instructed to do under the heavy hand of the Secretary of State—to get the legislation through. As he knows, if he has a contribution to make on any amendment he can make it, because in Committee any hon. Member, including a Minister, can contribute more than once.
668
By no means all the amendments have come from Opposition Members: a number have been tabled by Conservative Members. Nevertheless, although the Minister has said that he is prepared to consider one or two points, and on one occasion told us that he was prepared to discuss certain aspects of the Bill with organisations that had expressed concern, on most issues the Government have been prepared to make no concessions.
Although we have debated only nine clauses and four schedules so far, they have dealt with issues to which we shall return at a later stage, and they will not all require the same depth of consideration. Today's motion, however, giving the Bill just a month from tomorrow to complete its Committee stage, seems unnecessary. If the Government thought that it was necessary, they could have provided more time.
We must remember that we are legislating for people outside the House, and many of those people are still anxious about many aspects of the Bill. Leaving the question of privatisation aside for the moment, let me point out that those people want to ensure that our heritage—areas such as the Lake District, the districts of Wales, national parks, the Peak District and the Trough of Bowland—are preserved for their children. They believe that the Bill needs tightening up. So do the Ramblers' Association, the British Mountaineering Council and many other bodies that make good use of the recreational facilities provided by the open spaces now owned by water authorities.
We must also consider consumer interests. It is clear that the capital installation and reading of meters will involve additional costs, and that the water authorities will eventually need more than they need at present. Unless we include adequate safeguards, the Bill will penalise unduly large families, the families of the incontinent, and those whose jobs involve extra washing of work clothes, and additional baths.
We believe that the industry should remain in public ownership. It is an issue too basic and crucial to the needs of the people to be privatised, when comparative competition—a phrase that has been used several times—economy and profit are allowed to become criteria that can be unfairly measured against such matters as water quality, pollution, conservation and access. There must be an appropriate balance.
As I have often said, a clear difference between the two sides of the House is that, while Conservative Members judge everything in cash terms and invariably take money as the criterion that matters, we see many other important issues. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment about river and estuary pollution made it clear that the public sector borrowing requirement and the external financial limit need not be applied to the water industry, even if it remained in the public sector. It was clearly possible to remove the industry from the limits on its capital investment through means other than privatisation.
We have spent considerable time discussing the National Rivers Authority. Let me make it clear that as yet no member of the Committee has expressed opposition to the principle of such an authority. We consider it right to separate the regulatory powers—to separate poacher from gamekeeper. But the National Rivers Authority must be able to do the job for which it is being established.

669
The Secretary of State described this as a green Bill and a great step forward environmentally. Setting up the authority can be a step forward, but only if it can be given the financial powers to do its job properly. We believe in the environment, but we have doubts about the commitment of the Conservative party to environmental issues.
A separate Bill could have been introduced to establish a National Rivers Authority. The Government would not then have been faced with a timetable motion. A National Rivers Authority could have been set up this year and the Government could have introduced a Bill to privatise water next year. However, they are impatient to privatise water because they want the money from its privatisation, and from the privatisation of the electricity industry, so that they can con the electors at the next general election.
The debates in Committee have been constructive. I was pleased that the Leader of the House used milder language in his opening speech than he has used on previous occasions. He said that there had been no excessive filibustering. I believe that there has been no filibustering. If there has been any, it is Conservative Members who have filibustered. They have taken up time unnecessarily by moving amendments that they had no intention of putting to the vote. The Committee could make progress and it should be given more time in which to do so. The timetable motion should be defeated so that these important issues can be fully considered in Committee.
The Leader of the House referred to the Committee needing, at the present rate of progress, a further 80 weeks to complete its consideration of the Bill. That was misleading. The Committee will make faster progress as certain points are dealt with and eliminated from the debate. Conservative Members who are doubtful about the implications of these important and wide-ranging issues should be prepared to vote against the motion and thereby ensure that more time can be devoted to discussing them. Only in that way can we protect the public interest.
4.51 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: Once again the Mother of Parliaments meets in absolute tumult and turmoil as it discusses another guillotine motion. Once again hon. Members can hardly get into the Chamber. They have to fight their way through so that they can discuss an important matter concerning free speech—whether it is right that the Government should curtail debate on an important Bill. We walk through the corridors discussing this vital matter of the day. The reality, however, is that we are not debating it in those circumstances.
I wish to spend a few minutes speaking about the procedure and practice of guillotine motions. There is a natural tendency in debates such as these to speak in general terms about the substance of the Bill that is the subject of the timetable motion rather than about procedural matters. However, the debates provide a useful opportunity to discuss procedure. A number of senior Members on both sides of the House have said on previous occasions that timetable motions should not pass without a reasonable discussion of points of procedure. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore spend a few minutes discussing them.
I sympathise with the efforts to reform the way in which parliamentary Bills are considered. In our daily lives
670
outside this place we know that it is common sense to plan. It is also common sense for the Government and the Opposition to plan the business of the House. It is a constitutional fiction, to which we sometimes pay lip service outside the House, that this place works with a great deal of confrontation, when we debate hotly and when we do not speak to each other. That is how the general public believe that Parliament conducts its business. We know, however, that that is not the case. We get on with each other reasonably well. Those who sit on the Government and Opposition Front Benches consult one another, often behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, to ensure that the business of the House gets done. It makes sense to plan. At the moment, that is a relatively informal procedure.
The proposal to ensure that Bills are timetabled from an early stage suggests to me that informal consultation would become formal. If we were to argue outside the House that better planning is a drawback, that argument would not be given house room. However, we have often used that argument as a way of keeping our method of dealing with Bills intact.
It must also be right to ensure examination of all parts of the Bill from the start. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in a far better speech than that which was made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), referred clearly to the sort of matters that still have to be considered. There is a lot to get through; it is a difficult Bill. It makes sense to spend an adequate amount of time on everything. It would be better, though, to think about that earlier and to make plans right from the start. The informal procedure works to a certain extent but I believe that something different might work better.
An important constitutional point is that this Chamber is seen more and more as being subordinate to the other place. The media now spend much time and energy on what the other place does after Bills leave this Chamber. They expect Bills to be considered in more depth and they expect to hear more exciting debates in the other place. Public attenion is turned all too often to the other place rather than to this Chamber. That cannot be good. This place remains the premier Chamber and it is right that the public should concentrate on what happens in this House. If our procedures hinder that process, that cannot be good. That may be one reason for considering a change in our procedures.
Against the argument for change in the way that Bills are considered, one weighty argument is advanced: that it is to the advantage of the Government of the day that they should be able to plan.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: If there were more opposition on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House, where there is a large majority, and if Conservative Members argued the case, all hon. Members would pay more attention, but the fact is that the case is made on the Opposition side of the House. All that Conservative Members have to do is to use their big majority and vote down the Opposition's case.
Mr. Burt: It hardly lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) to suggest that opposition to the Government would be better if more Conservative Members opposed the Government. The opposition to the Government's case must come from the Opposition Benches. It is precisely because opposition to

671
the Government's measures by the Labour party has been so inadequate that the Government have such a large majority. That is something which lies not in our hands but in the Opposition's hands to remedy.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree, with his experience of the Committee, which I share with him, that most of the constructive suggestions and debates in Committee have emanated from the amendments that were moved by Conservative Back Benchers?
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. Many good points have been made by Conservative Members in Committee. That is not unnatural, bearing in mind their expertise. If the hon. Member for Walton were a member of the Committee, perhaps we should enjoy a similar degree of expertise on the other side.
Against the various advantages of changing the timetable procedure there is the argument that the Government have a major planning advantage. They can prevent the Opposition from enjoying the great power of delay. In many of our debates on procedure it has been said that if the Opposition were to lose their power of delay, their power to wring concessions from an unwilling Government would be lost. I am not convinced that in the last 20 years there has been much evidence that that is a particularly powerful argument.
Mr. Heifer: How does the hon. Gentleman know? He has not been here for 20 years.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I have not been here for 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman is quite content with the way this place has worked while he has been here—and he has been here for a long time—it suggests to me a degree of complacency and the self-satisfaction that I am rather surprised to see on his face.
The timetabling of Bills is a difficult matter. That is why hon. Members, with their varying degrees of experience—from the great experience of the hon. Member for Walton to the lesser experience of hon. Members of my intake and Members of the intake after me—should return to it time and time again. For the avoidance of doubt on the Treasury Bench, I wish to suggest that I am a reformer rather than an iconoclast. I am not suggesting an immediate—
Mr. Boateng rose—
Mr. Burt: Here is an iconoclast, and of course I give way to him.
Mr. Boateng: Is not the hon. Gentleman a bit of a crawler as well? Is not that really the tone of what he has said during the past few minutes? Complacency and self-satisfaction describe the attitude of Ministers, not Opposition Members. They showed complacency and self-satisfaction in every response that they made in Committee.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman knows all about crawling. It was he who introduced to the Committee the Tatler magazine with its prominent spread of his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr.
672
Cunningham). If that is not an example of crawling, I am not merely new here, I am wet behind the ears—and that I am not.
Timetabling is difficult. The time has come to take a hard look once again at the possibility of introducing a more formal timetable procedure as a limited experiment. It should not be a complete change; the House must have time to consider the way in which it would work, but an experiment might be called for at some stage.
Certain informal practices which now exist mean that the Opposition and the Government are able to debate their various points. If a new procedure were put into operation, it would merely mean that this place would adapt and new conventions would arise around the more informal way of timetabling.
Mr. Allen McKay: There are a few hon. Members who would agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly need more than two months to consider a Bill of this size and complexity, and which is so important to everyone in this country. It would take about four months to consider adequately the Bill if his suggestion were adopted.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the difficulty that any Government would have in dealing with a major item of their manifesto. There can never be a Panglossian solution offering "the best of all possible worlds". There will always have to be compromise. The Opposition will never receive as much time as they feel is necessary and the Government can never give them as much time as they want. The Government have allowed a reasonable time for discussion of the Bill, and the procedure I suggest would also allow an adequate compromise.
Mr. Win Griffiths: If a compromise is to be reached, it should be between the projected amount of time necessary to complete the examination of the Bill as it is being debated, and the amount of time being allowed in today's timetable motion. That would be a real compromise and a sign of the Government's goodwill and desire for a proper discussion of the issues.
Mr. Burt: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but it is best not to become too deeply involved in the way that such new procedures would work. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so in the Select Committee on Procedure.
Today's timetable motion debate is a ritual which does not do the House a great deal of credit. The only response from the Opposition Front Bench was a fairly typical speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. A timetable motion used to be an opportunity for enormous outrage from Opposition Members—clearly it is not now. The only outrage came from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and, once again, he proved his capacity to let down himself and his colleagues by substituting unpleasantness for argument. That is to be deeply regretted, because the hon. Gentleman is well liked in the House, but, occasionally, he lets himself down.
It is time to get a move on with the Water Bill, whose contents formed part of the Conservative party's manifesto at the last election. It was endorsed then and should now proceed to the statute book. The Bill is similar to others that have come before the House, such as the Education Reform Bill, the legislation on the deregulation

673
of buses, and the measure limiting the powers of general practitioners to prescribe certain drugs. All those measures were represented by Opposition Members as more or less the end of civilisation as they had come to know it. They said that such measures would irrevocably change services and prove completely destructive. However, none of those measures has done so: most of them were warmly welcomed by the public and were successful for the Government.
For the first 18 months after bus deregulation, the number of bus miles increased by 16 per cent. nationally, and minibuses now operate in about 400 areas. Since June 1988, there has been a net increase of 465 new operators. The socially necessary services—the very services that Opposition Members said would disappear completely—are protected by Government grant. About £240 million has been spent by the Government to subsidise them, out of an available total of £295 million, which means that £55 million was not even required for socially necessary services.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the record of private bus companies, in terms of the percentage of their buses that pass the annual PSV test, leaves much to he desired? Deregulation has not been a success in terms of proving that the safety of the travelling public has been enhanced.
Mr. Burt: The measure has proved that the safety controls contained in it—much criticised at the time—have proved useful and proved that it was quite right to introduce them. They have highlighted faults. The measure to deregulate buses, like the Water Bill, was presented by the Opposition as a measure that would lead to complete and utter disaster. That has turned out not to be the case: the measure widely and successfully improved transport services in this country. The Water Bill will do exactly the same for the water industry.
The Bill is wide-ranging and deals with the water industry and the countryside. I shall mention two specific matters which are sufficiently important to require the Bill to move to the statute book as quickly as possible, thereby greatly benefiting the British people.
First, the National Rivers Authority has been well debated in Committee and was mentioned again in the House by the hon. Member for Burnley.
Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend beseech the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) not to leave the Chamber, since he is now the only Back-Bench Labour Member in the Chamber who is on the Committee?
Mr. Burt: I would always beseech the hon. Member for Burnley to remain in his place because he is a good House of Commons man and picks up on much of what is said, but I am sure he would wish to hear me conclude my speech.
The National Rivers Authority is long overdue and has been welcomed in many places. The distinction between the utility and regulatory functions of water authorities has long been recognised but only this Government, with their establishment of the National Rivers Authority under the Bill, provide a true opportunity to hoist our standard of environmental care. Concerns about pollution and other matters will grow in the Europe of the 1990s. This country needs to respond and the National Rivers Authority provides a real opportunity to do so.
674
I believe, as many others have mentioned, that splitting the gamekeeper and poacher roles and the authority's national characteristics will ensure consistency of practice and standards, while not losing regional sensitivity. That, together with the tougher new controls on pollution introduced in the Bill, will benefit the British people and be welcomed by them.
Secondly, quite unnecessarily, scare stories have been mentioned about conservation and the loss of large tracts of land in the countryside. That is linked to the way in which bus deregulation was treated by Opposition Members.
To be honest, existing pressures on open space are likely to continue and will not ease. Concerns about the use of our environment will continue and we shall be continually dependent on our planning system to hold the ring.
The choices offered under such pressures are by no means as clear cut as they are sometimes presented in Committee. It is hard to balance the wishes and interests of growing numbers of people who wish to use open water areas for legitimate purposes with those of people who want no changes. It is difficult to balance the rights and beliefs of all constituents. It is dishonest and unfair to say that overnight, or at a stroke—to coin a phrase—vast amounts of water-gathering areas and areas in the national parklands will suddenly be consigned to 10-storey skyscrapers and the like for immediate commercial benefit.
I believe that that will not be the case, and I am strengthened in that belief by the work of the North West water authority—the authority for the area that I represent—which is looking forward to the freedom that privatisation will give it, and which says quite straightforwardly that there is no foundation for any fears that conservation and leisure activity on or around its land will suffer. Its commitment and record of achievement in the matter is well known to many people, and it makes the straightforward point that most of the land it owns consists of water-gathering areas that need to be saved and protected, and on which access and conservation will continue to be of great importance.
In short, this timetable motion provides for the progress of a Bill that is important to the British people. ft may be necessary for the House to consider at some stage in the future whether there are better methods of handling the ways in which Committees look at major public matters. But that is of secondary importance now; what is important is that the Leader of the House has offered a generous period for further consideration of the Bill, and that major matters will be considered, and that the measure, when it is on the statute book, will prove to be a major item that will make more certain the re-election of the Conservative party.
5.12 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: In the light of the time allocated under the guillotine to the Bill's Committee stage, it is quite clear that the word "generosity" has a different meaning in 1989 from that which it had previously. It is certainly my belief that less time has been allowed than in the case of other privatisations.
Guillotine motions have become a standard feature of the Government's legislative programme. Indeed, they seem to be coming forward earlier and earlier during the consideration of Bills. It has been estimated that the

675
Committee had considered the Water Bill for 75 hours, covering nine clauses, before the Government brought forward the motion. That is a considerably shorter period than was allowed on the two previous public utility privatisations. In the case of gas, 13 clauses had taken up 85 hours before the guillotine was brought in. In the case of British Telecom, over 100 hours of debate had taken place. The Government seem to be getting increasingly intolerant of the Opposition when it comes to allowing sufficient debate on subjects of such importance.
Mr. Keith Raffan: First, will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that it was the Liberal party that first introduced the guillotine into our procedures? Secondly, will he accept the consequence of what he is saying, which is that there will be even more microscopic scrutiny of the early clauses of a Bill and a mere passing glance at the remaining clauses unless the guillotine is introduced at a reasonably early stage?
Mr. Livsey: The point I was making is that this Bill has had even less time than other similar privatisation measures, and I do not think that that can be justified, given the size of the Bill. I gather that, with 180 clauses, it is one of the longest Bills in the history of this House.
One can, I believe, seek reasons for this guillotine. The date of 7 March seems to be crucial in the timetable; it is precisely one week before the Budget on 14 March, so the Chancellor can say in his Budget speech that asset sales in the financial year 1989–90 will include those of the water authorities. I believe that this is a consequence of the Government's dogmatic target of getting public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP. This Bill is very much part of that strategy. The timetable is not just in the House; it is elsewhere in the Government's programme also.
The consumer will pay for this privatisation and, indeed, is already doing so. The consumer will also pay by the sale of the assets. Indeed, most of the assets, as we have seen in Committee, are already vested in the plcs.
Another reason for the guillotine must surely be that the Secretary of State for the Environment nearly lost the Housing Bill last year; indeed, it was saved by only one day. I think there has been over-reaction by the Government in the timetabling of this Bill.
The irony of the guillotine motion is that it could be argued to be in the Government's interests to delay the flotation of the water industry. First, it is already known that they have backed down from selling all the water authority stock this year, for fear that the market may not be able to carry it. No wonder the water authorities are in need of such massive infrastructure investment that they do not offer good prospects for the investors.
Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the point that he has just made? As I understand it, no decision has been made on the flotation of the water industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman is really commenting on press speculation, which may, as is all too often the case, be totally inaccurate.
Mr. Livsey: It is therefore all the more important to persuade the Government of the wisdom of what I am saying.
The much larger electricity industry sale is just round the corner, with the danger that the two privatisations
676
together may be more than the City can handle. That, I think, is a genuine problem which the Government ought to consider. The Government are still in dispute with Brussels over drinking water standards, as reported in The Independent today. The uncertainty that the dispute causes can only damage the prospects for the sale. Assuming that the Commission wins through, the result could be an enormous clean-up bill for the industry—not exactly the best lure to potential investors. It is surprising that the Government want to go any further, any faster, with the confusion besetting the sale at present.
Secondly, there are still huge question marks over the Government's plans for the sale. The legality of the special share announced by the Secretary of State last month is in doubt in the light of European rulings on similar arrangements set up for Rolls-Royce. The special share arrangement is vital if the water authorities are to be given even the remotest chance of remaining in the hands of the communities they are supposed to serve. I strongly support the inclusion of a special share provision in this legislation—that is, if we have to suffer the legislation, though I am diametrically opposed to the privatisation of water on principle.
Although arrangements for a special share need not appear in the Bill, the Standing Committee should have a definitive answer on the legality of such a share. If it were to be ruled out, the Committee might consider other methods of control—for example, by giving extra compensatory powers to the Director General of Water Services or, indeed, the NRA itself.
Why, then, are the Government rushing the Bill through before the legal implications of their proposals in relation to article 2(3)(ii) of the treaty of Rome have been clarified? That gives us cause for concern.
Where will the money raised by the privatisation go? What benefit will the community receive that justifies rushing the Bill on to the statute book in such a manner? If the Government said that they actually needed the £7 billion from the sale of water to plough back into public investment—for example, to give a boost to infrastructure investment—perhaps we could have some sympathy for their position. In the Welsh Select Committee the other day—perhaps I should not mention where this information comes from—we discussed infrastructure development in France to the tune of £1·7 billion of investment in the railway system. The British Government ought to be considering the use of public money in intelligent ways to improve communications to the regions of Great Britain.
Britain is being systematically asset-stripped to finance the Government's short-term policies. Not content with selling the family silver, they are now proposing to rip out the plumbing as well. What will happen when there are no more assets to sell? That is the big question.
Guillotine debates, including a summary of a Bill's main points and its virtues from the Leader of the House, have become something of a ritual in recent years. In this debate such a summary of the Bill's main proposals is likely to be far more significant for what it does not contain than for what it contains. Crucially, it does not contain any mention of competition. Increasing competition and the possible benefits it can bring to the consumer can be the only justifications for considering privatisations. This Bill achieves neither. The water industry will remain as much of a monopoly after the Bill is passed. There will be no choice for the consumer. As a result the consumer will be in a worse position after

677
privatisation. For the 12 million consumers now supplied from the private sector the Bill has already had just that effect. The implications of the tight timetable for privatisation have led statutory water companies to announce price increases of 30 per cent. I believe that that is a sign of things to come.
It is reported in the newspapers that the Minister intends to call in the water companies about price increases. What does he intend to tell them? Does he accept that the consumer should not have to bear such price increases? Will he take any measures to reduce them? Does he accept that the rise is a direct consequence of the Bill?
It is ludicrous that this, the most controversial proposal before Parliament this Session, should be rushed through the House without adequate scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people. It only strengthens the case for wholesale reform of the workings of the House so that Bills are timetabled realistically, adequate time being provided to debate all their provisions. The House ought to revise its procedures so that its workings become more accessible to the electorate it serves, especially as television cameras are about to move in.
Most of all, the House should be elected under a fair electoral system. That is the only way in which to prevent a situation such as this. How is it that a Government elected on 42 per cent. of the vote can stifle debate on a measure which is opposed by 75 per cent. of the electorate—all in the name of democracy? In Wales, the Bill is opposed outright, as it is utterly unsuitable to my country. Welsh Water owns 66,000 acres of land in my constituency and my constituents do not want it to go into private hands.
In Committee last week, when we were debating clause 9, the Minister could give us no assurance about what would happen to water authority land if water plcs handed it to subsidiary companies. He could give no guarantee about its security or what would happen to it environmentally. I am, therefore, very happy to oppose the motion.
5.21 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I apologise to the House for not being able to be present during the winding-up speeches because I shall be receiving treatment for an injured back, but I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate.
We have heard some interesting things from the Opposition. We have heard, for example, that there is no such thing as comparative competition. I think that we have it here in the Chamber at the moment. We have great competition among Conservative members of the Standing Committee for an opportunity to speak in the debate, whereas the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has had none. Such is the passionate, crusading, campaigning opposition of the Labour party to the Bill that it cannot be bothered to turn up. So much for the credibility of Labour Members of the Standing Committee.
I strongly support the timetable motion, not simply because a Government should be able to get their business through and implement their manifesto commitments, but because if we do not have such a motion, discussion of the Bill will become even more unbalanced than it already is. Without the motion, there will be an uneven distribution
678
of the Standing Committee's time. The early clauses will have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny while the vast bulk of the Bill will get merely a passing glance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said—he is one of seven Conservative members of the Standing Committee who are in the Chamber, as opposed to just one Labour—we have had more than 74 hours of debate in Committee. We have reached clause 9—only the end of part 1, which is described as the preliminary part of a five-part, 180 clause Bill.
The timetable motion will enable the Bill to be discussed in a structured way. It will allow much more disciplined discussion of the remaining clauses—many general points and points of principle having been debated at considerable length. I am sure that the Opposition agree that much remains to be discussed in detail. We have still to discuss the duties of water undertakers with respect to water supply and water quality, the provision of sewerage services, charges, the protection and management of rivers and other waters, the control of pollution and powers and duties in relation to the land.
The best work of the House is often produced under the pressure of a deadline. The Committee needs the pressure and, indeed, the discipline of a deadline to achieve an even and balanced discussion of all parts of the Bill—in other words, to do its job thoroughly and well.
The Water Bill is emphatically not one of those which has been rushed before the House and inadequately drafted, thus giving rise to the need for a host of Government amendments. Governments of all parties have done that from time to time. The Department of the Environment has examined the water industry in great detail for a considerable time, and the Bill has been prepared most carefully. The Opposition knew a great deal of what was likely to be in it, so there can be no justifiable opposition on those grounds.
Much of the opposition to the Bill is bogus. In many respects, the Bill does precisely what the Opposition have called for. The hon. Member for Burnley must have been promoted for being the only member of the Standing Committee to turn up as he appears to have joined the Opposition Front Bench. As he said, the Bill does much of what the Opposition have asked for by setting up the National Rivers Authority. The Government have listened to the Opposition's criticisms of previous privatisation measures and produced a regulatory framework which is heavier than has been found in any previous privatisation Bill. It will protect customers against excessive charges, reduced level of service and neglect of assets. It greatly strengthens the legal framework for setting standards of drinking water quality. It creates a powerful Director General of Water Services, who is independent of Ministers and accountable to Parliament. He will monitor the performance of water companies and ensure that they carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. He will have a network of regional customer service committees reporting directly to him.
The Bill also represents one of the most significant advances in environmental legislation during the past few years. The Opposition have, in effect, conceded that. The creation of the NRA shows just how much importance the Conservative party and Government attach to measures which protect the consumer and the environment Creating the NRA removes a glaring defect which has been highlighted as much by Opposition Members as by Members on this side of the House.

679
I am glad to see the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee present as he will endorse what I am saying. He will remember a report written some three years ago to which we put our names. It concerned the need to divide water authorities' responsibilities. They cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher—the monitor and discharger of sewage. We must separate those responsibilities if there is to be effective monitoring of pollution, and that is exactly what the NRA does.
One of the great fallacies of public ownership is that it protects the consumer. It gives no foolproof protection for the consumer, as the Camelford incident has so sadly shown. More blatant is the neglect of the last Labour Government. It was after that Government crawled humiliated to the International Monetary Fund for the biggest loan that it has ever given to the Government of any country—banana republics and Paraguay included—that they forced water authorities to cut capital spending on infrastructure by one third and, within that, to cut capital spending on sewerage infrastructure by one half.
Now, thanks to privatisation, water authorities will be freed from external financing limits. They will have access to the capital markets. They will therefore be able to accelerate their capital programmes to make up for the neglect of which the Opposition are so guilty. Should the nightmare occur—difficult though it is to conjure up, 10 years after the last time the Labour party was in power—and the Opposition were to form another Government, perform its usual economic miracle, run the economy into the ground and crawl again to the IMF, water authorities will not again be forced to cut spending on crucial infrastructure for water treatment and sewerage works.
I spoke earlier about the beneficial effect of the discipline of the deadline. The timetable motion will put pressure on all members of the Standing Committee to confine our remarks to what is strictly relevant. I do not believe that any debate has ever suffered from brief and succinct speeches. Nor has any Opposition been weakened by making their case concisely and to the point.
It is clear from examination of the first 17 sittings of the Committee that the timetable motion is likely to hasten not only the improvement in the quality of our water but also the quality and relevance of the speeches in Committee, particularly those by Opposition Members. We learnt more about the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) than we learnt from him. We learnt about his dexterity at fishing in netting 24 salmon last autumn in Scotland, accompanied by an extremely attractive blond friend. I add that this was his English setter Sam—before the News of the World reports anything else. Similarly, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us that his mother's maiden name was Owen and that his aunties and uncles were Evanses. We learnt about his admiration for Tommy Steele in "Half a Sixpence" and his crusade against undrinkable House of Commons tea, served in, "non-biodegradable bleached teacups".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not here. His contributions to the circulation of Tatler have already been mentioned in the House. I shall not repeat the details, but certainly he should receive a free annual subscription to that magazine for all he has done to promote circulation by distributing it widely to his
680
colleagues. We did not expect that to be their normal reading, but it is certainly an improvement on "Das Kapital". We heard the hon. Member for Brent, South reminiscing about nature study at school. He also commented obscurely about an obscure American economist called Schlieffer and gave us a delightful cameo about gloves, ending with the question:
"How many of us have ever kept a pair of gloves for longer than five years?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1989; c. 101.]
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who fleetingly passed through the Chamber a moment or two ago—one of the few Labour Back-Bench Members of the Standing Committee to attend this debate however briefly—informed us that when he was a teacher petrol was siphoned from his van in the staff car park.
The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) managed to introduce into our debates and at some length the White Paper on the National Health Service. But although it was close, and there was certainly strong comparative competition among Opposition Members, the prize for irrelevance must go to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who intervened to keep us up to date on the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea.
All that was entertaining and illuminating, but it was hardly a debate on the Water Bill. The Standing Committee, and not least the Opposition Members on it, need the discipline of deadline that the timetable motion will provide so that we can now debate the Bill; not the Opposition'a extra-curricular activities, their schooldays, their obsessions with gloves or the magazine Tatler but the remaining 171 clauses of the Bill. That is what Conservative Members intend to do because that is what the nation wants.
5.33 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I do not know whether it is a pleasure to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). As he mentioned the Select Committee report on pollution of coastal waters in Wales, it is vital to remind the Government that the key conclusion that we reached some three years ago was that the Department of the Environment had deliberately avoided the directive issued by the EEC in 1976 on coastal bathing waters by defining a beach occupied by a number of bathers so that not a single beach in Wales could be considered as coming under the terms of the directive. Such situations deeply worry the people of Wales and we scrutinise any Government measure with great trepidation.
The only possible reason that I can find for the timetable motion is the Government's deliberate and cynical desire to stifle debate and scrutiny of the Water Bill. To protect the principles of democracy, a guillotine motion must be used sparingly, and only when there is a clear national need for speedy decision making. There is no need for speed in the privatisation of water, only for expediency for the Government's convenience and avoidance of further discomfort.
The proposed privatisation of water has aroused the interest and concern of my constituents even more than the privatisation of gas and British Telecom. Like all hon. Members, I have received a great many representations about different aspects of the Water Bill. I have passed many of those representations to my hon. Friend the

681
Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) so that they can be raised and clarified in Committee. I have told my constituents that I have done that and promised to send them relevant copies of the Committee proceedings so that they will be fully informed of progress, of any successful amendments and of the outcome of their representations. The guillotine means that there will be inadequate time for scrutiny of all the major and contentious issues in the Bill. Guillotining the Standing Committee debate and the scrutiny of the Bill will therefore deprive my constituents of the right to that channel of representation.
There will be no time to discuss the inevitable higher price for water. Only last month, the Welsh water authority raised its charges by an average of 9·9 per cent. Because of the way it chose to impose those charges, occupiers of lower rateable value homes will pay substantially more than those in properties of higher rateable values.
On Saturday, a pensioner who is a widow brought to my surgery a pension book which she had just received which contained counterfoils for her pension increase in April. Each counterfoil was worth 15p. That is how much better off that lady would be in April, but the increase in her water rates will probably be more than 27p a week. So she need worry only about how she will find the money to meet price rises associated with 7 per cent. inflation, rate increases and electricity price increases in preparation for privatisation.
Mr. Ashby: Can the hon. Gentleman say what that counterfoil increase would have shown 10 years ago when inflation was a good deal more than 7 per cent.?
Mr. Wardell: I am not concerned with that, as I was not here 10 years ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was here then.
Last April, the Government said that anyone who was worse off by more than £2·50 a week would receive transitional payments. However, if those pensioners receive any increase in their pensions on 1 April it will be deducted from their transitional payments. That is happening to many constituents throughout the country.
I assume that the Department of Social Security issued my constituent with an additional book rather than amending the current one because it will be easier to withdraw the new book than to re-amend the existing book when housing benefit is cut again.
After reading today's newspapers there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the water sell-off will mean much higher water hills. Water metering—a process that Welsh Water seems to be against—needs to be discussed and made clear in every detail. In addition, it is important for the Government to spell out whether, if authorities such as Welsh Water intend to move to a system that relies increasingly on raising the standing charge element of the water bill, they are considering the introduction of some sort of sliding scale for rebates similar to that proposed for the community charge.
Mr. Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the increase in charges has nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with improving water quality and standards?
Mr. Wardell: I cannot agree with that for the obvious reason. Over the past few years, the Government have
682
placed an external financing limit on water authorities which means that they have been unable to borrow on the open market to the extent to which they would have liked. As a consequence, they have been unable to finance their capital investment from borrowing on the open market and have had increasingly to resort to raising the money through current charges. The increase in water charges has come largely from the imposition by bodies such as the Welsh Office of external financing limits which have forced water authorities to cut back on their investment and to raise the money almost solely from current water charges.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is the hon. Gentleman disapproving of the increased capital spending proposed by the Welsh water authority for next year?
Mr. Wardell: Not at all. I am saying that over the past few years, the Government have been deliberately preventing the water authority from borrowing money for financing its investment. Now that privatisation is about to be carried out, the Government have permitted that borrowing to take place.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct, does he not welcome the Government's privatisation proposals? It will free the Welsh water authority and others from public sector borrowing restraints.
Mr. Wardell: The Minister has missed the point. The Government imposed the external financing limit and are now saying how great it is that they are removing it. If they had not imposed it in the first place, the argument would be unnecessary, as would privatisation.
Mr. Ashby: I asked the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back 10 years in respect of one matter. Would he do the same in respect of this matter? Will he say whether there were any constraints on public expenditure in 1978 under a Labour Government?
Mr. Wardell: I do not want to look back 10 years. I have only to look at this Conservative Administration to know that what is happening leaves a tremendous amount to be desired.
The Government are careless of public opinion and concern at any time other than during the nine months when they are giving birth to their pre-election programme. The Government's large majority is making them complacent and that complacency shows in the fact that they have made no concessions so far in Standing Committee. They have accepted none of the amendments that have been proposed.
A press statement for Wales was issued on 11 January, perhaps because the Secretary of State feels that he may be answerable to the press in a way that he is not answerable to the House. The statement said that because there is a need to keep Welsh water Welsh, individual shareholders will be allowed a maximum holding of 15 per cent in the new plc, unless or until a 75 per cent. majority of the shareholders vote otherwise. What a meaningless sop. Even if that is legal under European law, it is clearly in the interests of shareholders to vote to end that restriction as soon as possible if they want to maximise the price of their shares. That is surely the purpose of their investment. If a

683
French company or a large institution came along with a juicy offer for 25 per cent. of the shares, the shareholders would fall over themselves to register their vote in favour.
The Secretary of State for Wales has felt no need to justify to the press or the House the erosion of Welsh Office powers and responsibilities brought about by the Bill. It is clear that at present the Welsh water authority is responsible to the Welsh Office. After privatisation the National Rivers Authority committees and agencies in Wales will be directly responsible to the central NRA committee, which is responsible to the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State for Wales may have an input in the deliberations, but he will no longer be responsible for a range of functions associated with the NRA such as river and beach pollution control, drinking water quality control and environmental amenities and access, all of which are regarded as extremely important by the people of Wales.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, it is clear that he is not fully aware of the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales. I have produced a digest of those powers and responsibilities which has been sent to all Committee members. I would he happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
Mr. Wardell: I thank the Minister for that and I am glad that he intends to send me that information. Of course, it would have been helpful if he had sent a copy of the digest to all Opposition Members so that we could fully understand the point that he is trying to make.
It took the scrutiny of the Committee to reveal the major defect in the Bill. The Government have squirmed and wriggled and wasted valuable scrutiny time. They have not taken on board any of the proposed amendments, which were reasonably and rationally put to them. Now they propose to limit that scrutiny time. It is clear from the Committee proceedings that the Government do not intend to accept any amendments. They will not concede that there is a need for the NRA to be up and running with its complex structures and its obvious teething troubles ironed out before the plcs are given free rein. Committee members wanted to give the NRA a year's head start. Clearly, there is a need for that. Mr. Keith Court, chairman of South West Water, has been talking about finding ways of outwitting the NRA and Mr. Gordon Jones, chairman of Yorkshire Water and of the Water Authorities Association, said in the magazine Agenda—vol. 2, No. 7—that the duty of experienced water industry executives is to be responsible to their shareholders, not consumers.
The Government will not concede that there is a need clearly to state the relationship and responsibilities of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution and the National Rivers Authority beyond saying that they are clearly complementary. Of course, we know that. We know, too, that the inspectorate is being starved of cash and staff so that the Government can claim that it is ineffective and can cast it off completely. The Government are now not even prepared to concede the most eminently sensible step of ensuring that those proposals in the Bill, which would clearly be governed by European law, are scrutinised by specialists to ensure that they are legal before being
684
enacted by the House. That is petty minded, arrogant nonsense. The Government have said that they will listen to further representations about access to open spaces—some of the most beautiful areas of Britain are at present owned by water authorities—but they have not accepted amendments which would largely meet those problems.
The Government have made no concessions regarding the adoption of unadopted and unadoptable sewers, which is a problem not just for my constituents, but for thousands of householders, and it is a matter which I have raised in this House on many occasions. The Minister, as a Llanelli boy, will know that problem well, but all that he promised in the Standing Committee was that he would write to the Law Society. That is the limit of what the Government are prepared to do. I do not know whether the Minister's Department has received a reply from the Law Society, but I believe that it is ridiculous that, in privatising water, the Government are prepared to let the practice continue whereby developers are required to build to building regulation standards which are different from those standards laid down by water authorities. Here was an opportunity for the Government to do something about it, and at least to protect future householders by ensuring that when they bought their properties they knew what they were buying. The Government have chosen not to take that opportunity. All that they have done is to write to the Law Society. A lot of writing must have gone on, but few results appear to have emerged.
No concessions have been made regarding the role and powers of the new Director General of Water Services. I am fascinated to find out, if this measure is passed, whether—in the same way that British Telecom and Sir Bryan Carsberg have effectively devised a formula for pricing British Telecom charges—the formula applied will be K plus RPI or K minus RPI.
Obviously, in proposing this guillotine, the Government are merely saying that—because they are not prepared to amend the Bill, to make any concession to legitimate representations of concern from the public, to listen to any argument, or to brook any opposition from any quarter—there is no point in the Standing Committee spending time scrutinising the Bill. Perhaps the Government are worried about what other foul-ups the Standing Committee might find. It is certainly apparent that so complacent, arbitrary and dictatorial have the Government become that they cannot even be bothered to go through the motions of complying with EEC laws, of listening, of making accommodations or of achieving consensus. Such words are like a foreign language to the Cabinet.
I remind Conservative Members that the people of this country regard water as free and as a natural, national asset. They do not yet believe that the Prime Minister controls our rainfall. They very much resent her belief that she can make them pay through the nose for something that they already own and to which they have rights. For the man or woman in the street, this Bill is about paying lots more to a few shareholders for something that they already have and own. Conservative Members believe that they and their leader know what is best for us all and that, if we do not like it, we can lump it. I would urge right hon. and hon. Members to think twice before acting in such a high-handed roughshod manner as guillotining legitimate procedure, scrutiny and representation about such an important Bill.
5.55 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: We have listened to the usual ritual argument against the timetable motion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) went on at some length about it. It is fair to remind the House that all Governments have had recourse to that measure. There is little virtue in Opposition Members adopting holier-than-thou attitudes, as they have this afternoon, especially when one recalls that it was the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who in one day—20 July 1976—actually guillotined five separate and major bills. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I hear the expressions of dismay and almost complete disbelief from my hon. Friends. Who could really believe that an Opposition Member could act in such an undemocratic fashion?
Mr. Ashby: They forget themselves.
Mr. Pawsey: Clearly, 20 July 1976 must be a black day in the annals of the Labour party since, if it seeks to condemn this Administration—as the hon. Member for Gower did—for what they are doing today, what must have been its thoughts on 20 July 1976? Clearly, whatever thoughts it had were kept well to itself, because those measures were driven through this House by a three-line Whip and supported by Opposition Members.
I shall deliberately not use the word "hypocrisy" to describe the comments made by Opposition Members.
Mr. Knapman: Why not?
Mr. Pawsey: I shall answer my hon. Friend. That would make me out of order. I shall, however, leave that unspoken thought to work upon the consciences of Opposition Members.
The Water Bill is a large and important measure. It has 180 clauses and 24 schedules and so far we have completed only nine clauses and four schedules in 74 hours. It might be thought by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the reason for the slow progress was the overwhelming dedication shown by Opposition Members. Sadly, that is not entirely the case. I shall provide hon. Members with just two samples from one day's proceedings in Standing Committee D. The quotations that I shall use will provide a mere flavour—a gentle taste—of our discussions on one day only. I shall refer to the 14th sitting held on the morning of Tuesday 31 January. The Committee, or at least Conservative Members, listened with rapt attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They were briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). It is worthwhile quoting some of the hon. Gentleman's comments on that morning. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He said:
"This is the Mother of Parliaments…but tea is sold here in non-biodegradable, bleached plastic cups. Is that appropriate for the Mother of Parliaments? The plastic cup damages the environment, and the tea in it is also damaging. My tea was cold and it was poured from a flask. It was also undrinkable. The Mother of Parliaments should not treat in this way those at the hub of its legislative programme, when a cup of tea is served at one's desk in the meanest town hall."
I responded to the hon. Gentleman's comments as I have an interest in this matter as a non-executive director of the group that manufactures the cups that he described. The
686
hon. Member for Bootle proceeded truly to amaze the Committee with the depth and breadth of his wisdom on medieval affairs when he said:
"We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell"—
[Laughter] The House will not be surprised to learn that the reaction of the Committee was precisely the same. The hon. Gentleman said:
"We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell, Robin Hood and Maid Marian. William Tell was a regular visitor to British forests, and used to hunt as a guest of the King of England."
Hon. Members may share my belief that William Tell was a Swiss hero and a republican to boot. The thought of him hunting as a guest of the King of England beggars imagination.
Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave away the depth and breadth of his knowledge when he said of William Tell:
"The television series was certainly made in this country."? [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989; c. 626, 629.]
Mr. Pawsey: Yes. That day will be long remembered by those of us who had the pleasure to listen to those contributions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not in his place, but it is worth while bringing out the flavour of his contribution that day, which was also touched upon by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). The hon. Member for Brent, South said:
"When we look at these matters it is helpful to look at the Conservative party's hidden agenda…revealed in a magazine…It is the Tatter a magazine such as one would find at the the dentist's or the doctor's. It tells of the fads, foibles, fancies and doings of the upper classes…The Tatter has changed in recent years. It is no longer a harmless and innocent publication. It has become the house journal of the Conservative party."
The hon. Gentleman developed his case by saying:
"there are the fashions of Imogen Inglis-Jones and Nathalie Mountain, who are pictured in various fishing positions…the Tatter is the real house journal of the Conservative party. It is the Conservatives' equivalent of Marxism Today, shorn of some of the ideological pretensions of that magazine."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989;c. 670–1.]
If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gairisborough and Horncastle): The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a member of the upper middle classes. He is the son of a barrister and a lawyer himself'. Does my hon. Friend agree that he revealed his class origins when he assumed that Taller was the common preserve of dentists' waiting rooms in Bootle, Burnley or Sunderland?
Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a typically telling point.
I have made a genuinely important discovery. The hon. Member for Brent, South is an amusing and entertaining raconteur, but his comments do not always appear to be totally relevant to the clauses under discussion. Yet another of his more diverting digressions was when he said that Fred Jarvis was a ghillie employed by some anonymous laird. The idea of Fred Jarvis being a ghillie is most unlikely. In my capacity as chairman of the Conservative party's parliamentary education committee I

687
have met Fred Jarvis on a number of occasions and I would have thought that he would make an unlikely, unwilling, unhelpful and unco-operative ghillie.
I have greatly enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Member for Brent, South. They burst like a ray of sunshine into the dullness of our winter days. If that does not damage his chances of reselection, nothing will.
The House may ask what is the relevance of my observations about the hon. Members for Bootle and Brent, South to the Water Bill.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Quite right.
Mr. Pawsey: Well, they are the quotes from your hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pawsey: I beg your pardon, Sir. Although Opposition Members may seek somewhat obtuse connections with the quotes, you may think, Mr Speaker, that they represent a prime example of time-wasting or tautology on a massive and original scale. I am not seeking to suggest that Opposition Members have been involved in any deliberate time-wasting. In their case it would probably be unnecessary since they have an ability, indeed a talent, to meander round a subject rather as an old, silted-up river meanders round a landscape.
I must make it clear that I have enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Members for Brent, South and Bootle in much the same way as I enjoy those of Jasper Carrott or Lenny Henry. I hesitate to say that I enjoy Victoria Wood lest I be misunderstood. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen, however, could earn even better livings were they to join the ranks of Equity.
I have given the House an all too brief flavour of some of the contributions made to Standing Committee D—a sort of hors d'oeuvres to the main course. To be able to enjoy, and in good time, the main part of the feast, it is necessary to introduce a timetable measure. It will be recalled that the Water Bill was a central plank of the Conservative party manifesto of 1987. I need scarcely remind the House that, on the strength of that manifesto, the Government were returned for an unprecedented third term and with a substantial majority. Therefore, it seems that the British people are anxious to see this Bill enacted with the establishment of a National Rivers Authority and a new statutory framework for the control of drinking water and of river quality.
The Bill provides the terms of appointment and financial arrangements for the new limited companies to provide water and sewerage services in England and Wales. One of the things that I particularly welcome—it was touched upon by one of my hon. Friends earlier—is the appointment of a Director General of Water Services. He will be the consumers' white knight.
The Bill will ensure better value for money and more efficient service. The quicker it is enacted the better and that is why I support this motion.
6.8 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Having listened to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I wish that I had been invited to join the Committee on the Water Bill, because it seems that it is the place where learning is combined with a great deal of pleasure.
The Leader of the House gave the game away when he said that, so far, the debate in Committee had not resulted in any excessive filibustering, but there was a need to curtail the examination of the Bill because the Government needed to get the legislation through to offload the shares in the new water companies during the forthcoming financial year. It seems that profit is being placed before the public interest and that the rights and needs of consumers have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
There seems to be no good reason for rushing the examination of the Bill. Even if we were to continue at the same rate it could still be on the statute book well before the next election. Despite the time being given to the Bill by the guillotine motion, inevitably some parts of the measure will not be discussed in the detail that is necessary. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, huge sections of the Bill have not been scrutinised. I could reel off at least a dozen such areas, but I shall not do so because the time allowed for this debate precludes that possibility.
I should like to look at one or two areas of great concern. The first is European Community legislation. That raises two issues and the first relates to any regulation that might be introduced about the nature of the shareholdings. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell us whether the proposal for a golden share in the case of the English companies and a 15 per cent. maximum holding in the Welsh company is completely acceptable to the Commission in Brussels.
The next issue is water quality. Over the last 18 months I have asked several questions about the quality of tap water and bathing water, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) have recently put down some written questions on these subjects. So far, the answers have been fudged, to say the least. I have been told that bathing water quality on the majority of our beaches does not come up to the EEC water quality standards and that the Commission, the Government and the water authorities are discussing a programme to enable all beaches to be brought up to standard in an appropriate time.
In answer to one of my questions to a Minister in the Welsh Office, I was told that there was a 15-year programme for Wales. From my knowledge of the Commission I know that would be far too long. Before the Bill is completed we ought to know the exact programme for bringing all the beaches up to the European Community standard and we should know how much that will cost. That will be a great deal of expenditure for the new shareholders. The same can be said about tap water quality, although not so much in Wales because I have been assured by the Welsh Office that all water supplies will be up to standard by 1992. There still has not been an answer to that question about the position in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) alluded to the National Rivers Authority. There will be no separate National Rivers Authority for Wales, even though the Welsh people want to see such an authority. I

689
remind Conservative Members that, given that there is a separate Welsh water authority, the will of the Welsh people at the last election was clearly not to see that part of the Conservative manifesto carried out. I hope that Conservative Members and the Government will take account of that.
The one good thing about the Bill up to the weekend was that the Government has introduced no amendments. On today's Order Paper there are 10. I do not know whether the trickle will become a flood, but I hope not, because it would make the guillotine even more of an injustice.
6.14 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: To date the course of this ill-attended debate has been that those who oppose the Bill oppose the guillotine, and those who support the Bill support the guillotine. I have to break that pattern, because I am not a supporter of the Bill. However, I think that a timetable motion is the best way to ensure that what is undeniably an immensely important Bill is properly considered before being presented to the House for Third Reading.
I notice that under the timetable motion three and a half days—that is two days plus two periods of two hours—are allocated to Report and Third Reading. I hope that the Business Committee will allocate sufficient time for Third Reading, because hon. Members who abstained on Second Reading may wish to participate significantly on Third Reading in order to share with the House their reasons for deciding to vote for, or against, Third Reading.
In parenthesis, I hope that the reason for the Secretary of State's absence from the Front Bench is that he has left the House to reply to a letter that I wrote to him not weeks, but months ago inquiring about whether in the privatised water industry it would or would not be a criminal offence to supply water that is not potable. Many hon. Members will know that if water gets into milk during its production, even with no guilty intention, the farmer is automatically guilty of a criminal offence even if the milk is not thereby rendered unwholesome. It would be quite scandalous for us to pass into law a Bill privatising water that gave water companies exemption from such a criminal provision. I hope that that will be one of the matters discussed either in Committee or on Report.
In the last Parliament the Procedure Committee paid considerable attention to the public Bill procedure. We decided—I say "we" because I was then and am now a member of that Committee—to recommend to the House that if it seemed probable that a Bill would spend more than 40 hours in Committee, it should be timetabled right from the beginning instead of having to go through a ritual dance, hilarious examples of which have been given by some of my hon. Friends, so as to waste enough time in conventional wisdom to "justify" the adoption of a timetable. The Select Committee on Procedure said that it would be much better to timetable the Bill from the beginning, so that all its important provisions could be properly examined. That is not just for the benefit of the Opposition. Often the drafting of clauses has consequences unforeseen by the draftsman and unintended by the Minister. That is avoided only by going carefully through a Bill. The motion will have my support, even though the Bill does not, because I acknowledge the
690
importance of the Bill, and wish to see it examined as it ought to be, and believe that a timetable motion is the proper instrument for that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) opposed the timetable motion in totality, thereby rejecting completely the proposition of the Select Committee on Procedure. Speaking for the official Opposition, he did not say that the timetable ought to have one more allotted day for Report or Third Reading, or 10 more hours in Committee, which might have been a sustainable argument—I do not know, because he did not deploy it. Had he deployed it, seeing that I am uncommitted on the Bill, I might have found myself of that opinion. He has not put to the House any judgment that the time for the Committee stage should be longer, or that more time should be allocated for Report or Third Reading. Therefore, he has placed all of us in the position where we have to vote for this motion as it stands, on the basis—because it is this that he has asked us to accept or reject—of whether a better Bill will emerge as a result of this timetable motion.
It has been my fate, Mr. Speaker, in the last few debates in which I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, to speak for three minutes on the last occasion and four and a half on the one before. I have not found myself greatly constrained by that. It is the experience of many hon. Members that the discipline of time enables them to say what they need to say. There is a story—I forget which pope it is about—that shows quite a lot of wisdom. The pope received in audience three visitors. Of each he asked the same question, "How long are you staying in the eternal city?" The first said, "Three months, Your Holiness." "You will see a little bit in that time," said the pope. The next replied, "Three weeks." The pope said, "You will see a lot of it in three weeks." The last replied, "Three days, Your Holiness." "You will see everything worth seeing in three days," replied the pope.
I have been in the House for 28 years, and I have never been to the Royal Mint—it has now left London—I have never seen many things in London. I am convinced that the Procedure Committee's experiment, which it recommended to the House, of having a 10-minute limit on speeches has been justified by events, and the vast majority of Members would like to see that extended to most, if not all, debates on the Floor of the House. The same logic is compellingly appropriate of the Committee stage of Bills. The discipline of a timetable structured by the Business Committee, not imposed willy-nilly by the Government, is the only proven method of securing proper detailed examination of the Bill so that, whether its general principles do or do not commend themselves to the whole House, better legislation will result than would otherwise have been the case.
6.22 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that short speeches can be effective, and I intend to make mine extremely short. The Government have to guillotine the Bill because it sets out their policy and they want to get it through its stages. However, it raises many important issues. The timetable set out in the motion would not allow enough time to deal with some of the major problems such as the complications of the EEC factor and of the codes of practice, how that is applied to successor companies and to

691
land disposed to third parties, and what is the definition of operational and non-operational land. The Committee is only just getting to grips with some of these issues.
We must explore all these issues in greater depth. For example, we must examine consumer rights, charges, how capital is raised for improvement—through revenue charges or borrowing—water metering, the kind of meters to be used, who will pay for them, how much they will cost, what access will be allowed and what protection there will be for the low paid, the unemployed and retired people, particularly if their water is cut off in times of financial stress. These are all major issues in a major Bill.
Some Conservative Members are as concerned about some of these issues as we are. However, those who are driving through this Bill and its guillotine do not care one jot about the implications to the environment, water quality, consumer rights and consumer protection. All they care about is dogma and ideology. In their minds, anything privatised is good and anything public is bad. The water companies were set up by public institutions and public bodies, often as a result of falure of private companies, and their record is not bad. What about compensation for the ratepayers who set up the water companies and the waterworks that are now being sold off to the private sector without any compensation?
We must examine all these issues in great depth, and the guillotine will not allow that.
6.26 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I found the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) extremely interesting. I hope that, when and if he receives a reply to his letter from the Secretary of State, he will publish it so that we can see the interesting comments that the Secretary of State might have to make.
Guillotines can often be justified—for example, when major legislation needs to be rushed through the House because it is urgent, although usually there is co-operation from both sides of the House in such circumstances. Guillotines can also be justified, and have been found necessary, when delays have been caused. Many of the debates about guillotine motions have concentrated on whether a Committee has been making progress and whether there is undue delay. It is clear that there has been no undue delay in the Committee considering the Water Bill. For example, the Committee did not debate the sittings motion. The Opposition did not object to the doubling of our sittings, even though that was done from the second day of the Committee stage. We have not swamped the Amendment Paper with minor or trivial amendments or wasted time with unnecessary votes and points of order. The Government have not been forced to move closures on any of our debates on clauses or amendments. As the Leader of the House accepted, there have been no unduly long speeches from Labour Members.
This is an important and serious Bill. The Leader of the House also acknowledged that our discussions in Committee have been serious and concerned important matters such as the National Rivers Authority, which has taken up most of our discussions so far. Every attempt that we have made to strengthen the NRA has been rejected
692
quite blatantly by the Government, who do not seem interested in ensuring that that body has the strength, resources and staffing that it requires.
Many other important issues have to be discussed. My hon Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned some of them. The Leader of the House gave us a list of those items that he thought ought to be discusssed, such as a customer services committee, drinking water quality, control of pollution, sewerage, flood defence, all of which we agree are important. On which of those does the Leader of the House think that we should skimp our debates? There will not be enough time to discuss all those issues as fully as they should be discussed. By giving us that list, the Leader of the House proved the point that the timetable will not give us sufficient time to do so.
Even the Leader of the House has admitted that there has been no undue delay in Committee. On the other hand, there is much evidence and a great deal of proof of undue haste on the Government's part. Second Reading took place on about the first possible day. Consideration in Committee started on the first day possible. We have a guillotine motion after fewer than 75 hours of debate in Committee. The Government are pushing ahead with this pretty desperate timetable when they still appear not to know the final outcome of their legislation.
The Government were forced to withdraw their plans for the privatisation of the water industry in 1986 because of the outcry that then took place, and did so in a typical hole-in-the-corner way. A statement was wrung out of them by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on a Thursday evening at 10 o'clock—it was obvious that the Government wanted the minimum notice taken of their withdrawal. Despite the rejection in 1986, and despite having two years to consider the matter—the Government have had two years to get their proposals right and to acquire answers to all questions—confusion still reigns in Government circles when it comes to their plans and the consequences of them. Ministers are still unable to come up with the answers.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Lady may say that undue delay has not taken place in Committee, but 75 hours have been spent in Committee and only nine clauses have been covered. Does she accept that if she and her team had proceeded at a more reasonable pace and achieved much greater progress, as they could have done, the Government would then not have had a good case for introducing a guillotine motion? Alternatively, is the hon. Lady happy that the Government have introduced the motion?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the Leader of the House dealt with that question in his remarks. He acknowledged that there had not been undue delay. Indeed, he said that we have been discussing important issues in Committee, as we have.
The issue that is concerning many is prices. The Leader of the House said earlier today that the Bill would greatly benefit consumers, but that was a completely inept remark to make today, of all days. The Secretary of State told us on 28 November 1988 at column 450 that we could expect water prices to rise in real terms between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. by the end of the century. Last week, the water authorities announced increases of up to 13 per cent. This weekend, the statutory water companies told us that their price increases would be about 30 per cent., and even

693
as much as 50 per cent. When we warned of these increases in December we were told that we were scaremongering, but now we have the reality. We are faced with the greatest price increases ever.
It is no use the Minister saying that he will call in the water companies. I am sure that we are all impressed by that! I am sure also that we know exactly what the Minister will say. If he takes the advice of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) he will say, "I say, chaps, can't you turn this down a bit?" The fact is that the Minister cannot control the water companies. They are not accountable directly to him, any more than the new privatised water companies that replace the water authorities will be directly accountable to him or, more important, to the House.
The position is worse than that. The Department of the Environment is implicated in the price increases that we have heard about from the water companies during the weekend. In December, Ernst and Whinney was appointed by the water companies to advise them on the run-up to privatisation. It wrote to the companies, giving the advice that they faced their last opportunity to increase tariffs before privatisation. It also advised each company to raise its tariffs to the maximum level permitted, which is what the companies have done. The letter stated:
"Following a meeting arranged by the Water Companies Association today with the Department of the Environment … it was agreed that I should write to you on an immediate basis to let you know of points which were agreed at that meeting."
It is clear that the Department and the accountants were working together before advising the water companies to take the action which they announced during the weekend.
Of course, this is only round 1. There are plenty of other additional costs for the consumer that are still to come. We shall soon be seeing flashy adverts on television, for which we shall all have to pay. There will be the costs of flotation, which the City will not have to meet. It has already received £700 million from taxpayers. There will be the extra costs of higher management salaries, to which some in the industry are looking forward. There may be other costs, including, perhaps, VAT. None of us minds paying a bit more for a better service and better pollution control, but we mind paying a privatisation surcharge which is entirely avoidable and wholly unnecessary. We face enormous additional costs because of the Government's obsession with pushing every industry, however vital, into the private sector, where profit will be the first priority. As the director of the Water Companies Association said, the Government's proposals will put them under an obligation to put the shareholders first. There is no doubt about the consequences for prices.
There is no great doubt about the proportion of the industry that will be owned by the private sector after flotation in November. Will all the industry be owned by the private sector? Will 51 per cent. of it be so owned, or will the percentage be something between that and 100 per cent? How will the industry he sold? Will it be sold directly, through a holding company, or one region at a time? Will water supply be sold before sewerage? The Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee that no decisions have yet been taken, but it is now February. The motion is before us because of the urgency of the Government's privatisation plans, but they still cannot answer some basic questions.
694
Perhaps the Minister for Water and Planning will be able to tell us what will happen to the industry's debts. Are they to be redistributed? Will they be written off in part or in full? How much will it cost the taxpayer if and when debts are written off? What will happen with the Government's merger policy? On 11 January, the Secretary of State announced his policy. He promised that the necessary amendments would be with us as soon as possible, and I understand that the Government are tabling them today. Perhaps our debate in Committee on Thursday 2 February brought some good. We have still not been told, however, whether the amendments have been cleared with Brussels. There has been no confirmation of clearance. That is not surprising, as clearance has not yet been obtained. We adhere to the legal advice that we have received that the Government proposals may infringe European competition law.
The Secretary of State assured us that he would not ask the Committee to proceed with a matter that was in doubt. Clearance and many other matters are still much in doubt or unanswered, yet the Government are pushing ahead with the guillotine motion. Rather than guillotining the Bill tonight, the Government should suspend consideration of it in Committee until they answer vital questions. We shall oppose their motion.
6.39 pm
The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): In a previous privatisation guillotine motion debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that his view on guillotines was consistent; when he was in government he was for them, when he was in opposition he was against them. From what we have seen of the way in which the Opposition have organised themselves in Committee, it will be a long time before my right hon. and hon. Friends need to be against a guillotine motion.
We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) made an exceptionally thoughtful speech. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). We shall certainly take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about Third Reading and do what we can to accommodate him. I am very sorry that he has not received a reply to his letter. I will look into that. He may find clause 51 of the Bill helpful in answering his point.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the time that has already been spent examining the Bill. He referred to the two full days—11½ hours—devoted to Second Reading. So far we have spent nearly 75 hours in Committee discussing nine clauses. Under the terms of the proposed timetable motion, there would be a further 78 hours in Committee making a total of 153 hours in Committee. That would be followed by three days on Report and Third Reading making a further 23½ hours and by then the House will have spent nearly 200 hours considering the Bill. By any standards, that is a generous amount of time.
The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that that was not sufficient time to consider the various provisions in the Bill. Anyone present during the

695
proceedings in Committee would greet that assertion with astonishment. Even under the stern chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), time has been found, as many of my hon. Friends have explained, for many diversions, some more entertaining than others.
During the debate on clause 1, we were treated to a biology lesson by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). He told us how to test for chlorophyl—the stuff, as he put it, that makes leaves green. We also heard about the greatest ghillie in the world, called Fred Jarvis, although we did not quite discover his connection with anyone with a similar name.
The hon. Member for Brent, South seemed to gain particular pleasure from using Tatler as one of his great source documents for his contributions in Committee. However, he did not acknowledge that the editor of that magazine is the sister of my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
Mr. Boateng: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it was Tatler which set the tumbrels rolling in relation to this guillotine motion? He knows full well that no matter whether that magazine is edited by the sister of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—and I understand that that editorship has caused a certain amount of embarrassment in the hon. Gentleman's household—its production during our Committee proceedings was highly relevant because it is geared to the parvenus and parasites who populate the modern Conservative party. It represents the greed and avarice which are the very motors of this Bill. We were right to reveal the true motives.
Mr. Howard: The Tatler certainly set the tone for the hon. Gentleman's contributions to our deliberations.
For the most part, the Committee deliberations were highly entertaining stuff. However, they are highly inconsistent with the picture that Opposition Members have sought to paint today of a Standing Committee desperate to stuff every available minute with scrupulous scrutiny of every sub-clause, but which was starved of the time to do that.
When we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House, I described the Labour party as the "say no" party. I suggested that it said no to change, new ideas and to any constructive proposals designed to improve the conditions of our people. Having listened attentively to the arguments, or what passed for arguments, advanced during almost 75 hours in Committee and in today's debate, I have been reflecting on that. The Labour party is not simply the "say no" party; it is also the "go slow" party.
Let us examine the Labour party's record in Committee. Almost the first act of Labour Members was to table amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the names of the entire Opposition first team for the Bill. Amendment No. 1 was to pave the way for amendment No. 2 which was intended to delay the appointment of the new water and sewerage undertakers for at least five years. Unfortunately for them, their futile attempt to wreck the Bill was completely transparent. The amendments were not selected for debate. Then they put their names to
696
amendment No. 33 which would have delayed our plans for only one year. The amendment told us to go slowly and they proceeded to do just that in Committee. We spent one and a half sittings debating that amendment. That was just the first of the delays. It took us the best part of seven sittings—nearly 27 hours—before we even moved away from clause 1 and its accompanying schedule. That was the pace that the Opposition set for consideration of the Bill in Committee and that pace has not significantly improved.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister think that the establishment of the National Rivers Authority was important?
Mr. Howard: It was extremely important. Its importance could have been better dealt with by more relevant and pointed debate rather than the debate which took place. I hope that the House will not be taken in by the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. She tried to suggest that the Opposition's points were made in a genuine attempt to strengthen the powers of the NRA.
The hon. Lady's motives were made clear in an interview she gave to the Financial Times on 7 December 1988, which states:
"Her response is to try to ensure that the final shape of the legislation will incorporate so many new consumer and environmental safeguards and restraints that it will be unattractive to the private sector."
That was not because she was really interested in the safeguards, but because she wanted to use the Committee stage to sabotage the whole principle of the Bill which had been granted a Second Reading by the House.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke most eloquently against the guillotine on the Bill. Will my hon. and learned Friend speculate on whether she spoke as eloquently against the guillotine on the Wales Bill when she was an assistant Whip on 18 July 1978? Her right hon. Friend the Member for Iswlyn (Mr. Kinnock), who is now the leader of the Labour party, said at the time:
"We are faced with an abbreviated guillotine on a runt of a Bill. The only reason why this Bill exists is in order to legitimise the panic that the Government"—[Official Report, 18 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 448–49.]
find themselves in.
Mr. Howard: I am relieved that my hon. Friend relieves me of the necessity to speculate on the hon. Lady's attitude on that occasion. I am sure that the leader of the Labour party will bear in mind the contrast—[Interruption.] I was not paying the Leader of the Opposition that accolade, but I am sure that he will comment on the contrast between his attitude and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister accept that in Committee many beneficial points have been made upon which the Government have given assurances on questions relating to disablement, the environment and the Secretary of State for Wales? Had such a guillotine motion affected the first part of our deliberations in Committee, we would not have given such attention to the benefit of the Bill.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman deserves an accolade for having spoken longer than anyone else in Committee. I will happily pay him that tribute, if tribute it is.
Yes, of course, the Government have taken note of many of the observations made in Committee. We have

697
said that it will be appropriate to reflect on some matters. However, in almost every instance, the Government responded in that way to short debates that were relevant and to the point. Those debates secured the objectives that the Committee was entitled to see achieved; they were not achieved by the verbose meandering and irrelevant debates which repeated points that it was clear would not be accepted.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a sour little speech at the opening of the debate, and asked for a number of answers that had already been given in Committee—and some of his questions were repeated during the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about the golden share. There is no mystery about it—I made the position abundantly clear in Standing Committee. We do not anticipate any difficulty whatsoever in relation to the golden share, as we have said more than once.
Mr. Dobson: Are we to give as much weight to the hon. and learned Gentleman's anticipation concerning the value of the golden share as we are asked to give his anticipation that water prices will rise by about only 7 per cent. this century?
Mr. Howard: I will not take any criticism about water prices from a party that in 1975–76 presided over average water price increases of 42·8 per cent. That is the truth of the matter, and Labour Members will do well to reflect on their own record before questioning water prices.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also spread the calumny that Opposition Members are so fond of spreading in his allegation that the Government have been taken to the European Court on water matters more often than any other member of the European Community. I do not know why Labour Members are so fond of spreading that falsehood. It is entirely untrue. The fact is that the United Kingdom has not been taken to the European Court on a single occasion in respect of water matters. If Labour Members took more care over this country's reputation, they would desist from spreading that self-evident falsehood.
Many matters in the Bill are worthy of the Committee's time. They go far wider than questions of privatisation. Provisions in parts II and III of the Bill will establish a new statutory framework for controlling drinking water quality, river quality and other standards affecting the control of pollution. We are also amending and improving the law in respect of a wide range of matters relating to water supply, sewerage services, water pollution, management of water resources, flood defence, and fisheries. I hope that all those matters will receive the proper and serious consideration that they deserve in the Committee's remaining sittings. The motion's purposes is to ensure an even pattern of debate for the remaining sittings and that important issues gain the attention they merit.
The Bill will result in a more efficient water industry and a much-improved water environment. It will give the customer a more responsive service, and it will free the industry from political intervention of the kind that, in the past, delivered a triple achievement of massive price rises, more employees, and declining investment in sewers and infrastructure. I look forward to proceeding with the Bill in an orderly manner so that, with proper debate and
698
consideration, the industry can take its place in the private sector by the end of the year. I commend the motion to the House.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is still one minute left.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has spoken.
Mr. Bob Cryer: She may speak with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: She may, with the permission of the House—but not now. Time is up.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills.)
The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 199.

Division No. 75]

[6.52 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Aitken, Jonathan

Colvin, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Allason, Rupert

Cormack, Patrick

Amess, David

Couchman, James

Amos, Alan

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Curry, David

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

Ashby, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aspinwall, Jack

Day, Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Atkinson, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dover, Den

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Durant, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Dykes, Hugh

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Eggar, Tim

Bellingham, Henry

Emery, Sir Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Evennett, David

Benyon, W.

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fishburn, John Dudley

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

French, Douglas

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gardiner, George

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodlad, Alastair

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Budgen, Nicholas

Gow, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Gower, Sir Raymond

Butcher, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Butler, Chris

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gregory, Conal

Carrington, Matthew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Cash, William

Grist, Ian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Ground, Patrick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grylls, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Churchill, Mr

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hanley, Jeremy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

699

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Harris, David

Mudd, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Hayes, Jerry

Needham, Richard

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Nelson, Anthony

Hayward, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Heddle, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Norris, Steve

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hill, James

Paice, James

Hind, Kenneth

Patnick, Irvine

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Holt, Richard

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howard, Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Portillo, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Price, Sir David

Hunter, Andrew

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irvine, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Jessel, Toby

Rhodes James, Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Key, Robert

Rossi, Sir Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rost, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Knapman, Roger

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ryder, Richard

Knowles, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knox, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lang, Ian

Scott, Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)

Lightbown, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lilley, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Speller, Tony

McCrindle, Robert

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Squire, Robin

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maclean, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stevens, Lewis

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Malins, Humfrey

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mans, Keith

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Marlow, Tony

Sumberg, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Summerson, Hugo

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maude, Hon Francis

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mellor, David

Thorne, Neil

Miller, Sir Hal

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, Iain

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Miscampbell, Norman

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moate, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Sir Charles

Wheeler, John

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Widdecombe, Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

700

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

George, Bruce

Allen, Graham

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Alton, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Anderson, Donald

Gould, Bryan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Graham, Thomas

Armstrong, Hilary

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Ashton, Joe

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Grocott, Bruce

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hardy, Peter

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Barron, Kevin

Haynes, Frank

Battle, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Beckett, Margaret

Henderson, Doug

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hinchliffe, David

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

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bermingham, Gerald

Holland, Stuart

Bidwell, Sydney

Home Robertson, John

Blair, Tony

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Blunkett, David

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Boateng, Paul

Hoyle, Doug

Boyes, Roland

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Illsley, Eric

Buckley, George J.

Janner, Greville

Caborn, Richard

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Callaghan, Jim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kennedy, Charles

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lambie, David

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Leadbitter, Ted

Cartwright, John

Leighton, Ron

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Litherland, Robert

Clay, Bob

Livingstone, Ken

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Coleman, Donald

Loyden, Eddie

Corbett, Robin

McAllion, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

McAvoy, Thomas

Cousins, Jim

McCartney, Ian

Crowther, Stan

McFall, John

Cryer, Bob

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cummings, John

McKelvey, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McLeish, Henry

Cunningham, Dr John

Maclennan, Robert

Darling, Alistair

McNamara, Kevin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McTaggart, Bob

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

McWilliam, John

Dewar, Donald

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dixon, Don

Marek, Dr John

Dobson, Frank

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Maxton, John

Eadie, Alexander

Meacher, Michael

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Meale, Alan

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michael, Alun

Fatchett, Derek

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Faulds, Andrew

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fearn, Ronald

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Fisher, Mark

Morley, Elliott

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mullin, Chris

Foster, Derek

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Fraser, John

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Maria

O'Neill, Martin

Galbraith, Sam

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Galloway, George

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

701

Parry, Robert

Soley, Clive

Patchett, Terry

Spearing, Nigel

Pendry, Tom

Steel, Rt Hon David

Pike, Peter L.

Steinberg, Gerry

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Strang, Gavin

Prescott, John

Straw, Jack

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Radice, Giles

Turner, Dennis

Randall, Stuart

Vaz, Keith

Redmond, Martin

Wall, Pat

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wallace, James

Reid, Dr John

Walley, Joan

Richardson, Jo

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert N.

Robinson, Geoffrey

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N,

Rooker, Jeff

Wigley, Dafydd

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wilson, Brian

Ruddock, Joan

Winnick, David

Salmond, Alex

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Worthington, Tony

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Short, Clare

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

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

Mr. Ken Eastham and

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

Mr. Frank Cook.

Snape Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a

703
conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Water Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Private Business
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Clerk will now proceed to read the titles of the private Bills set down for consideration at this hour.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm that, although we are about to debate the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer to points relating to the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill? I am sure that you agree that the two Bills cover much the same principle of penalty fares, although they cover entirely different geographical areas. It would be for the convenience of the House if at least some general debate could take place, although obviously there will be two separate votes and two separate sessions of debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The two Bills will be taken separately, but clearly the one impinges on the other. I am fairly tolerant and will allow quite a wide debate, although hon. Members must of course not make it too wide.

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.7 pm
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill had its Second Reading in the other place nearly a year ago, on 21 March 1988. Its progress through Parliament has been delayed not because of any special difficulties with the Bill, but through circumstances that could not have been foreseen by its promoters.
As the House will recall, the Transport Act 1962 places a duty on the board to provide rail services having
"due regard … to efficiency, economy and safety".
Sad to say, over many years that aspect has been seriously undermined by those who travel on the system without paying fares. The figure currently estimated for Network SouthEast—the area within which my constituency falls—is now losing some £36 million a year, with an overall figure that could be far in excess of £50 million. That is a substantial sum, representing an enormous number of journeys on which travel is enjoyed without payment being made. It could be as many as 20 million journeys.
Research has shown that much of the evasion takes place partly as a result of failure to find proper places to buy tickets and partly as a result of opportunism by young people on short journeys. The present position cannot be allowed to continue, if it can be changed satisfactorily. It is both archaic and inefficient. It is based on the visible check of tickets at the barrier which is at best perfunctory and at worst does not take place at all. Staffed barriers are inevitably expensive. They cause queuing and problems for those with luggage, pushchairs and other encumbrances. It is worth pointing out that this is the only country in either eastern or western Europe that still uses staffed barriers to check tickets. The penalty fare, of the type that I shall explain in a moment, is becoming increasingly commonplace.

705
The board's plan, as outlined in the Bill, is aimed at recovering about £9 million a year as an opening, realistic objective. It is hoped that that figure will be substantially increased, but the board has that in mind as a starting figure. The requirements of the scheme, as set down by the board, are, first, that it presents an effective incentive to people to purchase tickets, secondly, that it is relatively easy to operate and, thirdly, that it will cease to be, as it is at present, a substantial burden on the courts. It is worth remembering that between 3,000 and 4,000 cases a year still come before the courts. Although this is to be not a criminal but a civil penalty, it must also be remembered that the board retains the right, in the case of serious fraud, to prosecute under the terms of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and its byelaw under section 67 of the 1962 Act.
The penalty will be a simple, flat rate figure. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was correct when he said that a common feature of this Bill and that which London Regional Transport has in mind is a flat rate sum of £10. That is not in addition to the normal fare; it is instead of the fare. However, when the cost of the journey is higher than £10, the standard full, single fare would be recovered.
Dr. John Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in that instance no additional penalty will be imposed on any passenger?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman with his experience knows, is that under the 1889 Act—the principal Act that governs this problem—fraud has to be proved. That is a lengthy and, needless to say, expensive process. This is not a criminal penalty. It is a civil penalty. As I hope to explain in a moment, anybody who is confronted with it will have a number of options before him. Under the 1889 Act there would be a straightforward criminal prosecution under which the board would quite properly have to prove fraudulent intent.
The new scheme would transfer ticket examination from the station to the train. On long journeys that is a common procedure. That is why I said at the beginning that the problem tends to be at its worst on shorter journeys. With ticket inspection on trains, an additional benefit is that more staff would be travelling on the trains to carry out that duty, thereby enhancing passenger security on trains. I hope that that will reassure women and elderly people and make them feel safer. In some areas tickets are already issued on trains. The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive area is one of them. In such an area it is unlikely that any major changes will be necessary.
The system is designed primarily as part of a package of measures. I pointed out earlier that opportunistic people arrive at the station, find that the ticket office is closed and rush for the train. Despite the fact that they may say to somebody that they will pay at the other end, they get off the train and, finding the ticket barrier unmanned, walk off. That can be understood, but there is another type of person who deliberately tries to avoid paying.
This package of measures, of which the Bill is but a part, will include more and better ticket issuing machines. The board's objective is that people who require tickets should not have to wait more than three minutes in the off-peak period and five minutes in the peak period to
706
purchase them. That would provide an incentive for people to purchase tickets. They would not then encounter the problem that I have just described.
In addition to the ticket machines, there would also be the deferred fare authority machine. It would accept any coin between 5p and £1. If purchased, that ticket would mean that no penalty fare would have to be paid. It would provide people with the opportunity to pay the rest of the fare to a properly authorised railway official. The scheme would receive full publicity. If the new scheme were properly publicised by means of notices posted throughout the railway network, it would be thoroughly advantageous.
Penalty fares will be collected by fully trained and competent "authorised persons", as they are referred to in the Bill. I make it clear on behalf of the board that this will not be just another responsibility that is to be dumped on to ticket collectors. Training does not mean training only in the general law relating to passenger travel. A special course will enable authorised persons to deal with interpersonal relationships, violence and other problems. It is hoped that the teams who will undertake these checks will consist of no fewer than two people. Perhaps small groups of people will carry out the checks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us how many people will be around?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires. More staff of a different type will be required. We are moving away from the barrier check to the on-train check. I am not aware that those who are currently carrying out this work will be put at a disadvantage. However, new and better trained teams of people will be required.
What is more important, the trained, authorised personnel will be given discretion. If a person says, "I have lost my ticket"—not a completely unknown predicament, in which some of us may have found ourselves—it will be possible for the official to say, "That is all right, you can go." There will also be a 21-day discretionary period. If a notice is issued to a passenger, he will be able to put his case in writing. The matter will then be examined by the appropriate authorities at head office. There will be no attempt to bulldoze or bully passengers. If a reasonable excuse is given, discretion can be exercised by those in authority.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no provision for the British Railways board to insist that fares are collected—that is, to reduce the discretion that fare collectors exercise? As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail introduced a number of disciplinary rules recently, and I dare say that there is a fear that the board will tend to set targets for collecting money, which will, of necessity, reduce discretion.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Happily, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that such targets are not in board members' minds. The board is anxious to create an incentive for ticket purchasing. Not everyone fails to buy a ticket for fraudulent reasons. However, at the same time, there should be a back-up penalty for people who are deliberately trying to evade the system. I hope that those

707
words will reassure the hon. Gentleman who, I know, is an expert on railways. I assure him that the board is not attempting to bully the travelling public.
The penalty, as I have said, will be a flat rate of £10. As I also pointed out, there will be an excess penalty for longer journeys. I wish to make it clear that no penalty fare will be issued to a passenger who has a ticket or some other authority to travel, or who found the ticket office was closed and no machines were available at the start of his journey—it is true that booking offices are often unavailable—or who has been told by a member of British Rail's staff to join the train.
Some form of penalty fare is necessary. To activate the penalty fare system it will be necessary for the Secretary of State for Transport to issue an order to that effect. The only way in which the system can be activated is by British Rail. None of the elements of the scheme can be introduced without the Secretary of State and British Rail being satisfied that the ticket machines, the deferred-payment machines and the rest are already in place. I hope that the system will be introduced not in a half-hearted, incompetent way but on the basis of providing every opportunity for those who wish to buy a ticket.
Providing that the Bill proceeds through the House, British Rail would like to start the scheme fairly swiftly. It is thinking of starting it on the Southend-Tilbury-London line and has also considered the possibility of the London to Reading line. A substantial number of the machines to which I referred are already in place. Training of the appropriate personnel is going ahead. In order to ensure that British Rail does not introduce a blanket scheme that breaks down through incompetence or inefficiency, the scheme will be introduced in places where the proper machinery is already in place.
I hope that the Bill, having received an unopposed Second Reading in the other place and having satisfactorily undergone the various relevant procedures before it came before us, will now command the support of the House.
No one who has paid to travel on the railway system, be it London Underground or the wider British Rail network—the two are interconnected—can ever feel entirely happy that a number of other people are travelling for nothing. If we want to hold down the cost of rail travel, it is essential to try to recover, as far as possible, all the moneys owing to the system.
I hope that the House will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go into Committee.
7.25 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that there is no disagreement about wishing to stop people cheating when they travel. The disagreement will be about whether this measure, and that relating to the London Underground, will achieve that end.
The motion in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), that the Bill should be read a Second time six months hence, is particularly appropriate. Anyone who examines the problems currently facing the railways, and studies this measure, will think it far better if British Rail and London Underground were to come forward with their proposals in six months' time rather than now.
708
I understand that consultations with the unions have been fairly perfunctory so far, and it would seem better for British Rail to give us assurances that the unions—whose members, both men and women, will have to operate the scheme—have been fully consulted before the scheme is introduced.
London Underground's automatic ticket barriers cause a fair amount of chaos and we should see what happens with those before the measure is enacted. In the north-west, in Greater Manchester, my constituents are certainly not in favour of any form of penalty fares: they would be more in favour of penalty refunds because of the appalling service provided by British Rail for people in south-east Manchester. There is concern about the safety of passengers on the Underground and British Rail, and there are many questions about whether these measures will improve safety.
A fundamental principle of civil rights is involved. Does the Bill transfer the onus of proof from the railway authorities, who must prove that someone set out to defraud them, to the individual, who must prove that he did not set out to defraud the railway authorities? That is an unfortunate erosion of civil rights. There is also a lack of logic in a measure which seeks to make what was a criminal offence into merely a civil one. That may encourage the gambler in many people, who may feel that it is worth trying to avoid paying the full fare, because though they risk having to pay £10 if they are caught, they will not have committed a criminal offence.
The House ought to know more about deferred-payment ticket machines. They seem a good idea but I have yet to see one in operation.
Like so many other measures, the Bill is not very powerful on its own. The key lies with the Secretary of State's powers to implement it. I hope that tonight the Secretary of State or his representative will be able to give us some idea of how the Department envisages the implementation of the scheme, and of what checks it will make before it is convinced that an area is ready for the introduction of the scheme. We should also notice that, by order, the penalty can be increased from its present £10 and £5 to whatever the Minister or anyone else thinks appropriate.
British Rail has opted for a "no ticket barrier" philosophy. As I understand the documents that I have received, it wants to get rid of the barriers and ticket checking as passengers get on and off trains. On the other hand, London Underground is in favour of ticket barriers—one might say ticket barricades—so that people are checked on and off the platform. There is a fundamental difference between the two schemes.
It seems to me that in some parts of the country it will be extremely difficult for British Rail to check passengers on trains. In the north-west of England there are certain commuter lines into Manchester on which many people travel relatively short distances. It will be extremely difficult for British Rail to conduct on-train inspections of tickets because it still has so much archaic rolling stock on which it is absolutely impossible for anyone to move from carriage to carriage to check tickets. Certainly we desperately need to replace some of that old rolling stock from the north-west, and if this measure were to speed that up, I might be sympathetic.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are diesel multiple units that do not have sufficient personnel

709
to provide ticket conductors? I am thinking, for instance, of two two-carriage units that are not connected by a corridor. Because there are not sufficient personnel to operate in both two-car units trains often run with two cars empty. We have not received any assurance that British Rail's policy will be reversed so that we can ensure that all the DMUs are properly staffed.
Mr. Bennett: That is an important point. Certainly I would argue very strongly in support of on-train ticket checking, provided that the trains are suitable and that there are sufficient staff to carry it out. However, it is interesting—and this is a total contradiction of philosophy—that London Transport wants to go for barriers.
I am particularly concerned about the question of consultation with the unions. It seems to me that it is particularly important that both British Rail and London Transport are able to give assurances to the unions that these proposals will not involve any redundancies. If, as has been claimed, the main aim is to improve the service by having, in the case of the London Underground, more people to issue tickets and, in the case of British Rail, more people to check them, it ought to be possible to give the unions an assurance about redundancies.
I believe also that there should he assurances for the staff about safety. If it becomes known that travelling conductors or guards, or the staff doing the checks on the London Underground, are likely to be carrying substantial sums of money there will be a further risk to those people who already place themselves at some risk in that they deal at night with people who may have had something to drink or who may not be particularly amenable. The promoters of the Bills should have talked to the staff and given them assurances about safety.
They must also give the general public assurances about safety. First, they have to deal with the question of bogus collectors. Many people in the House were quite sympathetic to the idea of giving the police powers to collect penalty fines for motoring offences, particularly speeding, and to the idea that this could be done very quickly. But we are aware of the nasty experience arising from one or two bogus policemen operating on motorways, and, indeed, we have heard one or two instances of people assuming wrongly that officers were bogus.
We have to look into the question of the authority that the individuals collecting the penalties will have, so that it can be made absolutely clear to passengers that they are genuine collectors. This is particularly important in the case of British Rail because if the scheme is introduced in a piecemeal way many people will not be certain whether it operates in their area. I hope there can be some clarification and that there will be discussions with the unions about the safety of those individuals.
My argument for deferring the scheme for six months relates very much to the question of the Underground and the automatic ticket barriers. I notice that there have already been criticisms of the automatic ticket barriers. The fire brigade has suggested that it is not really safe if large numbers of people have to get off the platform. It may be a bit of brilliant timing by the Underground that it put the fares up in January, just as it was introducing many more machines. It seems that at the same time people are having considerable difficulty in having the right money for the machines. Every machine that I come across demands the exact money rather than offering
710
change. In addition, many people are finding it difficult to put the tickets into the automatic barriers. Certainly my experience is that most people go for the open gate rather than put their ticket though the machine. Surely it would have been far better for the London Underground to wait until its barriers were working and seen their effect.
Apart from anything else, I believe that if the machines work effectively they will cut fraud significantly, and there may therefore be no need at all for this measure. If the machines do not cut fraud significantly, what is the point of introducing them? I shall not say any more now about the automatic barriers; it may be more appropriate to come back to the question later.
My constituents in Greater Manchester are very disgruntled and upset about British Rail spending so much time trying, supposedly, to improve inter-city trains through Manchester. They have had a winter of total and incomprehensible muddle so far as the local commuter trains are concerned. A constituent of mine regularly writes to me to tell me which trains are late on his journey to work. I get a letter at least every day. It would be simpler for him, and for me, if he were to write and tell me when the trains are on time. I realise that British Rail has been doing a great deal of work at Piccadilly south, but certainly the service is appalling.
As I said earlier, my constituents would like penalty refunds. I do not think that they would mind if they got a pound for every 10 minutes the trains were late. British Rail would have been bankrupt a long time ago if it had had to pay out that sort of money.
It is very sad that British Rail has put so much effort into the inter-city services so that it can run trains from Blackpool to Harwich—only one little Sprinter carriage, but it goes—and from Newcastle to Liverpool via Piccadilly—yet it has not been able to maintain a commuter service through that area.
Mr. Peter Snape: My hon. Friend is labouring under the same misapprehension that I laboured under until recently. Those trains from Harwich to Blackpool, and indeed the ones between the cities of Newcastle and Liverpool, are not part of the inter-city network. If my hon. Friend can tell me why, he is a wiser man than I.
Mr. Bennett: I do not know what network they are part of.
Mr. Snape: The provincial services.
Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend. Certainly they are appropriate to some very sleepy provinces; they do not provide a very speedy service.
What is particularly worrying is that British Rail seems to have felt that, in order to squeeze those trains through Piccadilly south, it was possible to squeeze out the commuter service into Manchester. I understand that the Manchester transport executive has been considering taking British Rail to court over its failure to provide the service for which it gets a subsidy. Certainly, the first thing that the people coming into that area want is trains that are reliable and efficient, and they would be much happier to pay for that service by buying tickets than to see British Rail spending its time introducing a measure like this, which will do nothing to improve public morale. I should think that anyone trying to collect tickets on those trains would spend a great deal of time getting a great deal of

711
earache about the unreliability of the service and would find it extremely difficult to move from one part of the train to another, even if there were corridors—and many carriages still do not have corridors.
Let me turn now to the question of safety. British Rail in particular says that if there are far more people on the trains checking tickets there will be improved safety. To a certain extent London Underground makes the same case. I am sure that we are all very concerned about the safety of passengers, but I suggest that there is not an overwhelming case for saying that people are worried about their safety on the trains as opposed to their safety on the stations. It seems that British Rail is aiming to reduce substantially the number of people on the stations. I must say that at more than one station where I wait late at night I would much prefer to know that there was someone in the booking office who, if I were attacked, would have a chance of doing something about it. He might pick up the telephone, though I would not expect him to come to my assistance in any other way. But if I knew that the ticket office was not manned, that there was merely a machine, my unease would be increased. At one or two stations in the Greater Manchester area, passengers have to go down a couple of steps and around one or two awkward corners, where somebody could lurk, before they get to the platform. The idea that such stations will not be manned increases my anxiety, especially if the automatic ticket machines are liable to attempts by people up to mischief to take money out of them. That does not increase safety.
With London Underground, if staff are on the platform and are clearly visible at barriers, their presence is an effective deterrent. I would like more staff to travel on trains to reduce violence. I do not accept the promoters' claim that the Bills will increase passenger safety. For British Rail, it would be much preferable to have more effectively manned stations and travelling ticket collectors. With London Underground, the problem with fare default increased substantially when staff levels were reduced. The problems of violence on the tube and on stations has also increased as a result of reduced staffing.
The promoters claim that making what was previously a criminal charge a civil charge is a significant step in terms of civil rights, but it is not really all that significant for most people because most people do not want to break the law, civil or criminal—they want to be law abiding. The change, which is fairly minor in their eyes, does not justify changing the onus of proof. I understand that at the moment, London Underground and British Rail have to prove that an individual got on a train without trying to buy a ticket and intended to travel without paying. If that were difficult to prove, one would expect there to be few court cases, but the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that there are a substantial number of prosecutions each year.
It is extremely difficult, however, for a traveller to prove that he intended to pay. Deferred payment machines might be installed at all stations. If that is so, life will be easier for somebody who arrives at a station without an open window at which to pay to get a ticket out of the machine. I suspect that people will occasionally have only more than
712
a £1 coin, especially if they have travelled some distance. They can reasonably expect there to be somebody at a window to take their fare.
The presence and working conditions of a deferred payments machine must be guaranteed if the scheme is to have any justification. My experience is of going to Westminster tube station after about 11 pm and finding nobody to take the money for a ticket. A 50p machine sometimes worked before Christmas, but often there was no machine and somebody in a little wooden office counting money. I could not be certain whether he was supposed to be counting money because he had finished his shift or whether he was trying to finish early and ought to have had the window open. At the other end, there was sometimes somebody to collect the money, but sometimes there was not.
If I were stopped on the train, I doubt whether I could satisfy the inspector that there was nobody at Westminster station. Indeed, I suspect that if that somebody was supposed to be at the window at Westminster station and supposed to be collecting money, he would insist firmly that he was doing just that. It would simply be my word against his. In my position, and in view of the fuss that I would make, it might not be all that difficult for me to get away with it, but a 13 or 14-year-old, or somebody who was not prepared to make a fuss, would probably find that London Underground tends to believe the person in the office rather than the individual. That gives rise to considerable difficulty.
Many people would be pressurised into paying because they would be unable to prove that, when they went to the ticket office, nobody was in it. People can also claim that they have been authorised by somebody in British Rail or London Underground uniform that they are entitled to travel without making a payment at the start of the journey. When challenged, or at an inquiry, it is extremely difficult to say who authorised the travel. There must be a much more efficient way of issuing tickets or some other authorisation for travel before the Bill is introduced.
Anyone who knows London Underground will say that the present system has broken down. If it needs the new machines and they work, very few people will defraud it. That being so, it would be no hardship to London Underground—indeed, it would be an advantage—to charge people who defraud the system with a criminal offence and make a fuss about the fact that they have been apprehended and punished. The only argument in favour of penalty fares arises when a large number of people do not pay and the burden of taking them through the courts becomes too great.
If the new barriers are worth all the fuss, they must cut the amount of fare dodging. If British Rail has efficient ticket issuing machines on the Southend line, there should be a major reduction in the number of fare dodgers. If there is, there is no hardship in treating fare dodging as a criminal offence, on which basis the fine could be much more than £10—and much more of a deterrent.
The £10 penalty fare might be considered a gambler's charter. People who have to pay £1·50 or £3·00 may think that, if they get away with it, it will have cost them nothing and that, if they are caught, the most that they will have to pay is £10. On some British Rail routes into London, people have to pay £7 or £8 for a ticket. Gambling for £10 in those circumstances becomes quite attractive. There does not seem to be much logic in that.

713
I would much rather have the new and supposedly efficient ticket checking and collecting systems and no resort to penalty fares. I should like a more detailed description of the deferred payment ticket machines. I would like to know how soon London Underground will add them to its exising machines. Will it be possible to say, "I got a deferred ticket because I read, 'Exact money' on the machine and I cannot see a space for that on the machine below the 60p"?
I hope that the Minister can tell us what guarantees he wants about the sections of line to which the new arrangements will apply. With British Rail, the scheme will be phased in on the Southend line first. What guarantees will the Minister want about orders? What publicity for the new arrangements will be provided? Can the Minister assure us that he will not increase the £10 and £5 penalty fares?
What will happen with the rolling stock? I hope that we shall have a guarantee that none of the new arrangements will apply when people cannot move from one carriage to the next to check fares.
I have expressed most of my fears. There should certainly be some amendments on Report. I shall also be looking with considerable interest at the operation of the present London Underground system. I shall be looking for dramatic improvements in reliability and punctuality in Manchester when the new timetable is brought out. In the light of all that, I reserve my final attitude to penalty fares, although I am concerned about the principle of changing the onus of proof so that instead of someone having to prove that an individual has committed a crime the individual will have to prove that he has not committed an offence.
7.50 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Government's attitude to the Bill. First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on making so clear the purposes of the Bill. I hope that my remarks will help the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) with some of the points that he raised.
In May 1986 the Government set up a working group to look into arrangements for charging penalty fares on public transport. We accepted its recommendations that changes in the law were needed to tackle the problem of fare evasion and we gave our consent to BR and LRT to deposit the Penalty Fares Bills which we are discussing tonight.
The Government strongly support the Bill. British Rail loses large amounts of revenue every year through fraudulent travel. The new Bill is designed to deter people from embarking on a journey without a valid ticket or "deferred fare authority" which allows them to travel to their destination and then pay an excess fare.
Dr. Marek: Before the Minister continues reading his speech, may I ask him why he sought to intervene and make his speech after only one Opposition Member has been allowed to speak? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also wishes to make a speech. I hope that the Minister will not simply plough through his prepared speech and then take no further part in the debate or answer any questions from Opposition Members?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a private Bill and not a Government Bill. I am not here to wind up the discussion or reply to points. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has raised some points about an order that the Government might make, but those points are best addressed when the Government may or may not make that order. For the moment we are dealing with private legislation.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Although I did not develop that argument in my speech, there is a great deal of worry about the order-making procedure. The orders are subject to annulment, which does not encourage debate in the House, and the best we can get is a debate for one and a half hours. That is not satisfactory. Surely it is far better for the issues to be argued in the House before we give the Minister the powers to make the orders rather than when he has those powers.
Mr. Portillo: I am trying to address the hon. Gentleman's worries by making a speech now, if I am allowed to continue. It may be that annulment does not encourage debate, but it certainly allows debate. In any case we are now debating the Second Reading of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that that part of the Bill is objectionable to him doubtless he will seek to amend it during the further stages of the Bill.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall take the Minister's hint.
Mr. Portillo: The recovery of lost revenue through the operation of the Bill will benefit not only British Rail but both the honest passenger and the taxpayer. It should be a significant help to BR in achieving the objectives we have set—to reduce the amount of support it receives from the public purse, while improving quality of service.
Passengers will also benefit from unrestricted access to and from trains through the use of "open stations", since on-train ticket checks will allow more ticket barriers to be removed. In addition, more automatic ticket-vending machines and the introduction of deferred fare authority machines will reduce queues at ticket offices.
Many parts of the country outside London and the south-east already have open-station systems and on the whole they have been successful. On-train ticket checks are common in Europe and Britain is the only country which still relies heavily on barrier controls.
Under existing law, if a passenger is found travelling without a valid ticket, BR can charge him the full single fare to his destination. However, research has shown that most fare evasion takes place over short distances and therefore that is not an effective deterrent. The payment of a flat-rate penalty of £10—which is the same as that proposed by LRT—or the full single fare, if it is greater, will encourage people to buy a ticket before travelling. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest made clear, the penalty fare will be a civil penalty, not a criminal one, and that will mean that most offences for non-payment of fares will no longer be heard at magistrates' courts. But BR would still have the right to prosecute in serious cases of fraud.
Of course, the powers which I have just described cannot be applied to any service or group of services until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an activating order. Before any such order is made the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the system

715
and that they include safeguards to ensure that honest passengers are not penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. He will therefore need to be satisfied that ticket offices are properly staffed; that the necessary ticket and deferred authority machines are in place; that there are satisfactory arrangements for monitoring and repairing machines; that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the new system; that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the system and are deployed appropriately and that they have adequate identification. We must also be assured that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place.
We believe that the introduction of penalty fares legislation will bring many benefits to passengers as well as helping to recover some of the revenue which BR is losing through fare evasion. We will need to be assured that preparations have been made to ensure that the system is operated properly and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the honest fare-paying passengers.
7.55 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for the customary courteous and lucid way in which he introduced the Bill. However, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) shows that we should not allow the elaborate cloak so cleverly spun by the hon. Member for New Forest to disguise the somewhat shabby figure underneath. A number of legitimate points should be raised before the House allows the Bill to proceed.
The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the need, indeed the desire, of British Rail for more and better ticket-issuing machines. So say all of us. Those of us who have travelled on, have had any dealings with or have worked on British Rail, as I have, will be aware that not so many years ago—at least it does not feel too many years ago—one went to a ticket office window, handed over the cash and very quickly was presented with a piece of cardboard on which was written the originating station and in larger letters the destination. The price on it was inevitably out of date, but the whole transaction was fairly speedy and simple.
That is not the case now. By the nature of their job, Ministers are cosseted from the realities of daily life that are faced by millions of ordinary people, but a quick visit to any mainline railway station will demonstrate that these days the system of purchasing and selling a railway ticket is much more complicated. First, the little pieces of cardboard to which I referred so fondly have all disappeared. I understand that that was known as the Edmonson system after its inventor, just to tip off the Minister in passing. Particularly at mainline terminals, the ticket issuing machines look like extras from "Doctor Who". They are enormously complex. The mere issuing of a ticket leads to an interrogation from the clerk which is understandable, given the multiplicity of tickets that BR now sells—blue savers, white savers, singles, returns, first class, standard class—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Silver service.
Mr. Snape:—and silver service, as my hon. Friend reminds me. It is immensely more complicated than it used to be.
The House will not be surprised, although the Minister might be, to find that queues at mainline stations are considerably longer than they used to be. The temptation for passengers in a hurry is to leave the queue and board the train, particularly at an open station with no barrier check. They will then pay the conductor-guard, the senior ticket examiner—I understand that that will be the new grade—or the station staff at their destination, depending on who approaches the passengers first. At the risk of the hon. Member for New Forest branding me as a potential criminal, I must confess I have acted in that way when I have seen a long ticket queue. Therefore, we need more assurances that the new and better ticket-issuing machines are on the way, because there appears to be no sign of them so far.
The hon. Member for New Forest said that the British Railways board intends to try to ensure that the maximum wait at a ticket window will be between three and five minutes. That time, so optimistically referred to, is considerably exceeded for most parts of the day at, for example, Birmingham New Street which is my closest InterCity station. Despite there being up to five ticket windows open, there is often a considerable queue at each. Many passengers, including hon. Members, no longer use the outmoded system of purchasing with cash. They use credit cards or, in our fortunate case, railway warrants. Transactions involving credit cards or railway warrants take a little longer than the simple cash transactions of the past. Also, many of us seek reassurance from the person from whom we purchase the ticket that the train we want is running, that it is on time and often from which platform it departs. That causes increased congestion and delay for those in the queue. Someone whose patience expires or whose time of departure gets ever closer while complex transactions take place would be likely to head for the train and hope for the best.
Under the proposed system, such a passenger would, according to the hon. Member for New Forest, have an opportunity to purchase a permit-to-travel ticket for what he describes as a "nominal fee". British Rail's idea of a nominal fee often does not coincide with the thinking of the rest of us. The hon. Member for New Forest—or more likely the person who drafted the Bill and certainly the organisation for which it was drafted—takes an optimistic view of the efficacy of the machines that accept money. The hon. Gentleman did not give the figure that British Rail has in mind, but it will probably be up to £1. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that some machines accept coins and then reject coins of the same denomination within seconds. We need an assurance that the machines that British Rail has in mind will be more foolproof than any we have yet seen on British Rail or London Underground such as those at, for example, Westminster tube station.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The deferred payments machines are supposed to accept any coin up to £1. It will be interesting to see whether they can cope with any coin. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that such machines cannot provide essential information such as whether the train is still at the station and other information that one can obtain from an individual.
Mr. Snape: That amply illustrates the lack of concern for the travelling public so often demonstrated by those in charge of our, fortunately, still publicly owned railway and underground system. Such people are almost exclusively male. For some reason, the concept of manoevring a pram, trolley, shopping bag or a couple of recalcitrant toddlers around a railway station never impinges on their thinking because they never do it themselves. Yet, to add an additional complication to a journey is not, to put it at its mildest, likely to benefit customer relations. We will be told that it is more efficient. More efficient for whom? Is it more efficient for the accountants who run our public transport system or for those who travel on it?
The hon. Member for New Forest said that no penalty fare would be payable if no machine were available. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the difficulty involved in proving that no machine was available or that a machine was not in proper working order. How does one prove that one has been told, in the words of the hon. Member for New Forest, by a member of British Rail staff to join the train without a ticket? British Rail has a multiplicity of staff. Some are involved directly in ticket sales, but the majority are not. Does a member of British Rail staff include a driver leaning out of a cab of a diesel multiple unit or one of the new fangled sprinters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred? Such trains meander from Blackpool to Harwich and are staffed, at least on part of the journey, by only one person. If that one person—the driver—leans out of his cab at a station and says to a passenger staring in bewilderment at one of the ticket machines, "Will you be there all day because the train will not?", does that constitute permission to travel without a ticket or do we have to wait for my learned friends to make a bob or two in some court while deciding whether it is permission to travel without a ticket?
Most laughably of all, the Minister referred to the fact that the Secretary of State would have to give his consent before any route could switch to the penalty fares system. How many times have those who take an interest in such matters heard that said in recent years? When responsibility for public transport was taken away from the Greater London council, I remember the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), assuring us that he would be responsible for the safe running of the system and that any complaints about tickets or trains could be directed to him in the House. He and his successor were quiet after the King's Cross disaster. There was not a collection of Ministers at the Dispatch Box, beating their breasts and crying "Mea culpa" after that incident.
Therefore, I cannot believe that, given the complicated life that the Secretary of State for Transport leads and given his wide responsibilities and some of the events that have impinged on them in recent months, he can call in a group of British Rail managers, perhaps from the London-Tilbury-Southend route, and say, "Now chaps, what have you done to enable me to consent to your proceeding with the penalty fares system on your route?" We all know what will happen. He will receive a letter from British Rail saying that everything is in place for the great scheme to be implemented and he will give his consent without knowing personally what British Rail has done.
Of course, there is a lack of logic about the penalty fare system, because both the Minister and the hon. Member
718
for New Forest referred to the loss to British Rail and London Underground from fare evasion. I am sure that the amount is considerable and all of us, whatever our connections have been with British Rail or London Underground Limited, would deplore that. It is said that Network SouthEast is losing about £36 million from fare evasion. That is a remarkably precise figure for an imprecise science. I do not believe that anyone can know how many fares are evaded.
The Minister and the hon. Gentleman made the point that much of the evasion took place on short journeys, which was the thinking behind the £10 penalty fare. The way the system works is that, if one evades a £1 fare—not that there have been many of those since this Government came to power—one is fined 10 times the amount of the fare that one has evaded. If, for example, one tries to evade the fare between Euston and Manchester—to use the route referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—presumably one is not fined at all, because that £10 has long since been swallowed up in the exorbitant price of the ticket.
The Bill says, in effect that, if one is going to fiddle, one should do it in a big way. One should fiddle not on short distance journeys, because there is a severe financial penalty, but on the long journeys—the very journeys from which British Rail are anxious to safeguard its revenue—because under the Bill there will be no penalty.
Of course, the hon. Member for New Forest might say that there are existing statutes that would take care of such matters. That might be right, but I believe that there is an enormously illogical flaw in a scheme that can fine someone for evading a small fare, but does no such thing when there has been large-scale fare evasion.
The Minister said that there would be good publicity to explain the proposed changes to the travelling public. However, many members of the public—especially women—might catch trains only occasionally. How and where would this publicity, which will tell people that the scheme is in operation, be exhibited? We all know that the scheme will be used to reduce staff on railway stations even further. I do not want to see British Rail staff on wayside railway stations on quiet branch lines—those that are still left—sitting around doing nothing. That would be a fairly frustrating business and would not lead to any great job satisfaction. However, what we envisage here is a scheme planned by men for men. The man carrying only a briefcase will have no great difficulty. He will not have shopping or toddlers to worry about. For thousands, if not millions, of women who travel alone or with children, the introduction of this scheme and the consequent reduction of staff will mean even less security on their journeys than before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish pointed out the problems that have already been experienced by people using London Underground in the short time that automatic barriers have been installed at many stations. Like him, and no doubt other hon. Members, I can recount many occasions when making late night journeys from Westminster tube station has meant travelling for nothing, because the ticket office at Westminster has not been manned. Unaccountably, all the machines have been switched off, although sometimes there is a 50p machine. I used to live in north London and the fare before the latest round of fare increases was about £1·60. It was quite possible to get on a train through an unmanned barrier at Westminster. One would have

719
thought that that was the one station on the system where there should be proper staffing. The failings at Westminster station illustrate amply the sort of contempt that past London Underground management—I do not know about the present management had for this place and for the Secretary of State, who was supposedly in charge of its day-to-day operations, or so we were told at the time—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman does not use the service.
Mr. Snape: He might be in charge, but it does not mean he has to use the service.
Mr. Tony Banks: rose—
Mr. Snape: I shall give way in a moment. Just let me finish the journey that I used to take last November.
When I left the train at my destination, either on the Victoria or the Piccadilly line, depending on which train came along first, regularly late at night there was no one manning my terminal station, and therefore, of course, my £1·60 journey cost me nothing. Yet we are told that under this marvellous new system it is the dishonest passenger who will be caught. The management of London Underground Limited will need to be more efficient before we bite on this particular cherry.
Mr. Banks: I have felt very much the same as my hon. Friend about the staffing at Westminster station. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed how good it is at St. James's Park. Staff seem to polish everything there including the passengers. That might have something to do with the location of the headquarters of London Regional Transport.
I came from East Ham station this morning and the ticket office was closed. I saw the train coming, there was a queue waiting at the ticket machine, so I sprinted down and jumped on the train. Obviously, being a very honest person I paid the full fare when I arrived at Westminster. I was told there was no one at East Ham station because the staff were training. There is an awful lot of temptation put in the way of the potential fare evader and I find it unacceptable that it can be said that there are not sufficient staff to man the ticket offices. That is an open invitation to ticket fraud.
Mr. Snape: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his experience is mirrored by every one of us. I can quote no recent example to show that things are getting any better.
I have recently been travelling by London Underground from Notting Hill. Waiting for a Circle line train from Notting Hill enables one to watch operating practices. Unaccountably, Circle line trains appear to be few and far between. At Notting Hill there is a whole battery of those fancy new ticket machines in the booking hall. When they were installed, virtually all of them said in bright red letters "Change Given". They were very modern looking machines and one expected them to do everything, including drive the trains. They were complex to use but, once one got the hang of them, it could be said that the modernisation of LRT had actually arrived. However, now most of those machines, instead of saying "Change Given", say "Correct Change Only". To use one example,
720
this morning I counted about 14 people waiting at one open ticket window and others were looking plaintively at those machines and fiddling through purses and handbags trying to find the correct change.
There is a problem, too, with the new barriers at Westminster. One of them refuses to accept a 60p ticket from Notting Hill. I hope that I am paying the right fare. The barrier shows a green arrow, but the gates do not open. One could well envisage another King's Cross situation, and the carnage that would ensue from half a dozen people trying to get out through the barrier.
We are told that the introduction of barriers and the penalty fare scheme are designed to bring greater efficiency and benefit to the travelling public. With your kind acquiescence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have embraced what I wanted to say about the second Bill. There are important and substantial differences between the two systems. Travelling on the London Underground system at night is more difficult sometimes than travelling on the surface railway. All the points that I have made about the women travelling on British Rail once the Bill is implemented are even more relevant to London Underground because, by its nature, there are steps, subways, escalators—do you remember those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and when it was possible to get on a moving one? In the new modern system it is only possible to walk up and down escalators; they do not carry passengers.
I can only suggest to my hon. Friends that we wait for the hon. Member for New Forest to sum up. I am sure that his contribution will be as lucid and courteous as his opening speech, but I hope it will be more satisfying and enlightening.
8.20 pm
Dr. John Marek: There are similarities between the Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill. I hope to make another contribution when we discuss the latter. Those who give a cursory glance at the two Bills may assume that they are different because the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill, if enacted, would allow open stations. Staff would not control any gates and passengers could walk straight on or off trains. The Bill for London Underground proposes a closed system. There will be gates at stations and passengers will be held within the system unless they have a ticket to pass through the gates to enter or leave the system.
The Bills are similar because the aim of both systems is to cut down staff and to make people redundant. Eventually they will generate a second-class system for what the Government plainly believe are the second-class public who use the systems. It is certainly true that, by and large, Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers do not use the London Underground or British Rail.
The Minister spoke about what is happening on the continent, as though whatever happens there should also happen here. On the continent it is possible to get on a train without passing through a control, but equally on the continent there is not one pair of guards on a 12-carriage train, but two pairs. Those guards will pass through the train between one station and another. In this country there is no way in which a pair of guards or three guards could travel along a 12-carriage train during the rush hour between Newington and Sittingbourne on the north Kent route. If someone gets on at Newington and gets off at

721
Sittingbourne he may not have to pass through any controls. The system incorporated in the Bill will encourage evasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about the unsuitability of the barriers used on the London Underground. Those barriers also exist in the underground systems of Germany and France, but most of those systems have been rebuilt with wide, palatial concourses. A fire such as that at King's Cross could probably never happen in Europe because of the immense amount of space incorporated in the new underground systems. In comparison, the plans for our underground system are pokey, small, claustrophobic and liable to suffer similar fires to that at King's Cross because of the introduction of tight gates and automatic barriers. It is clear that either the Government have not thought it out or—
Mr. Tony Banks: They could not care less.
Dr. Marek: That is right. They do not agree with the principle of manned stations and trains. Employing people is not something that they want to do.
Mr. Banks: It is worthy of comment that the Prime Minister has not travelled on a British Rail train since February 1987. I am damned sure that she has never travelled on the London Underground during the rush hour. If some Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, travelled on the Underground or on Network SouthEast during the rush hour, I am sure that something would be done about the appalling travelling conditions that Londoners must face.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that a lot of people are grateful that she does not travel on the trains or on the Underground, but perhaps that is somewhat facetious. Perhaps the Minister should report our comments back to his mistress and tell her that she should go down to Oxford Circus station at 5.15 on a Thursday afternoon. I regularly used to ask the Prime Minister if she travelled by train on official business, but for three or four years the answer was always no.
Mr. Banks: It has been suggested to me—I had not thought of it—that if the Prime Minister travelled on the Underground during the rush hour someone would probably push her under a train. No doubt there would be quite a queue to do it.
Dr. Marek: We must not be uncharitable. We would like her to travel on the Underground—incognito if possible—so that she can experience the difficulties that the public face.
I am not in favour of anyone evading payment of the proper fare. The National Union of Railwaymen is not in favour of that. I should declare that I am sponsored by that union. I do not believe that any reasonable person could condone fare evasion, but the problem is whether the Bill has got it right. The Bill, rather than closing off the avenues for evasion, will encourage them. Society will become worse because temptation will be put in people's way. Such temptation should, of course, be avoided but, life is not like that. It will be much better if we had a system where evasion was not presented as a temptation.
Assaults on passengers and staff on British Rail are increasing. In 1984 there were 309 assaults on passengers—such attacks cover murder, attempted murder,
722
manslaughter, malicious wounding, grievous bodily harm, robbery and assault with intent to rob. In 1985 there were 374 assaults on passengers; in 1986 there were 448 and in 1987 there were 508. The equivalent figures for assaults on staff, although not rising monotonically as with passenger assaults, have also risen in the same period. In 1984 there were 88 assaults on staff; in 1985 there were 79 assaults; in 1986 there were 69 and in 1987 there were 102. That represents a fairly large increase and it is something that concerns employees of British Rail.
If the Bill gets on to the statute book staff will be expected to collect penalty fares in difficult circumstances. Late at night the staff, if they expect to do their job properly, honestly and without failure, will have to try to collect penalty fares from people who will have had too much to drink and who could easily be in an argumentative mood. There is no question of people being able to say that they were not absolutely sure that they wanted that particular train or that they were unsure if they could travel by bus if there was no convenient train. According to the Bill once the person has got on a train he has committed himself to an illegal position. Unless that person provides a satisfactory explanation for being without a ticket he will have committed a civil offence, which will necessitate the payment of the penalty fare. I am sure that a number of people will be unreasonable and irrational when asked to pay such a fare. It will increase the number of incidents on the railway and that is regrettable. We all seek a system to stop evasion but we should try to find one that will not lead to incidents, arguments and perhaps violence.
The Bill does not make me feel very easy. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said, the penalty only applies if the fare is under £10. The fare from Dover to Victoria must be about £10·50 or £11 and that would encourage a traveller to chance his arm because if he were caught he would have to pay only £10·50 or £11.
Mr. Snape: I should also add, and perhaps I should have said it in my speech, that one would have to pay the full ordinary fare within 21 days. That is a better bet than standing in a long queue at a ticket office in Dover.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. If a person is detected and challenged he will have to pay only the single fare.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It will be necessary to take a person's name and address and to make certain that the details are correct. What questions will the guard or ticket collector be entitled to ask about whether he has the correct name and address?
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. There will be a temptation to avoid paying a fare because it will be easy for a traveller to say that he is Mr. Jones of 4 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam and then go on his way. What is the ticket collector supposed to do in such a case? He can do nothing other than accept that the name and address are correct and that means that the person who has been caught will get away without having to pay his fare.
I shall develop the argument that I advanced earlier. A fare dodger travelling between two stations that are close together—from New Cross to St. John's, for example, for which a single fare is perhaps 60p—and who was caught and decided to make a clean breast of it would have to pay

723
£10. I see no harm in a system that catches people trying to avoid paying fares but in future many people will be on trains without a ticket simply because the permission-to-travel machine did not work, the booking office was closed or there were too many people in the queue at the booking office and people had to jump on a train that was about to leave. In such cases the argument raised with the penalty fare collector will always be about whether there was a reasonable excuse. Anyone who is challenged by British Rail about why he did not go to the booking office will say that he did. I would say that and so would the Minister. There is a wide area for argument.
People who have to pay a penalty fare of £10 for travelling without a 60p ticket will feel resentful, especially if they think that they are being treated unfairly vis-a-vis a traveller from Dover to Victoria or to London bridge who will have to pay only the single fare.
I have spoken about the reliability of permission-to-travel machines. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that there will be new and better ticket machines. It would be better if the Bill were withdrawn for six months so that we could be satisfied that there were not just new and better ticket machines but new and guaranteed systems with fail-safe devices. When they are working the new London Underground ticket machines are good. That is a personal view. However, they will often accept only the exact money. I do not know why that should be, but I suspect that when the machines run out of change they automatically display a sign saying "Exact money only". Part of the problem is that London Underground is not prepared to service those machines so that they will always give change. It is no good the Minister saying that we will have an assurance on this or that. The public are far too cynical, and so am I, to believe such assurances.
I have long experience of London Underground and British Rail and I know that we need to see the system in action first. It must be proved that the new ticket machines on the Underground are reliable 99·99 per cent. of the time. I think that there are about three or four machines in Westminster tube station and in such stations it will be necessary for, say, two of those machines to work 99·99 per cent. of the time. If that could be guaranteed I might lend a more sympathetic ear to assurances by the Government.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has said that he has had no trouble with these machines. Could he tell us the correct way to push a child in a pram through one of the exit machines so that the passenger can insert the ticket and get the pram through without being chopped in half?
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend misunderstands. I was talking about the machines that supply tickets and not about the barriers and how one should go through them. Perhaps we could talk about that later. I accept the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about coins being accepted while a few seconds later identical coins are rejected. In my short personal experience of these machines I have not encountered that problem. That reinforces the point that we need to be satisfied that the machines will work, and that calls for proper servicing by
724
London Underground. If a machine runs out of change somebody should be there within 10 or 15 minutes to replenish it.
British Rail machines will not be enclosed in underground stations but will probably be on open, windswept platforms where, late at night, anybody can have access to them. The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that there will be fewer staff and that people will be able to go in and out of stations and get on and off trains. Vandals will have access to the machines. As I say, I am cynical about the Bill. I do not think that British Rail will be able to provide a permission-to-travel machine that is vandal-proof and that will provide a valid ticket for a specific coin,. If the machines will accept any coin, what else will they take in the course of their working day?
There is a serious problem here. The London underground system is locked up at night and so is vandal-proof, but British Rail has the opposite system. It is planning to open stations but to withdraw staff from platforms and have inspections on the trains. That will be a temptation to vandals, and vandalism leads to a worse society.
The hon. Member for New Forest said that the inspection teams would have two or perhaps three conductors for 12-carriage sets, or even longer sets in suburban areas. The Bill basically affects Network SouthEast, in which many people get on and off at intermediate stations—for example, on a suburban train going from Charing Cross to Bromley and stopping every two or three minutes. At the peak rush hour, many people will get on at the terminus, but many will get off at the intermediate stations. It would be impossible for one team of conductors to go through the whole train between one station and another. I suspect that even two teams of conductors would not be able to do so.
This must invite evasion of fares. Passengers can easily find out where the conductors are and I suspect that it would be relatively easy to travel two or three stations without being inspected. Even those passengers who are not minded to evade fares will quite often find that their tickets are not controlled on such journeys. At the moment, such tickets are controlled because at the main stations there is a ticket barrier before a passenger gets on the train, and the guard looks at the ticket. When the passenger alights he has either to give in his ordinary ticket or show his season ticket to the guard at the barrier. If that changes, evasion will increase rather than decrease.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said that £36 million was lost through fare evasion on Network SouthEast. That is a large sum, and I reiterate the point that he made that, if this is the official figure, the chances are that the real figure is even bigger. Why cannot British Rail go the other way and, instead of having an unsatisfactory method of trying to stop evasion and a way that will not work, employ 2,000 more staff?
The National Economic Research Association in its report as part of the "Better Rail" campaign suggested that 2,000 extra staff, costing £20 million, would pay for themselves by cutting fare evasion. The hon. Member for New Forest did not address that point, and he must do so. It would have obvious benefits in that not only would there be employment for 2,000 people, but those people would be on the platforms and would be able to help mothers with children and make sure that vandalism on the platforms did not occur, that stations were cleaner and that evasion was decreased. That is the nub of the

725
argument. The Bill is going in the wrong direction and it is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. British Rail should have come to a different conclusion and started to employ more staff instead.
I hope that there will be a vote on Second Reading so that I can express my displeasure about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish says, if the Bill does not receive a Second Reading, I hope that British Rail will think about the suggestions that have been made this evening. I hope that the Government Lobby fodder will not come in when the Division Bells go.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: No.
Dr. Marek: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. If he is, we have a chance of defeating the Bill, because the weight of argument is against it. However, if by some chance the Bill is given a Second Reading, I can think of many amendments that I should like to table in Committee and on Report.
8.45 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The best system for issuing tickets is that which uses human beings. The notion that many of them should be replaced by machines, with all the difficulties that have been described tonight, is a clear prelude to privatisation of British Rail—to increase profits, to inconvenience passengers and to give the putative privatised sector more powers, through orders issued by the Secretary of State, to impose the new system on passengers.
Nobody would quibble with the Minister's view that we should curtail fare dodging to benefit honest passengers. That was qualified by his claim that he wants to reduce public revenue support. Several people have quoted continental practice. For example, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke about the continental practice of train inspection. However, the Minister did not invoke the continental practice of support for railway transport, in working hours or in the rate of wages. If we are to have continental practice, then we should have continental standards on safety and wage awards.
The Minister and the hon. Member for New Forest are highly selective in what they say. They talk about on-train inspection—a new jargon phrase like "feedback" or "ongoing situation"—but fail to inform the House that, while continental railways have the same basic gauge between the rails, they have larger loading gauges. Continental wagons and railway coaches, for example, cannot easily be transported over the whole of British railways, but over selected routes that have been specially widened for the purpose. Such coaches have more room on them for people to move around and are more substantial, so on-train inspection is more easy.
All in all, the continental example—invoked by the hon. Member for New Forest as though it were some sort of magical formula; because it comes from somewhere else, it must be good—has no substance in it. British Rail has a system of barriers for entry on to the railway system because when the railways were built in the 19th century it was decided that the railway system should be safe and that people should be kept in a regulated fashion from approaching what is essentially a dangerous movement of heavy vehicles at high speeds on a railway track. Therefore, we have a statutory obligation to fence the
726
track on both sides to prevent access by both human beings and animals. On the continent, there is an open system because they decided that that was suitable, and they are more used to it. There is no reason or justification for us to shrug our shoulders and say, "Ah, it is the continental system. Therefore it must be good."
Human beings working at barriers can not only check tickets but give help, advice and guidance. They can help women who are experiencing difficulties with their toddlers or the elderly person with parcels who is confused by the station's set-up because changes have occurred. Such changes baffle people. My mother has never been into Bradford interchange, built in 1974, because they changed all the bus stops and she was sure that it would confuse her. She is now 92, and it is pretty certain that she will not be catching buses to Bradford interchange. The elderly are confused when things are changed. If they have to go to public stations, they find it helpful to have staff at barriers to guide and inform them.
British Rail management always manages to provide an adequate number of personnel for occasions such as this. It does not abandon the box under the Strangers Gallery because it has to abandon involvement in the Bill. Indeed, it has sent along what appears to be a handsome contingent. I wish that it would apply the same standards to stations. At the inquiry into the proposed closure of the Settle-Carlisle line, four representatives of British Rail's management were present. One of them presented a statement and explained that he and his colleagues could not take part in the discussion because they were not to be subjected to debate. What a splendid example to set! Would it not be better if they were all busy working on the Settle-Carlisle line to promote it and thereby to attract more passengers? That argument seemed to go down extremely well with all the objectors to the proposed closure, but it did not bring much of a gleam to the eyes of the British Rail representatives.
Mr. Snape: I would not want my hon. Friend to accuse me of undue cynicism, but he should bear in mind that many members of British Rail's senior management spent their formative years travelling around the country in chauffeur-driven cars in the 1960s looking for parts of the system to close down.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. We remember the various dodges that were used to enable British Rail to present a case for the closure of certain lines, when that action was entirely unjustified.
We are told in the summary that it is estimated that Network SouthEast is losing £36 million a year in fare evasion. That sounds grandiose, but that statement amounts to a guess. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has said, there is no certainty as British Rail cannot know about successful fare evasion. I am sure that if it did know about evasion it would consider prosecution or publishing the names of evaders, for example. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I think that it is a guess that has been put on the top side, as it were. After all, it would be human to present a figure that is on the high side so as to frighten a few hon. Members into providing their assistance in getting the Bill through the House.
British Rail has produced a figure for the cost of vandalism that is more quantifiable. It estimates that each year the bill is £20 million. If British Rail is each year to

727
shed more staff and introduce machines, vandalism will increase. That must be a major cause of concern for all hon. Members. If more stations are to be devoid of human activity in the form of British Rail employees, there is a potential danger for passengers both in stations and as travellers on trains. For example, things can be thrown on to railway tracks that may endanger lives because they affect the smooth and safe running of the trains.
What will British Rail do about that? The Minister will know that British Rail has a statutory duty to protect trains from people by means of fencing. The Bill does not provide for any sections of any existing Acts to be repealed, so is British Rail embarking on a criminal activity by introducing the Bill? By removing barriers it will be failing in its obligation to prevent the public from getting to its trains. It is proposed that there shall be open stations. It is urged upon us that we should adopt the wonderful continental system in which people can have free access to trains. That will mean that toddlers will have access to them at a time when there is more electrification. Is British Rail telling us that it will provide more access to trains for toddlers, teenagers and the elderly, for example, when there is third-rail DC electrification at 500 volts? The management's justification for this approach is, to say the least, somewhat suspect.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has my hon. Friend received a letter from British Rail in which it makes a virtue of the fact that it will provide far more points of access to stations so that it will be possible for the public to get on to trains at all convenient points? That reinforces the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing.
Mr. Cryer: My comments are derived precisely from that claim by British Rail. It is clear that it wishes to make stations much more open. I am probably the only hon. Member who has accompanied a member of the railway inspectorate along a line with the man who became the chief railway inspecting officer. When he inspected the Worth valley branch line to ensure that it was safe, he said that fences had to be in place. We had to provide the inspecting officer with a certificate that stated that the faulty fencing to which he had drawn attention had been repaired to stop the very access that British Rail is now saying is one of the continental delights that we must adopt.
Dr. Marek: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that British Rail removed fences at level crossings. Many automatic level crossings were introduced about seven or eight years ago and many people lost their lives because of a lowering of standards. There were arguments—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with level crossings. We should be debating penalties for fare evasion. That has nothing to do with level crossings at this stage.
Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend was using an illustration, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating level crossings
Mr. Cryer: That is right. We are dealing with access and the removal of barriers at stations. We are saying that it is better to have British Rail staff at stations to prevent
728
people running on to the platforms if, for example, they are drunk. The same applies to young children and others. In other words, the consideration applies to all those who may suffer injury by falling off the edge of the platform. The same argument applies to level crossings, but I shall not cross that path again.
The Minister was gloating when he spoke of less public money, but surely it is a good thing to have a good public service. There should be staff at stations to help and guide and to maintain property in good order. There should be staff to look after our public service and to protect facilities from vandalism. That is where British Rail should be making the savings that it and we want to be made.
I am not advancing an argument on behalf of those who seek to dodge fares. Instead, I am saying that we should maintain and improve the good safety system that British Rail has been operating. By historical development, the system that British Rail has maintained—it is required to do so by law—depends on a closed system. It seems that we are being asked to take a step that is very much in the wrong direction.
I urge British Rail to reconsider its policy. It should leave the Bill for six months and start to employ people at stations instead of removing them and leaving a bare platform with a bus shelter. We are all aware that such shelters are often damaged. We condemn vandalism, but it happens.
My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for West Bromwich, East have referred to abandoned stations. If staff are taken from stations, the risks increase, particularly for women. The Employment Bill is in Committee and that will remove protection for women. Under that Bill, women will either have to do night work or face losing unemployment benefit if they refuse to take that job.
Stations which should have barriers and a staff presence will not be staffed because, as the hon. Member for New Forest said, the Bill will mean that more stations will be unstaffed. Therefore, thanks to the Employment Bill, more women will visit stations late at night and will not see a friendly face and receive help from station staff. They would need such assistance in the early evening in winter or late at night in summer when station lamps might not be working as well as they should. Mobile maintenance teams carry out maintenance work at the moment. However, as stations are inspected only at intervals, repairs are carried out infrequently and at times the lamps are out of action.
There is Government pressure to make cuts and we are witnessing the all-too-willing acquiescence of British Rail senior management. It would have been helpful if British Rail management had the co-operation and help of the unions because union members will have to carry out the work. The board members endorsed and dreamed up the proposal in their executive suites. They have chauffeurs waiting at their doors, but those chauffeurs have not been sacked. Similarly, the executive cook in the executive suite still has a job.
British Rail senior management will not be travelling on the trains. It would be good if Robert Reid left his executive suite, gathered the lads and lasses around him and said, "I'm going to do the Leeds Pullman express today and I want you all to come with me because I'm going to demonstrate how to deal with difficult passengers." That would lift morale on British Rail. However, he is not going to do that and nor is anyone else

729
in the executive suites. They will stick tight to their Italian leather chairs and send out the orders. They will not travel on the trains because they would meet too many people who would like to take up complaints directly with them. If those passengers discovered who they were, the executives would never get off some of the trains, particularly those on the overused, generally run-down urban services.
Trade unions members will have to impose the fare penalties. As my hon. Friends have already said, there may be drunks on platforms late at night. People might become intoxicated because they have been encouraged to drink by the advertising in this enterprise culture, for example, on ITV, and of course Sky television will be beaming around its adverts to booze more. I will not follow those electronic beams. I will refer to the Bill. It will be very difficult for station staff to impose penalties on drunks. Railway staff have already called repeatedly for more late-night protection.
There will be other difficulties. While the hon. Member for New Forest has assured us that there will be no targets for collecting penalty fares from fare dodgers, or alleged fare dodgers, we must remember that British rail personnel are subject to an intransigent and unco-operative management which has imposed on them the most remarkable rule—if staff criticise British Rail publicly, they can he sacked. It should be made clear that if anyone in British Rail has a complaint, he should go to his Member of Parliament, because it will be a breach of privilege for British Rail management, or anyone else, to deny a person the right of consulting his elected representative. There is the onus and constant pressure on British Rail staff to collect fares. At the same time, they cannot grumble or complain about it being a bad system. Therefore, it seems that this is not the time to introduce the Bill.
My third point concerns the deterrent to travel—although I make no defence for the fare dodger. At present, the system is that the fare can be paid on checking. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out that in the 1960s the Government were busy eroding British Rail's network. More closures are in the pipeline.
The question of the Settle to Carlisle line has been raised in the House on several occasions, with 29 petitions against its closure presented over the past 12 months. I am not happy with the powers envisaged being granted to British Rail management, because they will provide another technique for justifying a railway's closure. A set, group or gang of ticket inspectors could act as a potential deterrent to travel.
I should not like to see that happening on a line such as the Settle-Carlisle. That line belies the need for the Bill. Its passenger revenue has increased from £1 million to £1·7 million. There is already fares collection by guards on the train, but not the imposition of fare penalties. That system has, by and large, worked extremely well, with increased revenue to the extent I have described. One asks why the Bill is necessary when a line that was making a loss five years ago is now making a healthy profit—and with expenditure on the Ribblehead viaduct reducing from £4·5 million to £900,000, it is paying its way. If the Minister intervenes again, I hope that it will be to make the short, dramatic statement that he will make British Rail keep open the Settle to Carlisle line—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the Bill before the House, and not discuss the Settle to Carlisle line.
Mr. Cryer: It is very tempting to stay on the subject of the Settle to Carlisle line, because it is so important that it be retained. However, I accede entirely to your request, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Marek: I wish to mention the Settle to Carlisle, but in connection with the Bill. Is it not true to say that the Bill is unnecessary in respect of that line, because the two or three-car sets that it uses enables guards or ticket collectors to walk through the whole train between each station, thereby controlling the travel of every passenger arid making fare evasion impossible? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for the Bill's provisions on the Settle to Carlisle line?
Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend. The record is there to see. The Settle to Carlisle line is a friendly line, and the imposition of fare penalties will breed a great deal of antagonism. The Settle to Carlisle line has developed an enormous amount of goodwill and friendliness over the years that it has been rescued from the clutches of closure by British Rail's management.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that on a line such as the Settle to Carlisle, which is used a great deal by walkers and climbers, an unsatisfactory aspect of unmanned stations, and of unreliable train services on occasions, is that a traveller can arrive at the station and not be sure whether the train he wants has arrived and departed? That is important in respect not only of the Settle to Carlisle line but of others. If deferred ticket machines are to be installed, there must also be a system that will make clear whether trains have yet passed through a station.
Mr. Cryer: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point. I shall deal with a few of the Bill's details in a moment, but first I wish to emphasise that the Settle to Carlisle line offers a good example of why the Bill is not necessary.
Clause 4(3)(a)(ii) provides an exemption, for a passenger will not be able to pay a penalty fare if,
"when he transferred from another train service … there were no facilities for either the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey or the sale of deferred fare authorities."
Where I now live I have the opportunity of going either to Bradford interchange or to Shipley station. The status of Shipley station has recently been enhanced. To avoid responsibility for closing the Wortley curve—another argument that I shall not go into now—British Rail has transferred London trains from Bradford interchange to Bradford Forster Square.
None the less, Shipley station is at present open only in the morning. If trains are leaving at about the moment of closure and someone has to run to catch his train, he may be confronted with a ticket collector saying, "You have no ticket. You could have bought one at Shipley station.." Instead of just handing over the fare, as would normally happen, that person must write within 21 days an explanation giving the station's opening and closing times. the time of the train and the time of arrival, as outlined in clause 4(7). Surely that will encourage antagonism and make it more difficult for the traveller to decide whether to

731
sprint for a train. As it happens, the booking office at Shipley station is probably 120 yd from the main platform for the Keighley-Shipley-Leeds trains.
Moreover, a person is not liable for a penalty if he has no opportunity to obtain a ticket on a conductor-train service. Many of the urban services around Bradford are crowded, particularly at peak times. It will be extremely difficult for the conductor to get around to people who get on at, say, Bramley on the way to Leeds or uphill into Bradford, where no ticket collection service is available. Again, if they are sitting in a corner with others standing, the ticket collector may go past them. They will then become engaged in an argument about whether it was possible for them to obtain tickets on a conductor-train service.
That has occurred to me because I have travelled on a train and bought a ticket at the end of my journey, but have been ignored by the conductor—who has been involved in giving out tickets—in the press of people. On the short journeys for which the Bill is supposed to be designed, it is possible to reach one's destination before the conductor has had time to go round.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May I raise a similar point? Clause 5 provides that the penalty
"shall not apply to a person travelling on a conductor train service whose journey begins at a non-ticket station".
There is then the problem of deciding what constitutes a conductor train and a non-ticket station, which is dealt with in clause 2.
At Dronfield station, where I alight for my constituency, there is someone selling tickets on the platform. That would seem to make Dronfield a non-ticket station, when that person is not there. Clause 2, however, states that
"'non-ticket station' means a station on a conductor train service at which there is no provision at any time for the sale of tickets".
There is a possiblilty of fare tickets being available at Dronfield station, but it is an open station: people can come in at the last moment and jump on to a train on which a conductor or inspector is going round with his machine. Will the Bill catch those who run to get on a train at the last minute because at the other end of the platform there may be someone with a machine issuing tickets?
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has illustrated the point that I made about Shipley station. He has demonstrated that Shipley is not unique. I also know Dronfield station, which was reopened through the efforts of a Labour-controlled local authority, and very welcome it is, too. However, the provisions will create difficulties.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to change the penalty fare. Every Government Department has introduced orders under which penalties or charges have soared. Increases by order of 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. are not unknown. On occasion the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been advised by our counsel that some of the increases in charges are so great that they can be regarded as an unusual use of the power.
One of my reservations about the measure is that powers are to be given to the Secretary of State to make orders that would change the penalty fares as he chooses.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend will have seen the Minister give us a nod and a wink, suggesting that he
732
would have been happier if provision had been made for the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Does my hon. Friend believe that the promoters ought to give an undertaking to make that change in Committee?
Mr. Cryer: I agree entirely. An undertaking ought to be given to amend the Bill to provide for the affirmative procedure. The Minister—as Ministers are wont to do—gave the usual smug assurance that statutory instruments can be debated, but he did not say that they cannot be amended. They have to be either agreed to or rejected. Our examination of statutory instruments is shockingly inadequate. There ought to be more than an hour and a half in which to debate them. Some statutory instruments are more comprehensive and detailed than many major Acts, and more time ought to be spent on examining them.
I hope that the promoter will give us an assurance that in Committee he will seek to change the Bill to provide for the affirmative procedure. He knows that under the negative procedure the possibility of time being given to debate a prayer depends on who signs it and on whether the Government are in a generous mood and award an hour and a half for debate. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a prayer can be debated for an hour and a half from 10 o'clock. If there is a Division at 10 o'clock, debating time is automatically cut by 15 or 20 minutes. The time for debate is limited. Important powers are to be given to the Secretary of State, so the affirmative procedure would be better.
A safeguard is provided in clause 8(3). It says:
"A warning notice stating the amount of the penalty fare shall be posted at every station at which persons may start to travel on a train service, in such a position as to be readily visible to prospective passengers and shall (however expressed) indicate the circumstances … in which they may be liable to pay a penalty fare."
That is an absolute, not a qualified, obligation. It does not say.
"so far as reasonably practicable."
No penalties are to be imposed if notices are not provided. If somebody is made the subject of a penalty fare and says, "I did not know about it", no provision is made for him to say that at Shipley or Dronfield station, or wherever it may be, a notice had not been posted. As it is to be an absolute obligation, it might help if the Bill were changed to provide for the members of the British Railways board to be prosecuted for breach of statutory duty if warning notices are not provided. No such provision is made in the Bill because members of British Railways board do not intend to lay themselves open to action if they fail to carry out their duty. The honest passenger will find, when circumstances conspire against him, that a penalty is imposed on him or her.
The Bill represents another step backwards by British Rail. More stations that look ugly and abandoned will still be open to the public. I would not like to catch a train from Forster Square station at night. There is no sign of any human presence. The huge, formerly magnificent midland railway terminus in Bradford is now a gaunt, empty shell with two railway tracks running into it. Late at night it presents a daunting prospect for me, but for many women and more slightly-built people it must seem considerably more daunting.
I do not want a British Rail of this character, but one which is well served, and which provides passengers with an excellent service from good staff who are well trained and committed to serving the people. That is what the staff

733
want to do, but they are inhibited by provisions that seem to say to them: "Brothers and sisters, you are shortly going to be made redundant, with a ticket machine in your place." If hon. Members were told that they were going to be replaced by ticket machines, that would not exactly increase their morale. I sometimes think that if we put the board and the management elite on the platforms and ticket machines in the boardroom, we would probably get a better system.
9.21 pm
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I shall comment on some of the points made in what has been an interesting debate.
It was perhaps inevitable that such a scheme would attract criticism of how it would work. However, I hope that I have also detected in the debate a consensus that something should be done to correct evasion. Hon. Members from all parties no doubt have their own pet schemes for dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about the infringement of civil liberties. The same argument could be levelled against the meter maids—the traffic wardens—who presume a person guilty and put a ticket on his car, even though he may have had a valid reason for not paying the meter. If that is regarded as an infringement of civil liberty, I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has made much fuss about it. We are introducing not a criminal offence but a civil one, which will be a deterrent to people who do not pay their fare.
Concern has been expressed about the authorised personnel. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to people who impersonate driving instructors. He will know that the Bill sets out clear rules about how a person issued with a penalty fare ticket should seek the documentation of the authorised person. Frankly, in written terms, that is as fair as one can he. Inevitably, some people will try to dress up and cheat the passenger, but the passenger has the opportunity to seek the official's identification if he is at all concerned.
Deferred payment machines are already in place on the London-Southend-Tilbury line, though perhaps not in the numbers which we would eventually want. There are 100 automatic ticket machines in place and 1,000 on order. No matter how many are required, they will be provided.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the large numbers of people already being prosecuted. Earlier, I gave a figure of between 3,000 and 4,000. As the majority of offenders are within the £2 fare bracket, and since the national loss is about £50 million, about 20 million individual journeys may be involved. However, I accept the point made by other hon. Members that those are, inevitably, estimates. I was not trying, at the outset, to present them as hard and fast figures.
Over the years I have discussed a fair number of British Rail Bills with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He raised a number of important issues, many of them referring to the whole question of how a passenger who is challenged, but who might have good reason for not having a ticket, could be dealt with. Since these are important points it might be helpful to the House if I were to take a moment or two to indicate some of the types of discretion that one would expect to see exercised by the authorised person. This will come up in their training.
734
First of all, there are the procedures to be adopted by the authorised person when a passenger refuses or fails to pay. "Listen to the passenger for an explanation" is the very first and, I hope, golden rule. "If it is immediately obvious that British Rail is at fault, issue a ticket at ticket-office price. If there is reason for suspicion, press for details. If not satisfied, report to penalty fares office with brief statement from passenger. Check details given—name and address." I accept the point about the person giving a fake name and address—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Obviously one cannot guard totally against that. "Issue penalty fares notice and tell the passenger that he has 21 days to pay or to appeal."
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What guidance is to be given to the inspector in respect of someone whose name coincides with that of a person who is well known? I have a constituent whose name is the same as that of a famous person. Every time my constituent gives his name to the police or to anyone else the first comment is, "Pull the other one." There is great difficulty in insisting that the correct name has been given. Anyone who has a name like Margaret Thatcher and is not the Prime Minister has problems.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I understand that there can be serious problems for some people, but I hope that the discretion to be exercised by the authorised person will take account of that. These are the sorts of questions that would be subject to discretion at the time or after the notice had been issued.
Let me come to some of the explanations that may be given. "Facilities not available." The authorised person's discretion should deal with most of these cases at the time; hopefully they will not go any further. "Waiting time excessive." "I thought the ticket was valid." "Office was closed." "Did not know about the machines." "Did not understand how the machine worked." "The last time I used a machine I lost my money." Since these machines are very reliable that is an excuse which, one hopes, will not he taken too seriously. "I can't read". That is a perfectly reasonable and valid excuse. "Did not know what ticket to get." "I fell asleep." "I did not realise I had got to my destination." "I am foreign." "The machine did not work." "I got on the wrong train." "I am pregnant, under the doctor." "I got on the train to help someone and was carried off." "I have been on the station but have not travelled." "I am disabled and could not get to the office."
If true, these are the sorts of things that the inspector, the authorised person, will clearly exempt.
Mr. Snape: It might have enlightened the House more if the hon. Gentleman had said who exactly will have to pay the penalty, given the list of exemptions that we have just heard.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that all those exemptions, or matters for discretion, are sensible, that these are problems that could genuinely occur. I want to make it crystal clear that the person travelling on the British Rail network who wants to buy a ticket has nothing to fear. A whole lot of people to whom I have just referred have nothing to fear. But when persistent offenders, over the years, undermine the

735
structure of the railway management and, by so doing, cause increases in ticket prices, and so on, the board has a responsibility to do something about it.
Mr. Cryer: Does not the board also have a responsibility to ensure that young children do not have access to the railway? How does it reconcile that duty with the removal of barriers?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: There is no question of unstaffed stations or of a great empty concourse. I remember sponsoring a Bill about 10 years ago which increased the powers of the British Rail police. I also remember the resistance to it in various parts of the House. There is no question of allowing every drunk to wander on the track or on to a train.
Mr. Tony Banks: Was the hon. Gentleman giving examples of excuses which would be acceptable, or was it an exhaustive list? One could think of others such as "My local Member of Parliament stole my ticket, guv."
When British Rail was adequately staffed—it was known for being labour-intensive and for providing a good service once—was ticket fraud greater or less?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Ticket fraud is not new. In the past, the procedure was to use the Act to which I referred earlier. It is still in place. What is proposed is different—these are not criminal penalties. There has always been ticket fraud.
Mr. Banks: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It must be true. Nevertheless, will he answer my question? Has there been a significant increase in ticket fraud? If not, why is British Rail presenting this Bill?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: There has been an increase. Much of it is opportunistic. Even between Second Reading in another place one year ago and now, the figure for Network SouthEast has increased quite steeply. There is a serious problem which needs to be resolved.
Mr. Snape: If what the hon. Gentleman has said is true, and if he says it we accept that it is true, how much of the estimated £36 million does he expect will be saved by the Bill, bearing in mind the list of possible exemptions that he has given?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I tried to cover that point in my opening speech. The board considers that a realistic figure would be a reduction by £9 million. That is its first objective, but if the scheme goes further, that is in everybody's interests.
Hon. Members spoke about ticket machines. Deferred payment machines take coins between 5p and £1 in value. Ticket machines are currently able to take £5 and £10 notes, but we hope to go up to £20 notes.
Mr. Banks: But that will buy only a single ticket on the Underground.
Dr. Marek: Perhaps I might bring the hon. Gentleman back to the £9 million saving. Has the board calculated how much that is lost through evasion could be saved by employing an extra 1,000 or 2,000 people?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The board regards this as the most efficient way in which to do it, given that the barrier system
736
in some stations leads to great queuing and crowding. I well remember when I was Member of Parliament for West Lewisham in south London, where there is a railway station at Forest Hill. Every hon. Member who represents a London constituency will know what the queuing was like at the various termini during the rush hour. Obviously it is in everyone's interests that people get off trains and reach their destinations as quickly as possible.
Mr. Banks: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come with me on a trip to Stratford station which is part of Network South East, the Central line and the Docklands light railway. The situation is just as he described although all the equipment is modern. Everyone comes up to one barrier, one single turnstile. It is crazy. the queue stretches all the way back towards the platform. What is the point of getting to the station more quickly to wait longer to go through a single turnstile?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I could. The new procedure is being adopted precisely to provide better access to and from stations.
The hon. Member for Wrexham referred to violence. The guards or ticket collectors who are responsible for maintaining order on the railway network are aware of the very serious problems that they face. Not too long ago there was an incident in which someone was stabbed in the eye at the end of a journey when a number of vandals got off a train. As I pointed out earlier, that is exactly why it is planned that the people authorised to carry out the scheme should work in pairs, or in larger teams, because such a danger exists. We hope that those who work in those very difficult and responsible positions will recognise that the proposals in the Bill are in their interests just as much as they are in the interests of the travelling public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of collection on the trains. I wish to make it quite clear that although there can be ticket inspections on the trains there can also be ticket inspections at stations. The Bill does not in any way rule out the fact that the scheme can be operated on the station as well as on the train. However, the objective is that it should take place on trains during shorter journeys. However, I take the point that was made by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish that some shorter journeys involve trains where it would be difficult to carry out such checks. The board will not introduce the system on any part of the railway network until it is satisfied that the criteria which I set out originally are in place. That is why the first likely candidate for the system will be the Tilbury-Southend-London route.
Turning to the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, of course I take his point about the loading gauges. I am sufficiently well aware of railway operations to know the difference between what happens here and what happens on the continent, but for whatever reasons, open stations have become commonplace throughout Europe, and Britain is now almost alone in the operation of the barrier system which, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, can lead to a great deal of queueing and inconvenience.
Mr. Banks: There is a problem at Stratford because British Rail Network SouthEast is trying to operate an open station system and London Regional Transport is installing new barriers. That is the nonsense. The barrier is

737
brand new and has been in place for only about 12 months so there is a total conflict between Network SouthEast and London Regional Transport. Surely that is another good reason for having a strategic transport authority for London.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is another matter, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. There is an inter-relationship between LRT and British Rail and where there is an interface as has just been described by the hon. Gentleman it is in everyone's interest to have a commonality policy. No doubt his remarks will have been heard by the board.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the figures. The hon. Member for Wrexham thought that the figures may be too low but the hon. Member for Bradford, South thought that they were too high. I accept that the figures are not precise. They are estimated figures and both the hon. Gentlemen could be correct. However, there have been meetings with the National Union of Railwaymen on that issue. Those meetings will continue and, as the Bill passes through its various stages, there will be opportunities for the discussions to continue.
It saddened me to hear hon. Members criticise the chairman of British Rail. He is very much a railwayman, unlike some chairmen. I was sorry to hear hon. Members attack him as if he knew nothing about the railway system. He started work on the railways as a young lad, much against the wishes of his family. He has been a distinguished chairman and I would like to think that the House believes that he has done a good job for British Rail.
Having sought to clarify many of the questions raised by hon. Members, I reiterate my view that this is a good scheme. Clearly, trial and error will show how good it is but I do not think that any of us would rest easy if we allowed a system to continue in which large sums of money are lost which could be used to the benefit of British Rail, and, more importantly, to the benefit of the travelling public.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 59.

Division No. 76]

[9.41 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Allason, Rupert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amess, David

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carttiss, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Chapman, Sydney

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Boswell, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bottomley, Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brazier, Julian

Day, Stephen

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Devlin, Tim

Buck, Sir Antony

Dorrell, Stephen

Budgen, Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Burt, Alistair

Durant, Tony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fallon, Michael

738

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Miller, Sir Hal

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mills, Iain

Forth, Eric

Mitchell, Sir David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Franks, Cecil

Moss, Malcolm

Freeman, Roger

Needham, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gill, Christopher

Paice, James

Gower, Sir Raymond

Patnick, Irvine

Gregory, Conal

Porter, David (Waveney)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Portillo, Michael

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

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Riddick, Graham

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

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hunter, Andrew

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Irvine, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jack, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

:Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

summerson, Hugo

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knapman, Roger

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Thurnham, Peter

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Wallace, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Widdecombe, Ann

Lightbown, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Maclean, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclennan, Robert

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

McLoughlin, Patrick

and Mr. Neil Thorne.

Mans, Keith

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

Loyden, Eddie

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

McAvoy, Thomas

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Macdonald, Calum A.

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

McFall, John

Buckley, George J.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Callaghan, Jim

McLeish, Henry

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clay, Bob

Marek, Dr John

Cohen, Harry

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Meale, Alan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michael, Alun

Darling, Alistair

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Dewar, Donald

Mullin, Chris

Dixon, Don

O'Brien, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

Parry, Robert

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Patchett, Terry

Eadie, Alexander

Pike, Peter L.

Eastham, Ken

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ruddock, Joan

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Salmond, Alex

Faulds, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Flynn, Paul

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Foster, Derek

Snape, Peter

Galbraith, Sam

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Grocott, Bruce

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hardy, Peter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Haynes, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Ingram, Adam

Mr. Martin Redmond.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
9.52pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation. Millions of pounds are being lost every year because the system lacks security. It is extremely important that those people who use the system and pay for its service should not suffer the cost while leaving many to get away without paying. According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that no less than £26 million a year is currently lost by London Regional Transport. That loss is far too big to be satisfactory. A proper system for reducing that discrepancy is needed and that is why the Bill is being introduced.
There are many good reasons why the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before the measure can be introduced. He has to be satisfied that there is adequate staffing, adequate availability of machines, that the arrangements for monitoring defective machines are adequate and that ticket inspectors are properly trained. There must be adequate publicity about the introduction of the scheme and there must be a disputes and appeals procedure. Those are important matters and the Secretary of State must examine them carefully and diligently. It would be wrong to assume that he was uncritical about the standards before he was prepared for the Bill to be introduced.
Most of us have suffered the inconvenience of using machines that are not up to standard, and in the past there have been many justifiable criticisms of ticket machines, especially those that are required to give change. Technology is moving quickly and in the near future we can expect major strides in computer and other electronic technology. We think that it is now possible to produce extremely reliable and effective machines. With that in mind we have to grasp the opportunity of being able to take advantage of modern technology, thereby reducing the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.
Questions will be asked about the security of the system and in that respect London Regional Transport is important because the volume of traffic is such that it is not possible for tickets to be checked on trains in the same way as, for example, they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on LRT is £2·90 and a penalty of £10 in relation to that is appropriate. The penalty on the Docklands light railway or on the buses is £5. There is a major difference compared with any system proposed for British Rail, and that is to take account of the lower charges on the Docklands light railway and the buses. The penalty has been geared accordingly.
These powers are required as part of a new system of fare collection and the recognition of the importance of staff being introduced to the customers on the train. The system has worked extremely well on the Docklands light
740
railway where the train captains have a close involvement with the passengers and perform tasks in addition to the mere collection and checking of tickets.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: London Docklands railway is accepting the same philosophy as British Rail—that of open stations and fare collection and checking on the trains—but the rest of the tube system is using appalling barriers. Is that not illogical? If fare collection on vehicles, which has cut down violence on the trains, if not on the stations, can work, why should it not work on the rest of the tube system?
Mr. Thorne: The introduction of a train captain has been extremely effective and the system can be reassuring to the passengers. The collection or validation of tickets has been a major problem on the Docklands light railway, so that system is to be replaced. It is not possible for that system to operate completely satisfactorily, so it is necessary to make that change.
Staff can do much and they should be much more involved in the success of the operation. There are many opportunities and it is no longer valid to continue the operation as it has been run for many years. Although fraud has always been a factor, it has substantially increased in recent years and if it is allowed to increase still further, it will be unacceptable, particularly for the genuine, honest fare-paying members of the public who are the vast majority of those who use this transport. It would be wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it any longer.
It is important that we realise that there will be major provisions to ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade the fare will be able to call in aid an excuse. The passenger will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if there are no facilities available for ticket sales at the station at which the journey was started. If the passenger transfers to London Underground or Docklands light railway from British Rail and the British Rail station at which he starts has no facilities for sale of tickets, and if a notice was displayed at the station where he started the journey—whether British Rail, London Underground or Docklands light railway station—stating that it was permissible for passengers to travel from that station without a ticket or if an authorised person in uniform informed the passenger to that effect, he would not be liable to pay the penalty.
If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by the London Underground or Docklands light railway authorised official and says that he was not able to obtain it for one or more of those reasons, then it is for the London Underground or the Docklands light railway to prove that the reason is not correct. The onus is on them. If the passenger wishes to raise one of these reasons later, he has 21 days to do so from the day after the completion of the journey. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If the passenger does not provide the explanation in these terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies.
This seems to be an effective and sensible way to conduct this arrangement. It is important that we should introduce it as early as possible so that we can take advantage of the available modern technology so as substantially to reduce the number of people who are defrauding their fellow passengers—a number that is likely to increase if we do not take some firm steps against such a practice.
10.5 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: Whenever I listen to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) my memory goes back to county hall in the 1970s, when he was a great believer in strategic planning. If I remember rightly, he was the chair of the central area planning board. Unfortunately, he has now changed his position, but in the past he was committed to some form of strategic planning for London. I hope that eventually he will return to that view.
I am against those who evade payment on London Transport or any other form of public transport. Fare evasion imposes a greater burden on honest fare-paying passengers. We want to ensure that everyone contributes his or her share to the cost. It is not surprising that in principle we all agree that something should be done to reduce fare evasion.
It is also not surprising that more and more members of the travelling public are evading their fares, or attempting to do so. That is connected with the fact that London passenger fares increased by an average of 12·4 per cent. only last month, which was twice the level of inflation. The cost of a weekly inner zone travelcard increased by nearly 20 per cent. When the Government were stripping control of London Regional Transport from the Greater London council in preparation for the abolition of the council. I well remember the then Secretary of State saying that fares would increase broadly in line with inflation. That is another promise that the Government did not intend to keep or have somehow forgotten since control was taken from the GLC in 1984.
The more that the Government put pressure on London Transport to push up the level of fares, the more the public will evade the payment of fares. That is because in many instances they will not be able to meet the new fare levels. I think especially of the unemployed, the low paid and the homeless. There is a correlation between ever-increasing fares and the ever-increasing level of evasion.
The withdrawing of staff leads to an open invitation to the travelling public to avoid paying their fares. I said during the Second Reading of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that this morning I travelled from East Ham on the District line after a meeting at Newham town hall. There was no one staffing the ticket office. A queue of would-be travellers was waiting to put money into the machine. I did not notice whether it demanded the exact fare or whether it gave change. I heard the train entering the station and as I was anxious to get to the House, as I always am, I decided to leg it down the stairs and jump on the train. I paid my fare at the other end of the journey, but if I had been someone not as well heeled as an hon. Member I might have decided to declare that I had come from the Monument or Tower Hill instead of stating the truth.
The more that the Government force London Regional Transport or any other transport undertaking to withdraw the number of staff on stations, the more the travelling public will seek to avoid paying their fares. It is noticeable that London Underground Ltd. remains committed to substantial staff reductions in its determination to cut costs. I understand that it is about to implement the first stage of its action stations. Such a term suggests that something is taking place when often the reverse is the case. Under the action stations programme, a pilot scheme is to be carried out on the Metropolitan line at 13 stations
742
from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham and Chesham. The present complement of staff will be reduced from 169 to 142. As 20 of the 142 will be ticket examiners, the effective number of staff on stations will be 122, a reduction of about 25 per cent. In addition, London Underground Ltd. has announced the introduction of automatic ticket machines—they are now in place in almost all Underground stations—which will mean the loss of another 1,200 jobs.
It is true that London Underground has said that nearly half those jobs will be redeployed on general station duties and that will increase the availability of staff to help passengers. Nevertheless, the implication of the cuts is that there will be a reduction of about one sixth in the number of staff on London Underground. The more staff that British Rail and London Underground remove from stations, the more fare evasion will increase.
I asked the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) who promoted the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill whether there was any sign of an increase in fare evasion on British Rail in recent years. If it had not increased, why on earth was British Rail proposing such a scheme? The answer was that it had increased. Why cannot Ministers see that there is a correlation between a continual reduction in the number of staff on stations and an increase in ticket evasion?
When British Rail and the Underground were known to be more labour intensive, there was less fraud. There were also more jobs on the system. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest that they are not connected with the problems on British Rail and the Underground.
I very much oppose the Bill because I think that it is cosmetic. It misses the target. It is not directed at the real cause of fare evasion on the Underground or on British Rail, for the reasons that I have given so far.
The Bill refers to fares on buses and the fixed penalties that will be imposed on them. Bus fares are slightly lower than those on the Underground. Perhaps that has something to do with the relative economic prosperity of bus travellers in comparison with Underground travellers. There must be some connection there.
The system is moving towards fewer staff. I have heard Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box say that the travelling public likes one-person operated buses. I use those buses frequently. I cannot understand why I always manage to travel on one when none of the passengers seems to be happy. I make a point of talking to my fellow travellers and I ask them whether they like the service. The majority of opinion is completely against one-person-operated buses in London. That is the view of the passengers and of other road users.
There are insufficient controls over parking restrictions in the capital. More and more cars and lorries therefore pile up behind one-person-operated buses which stay at a stop for a long time while the poor old bus driver tries to ensure that everyone pays the fare. He must ensure that no one nips through the exit doors—-I have seen that happen frequently.
It is strange that it is apparently OK continually to reduce the number of people working on the mass transit systems, while on the more luxurious transport systems there are more and more people. Only a very strange airline would try to sell the idea of one-pilot-operated planes. A passenger might go to the entrance door and be greeted by the pilot who asks to see the ticket and then says, "Hang on a moment, I've just got to make sure that

743
the engines are started. I will come back and then I'll go round with the drinks after I've switched on to automatic pilot." No one would travel on a plane in those circumstances. The adverts give the idea that passengers are greeted by smiling staff and each airline boasts of its staff-to-passenger ratio. That is considered to be an absolute asset. Why can that not be true for the buses and trains?
The travelling public would prefer to be greeted by the bus conductor or conductress who would show him to a seat, come round with the drinks halfway through the journey and announce the estimated time of arrival and that the passenger would be travelling at approximately ground level. That is the kind of thing people want on London transport.
The more staff that there are operating the transport system, the less fare evasion there will be. That is an obvious and straightforward equation, and I am surprised that it has not sunk into the psyches of Conservative Members that more staffing is the best way of dealing with not only fare evasion but safety and comfort.
The question whether ticket dispensing machines will work has been raised. Some of them are OK, but unless they are regularly maintained—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South accepts this—they will break down. There will be increasing frustration as people have to queue up to put their money into machines that do not work. The Evening Standard published several articles about the annoyance and anger caused to passengers on London Underground as they found the machines either were inoperative or rejected coins. There are also matters of comfort and safety that neither the Bill, the Government nor London Regional Transport have addressed.
I do not know how often you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use London Underground, or how often Mr. Speaker or Ministers use it. I know that one or two Ministers do. One of the few advantages of our working hours in this place is that we can usually travel outside the rush hour, and not encounter its full horror. When we do have to travel at the height of the rush hour, it all comes back to us like some horrible nightmare, and we wonder how much longer we must put up with such conditions.
To that discomfort, we now have the added obstruction of automatic ticket barriers, which are supposed to do something about countering fare evasion and smoothing the passage of travellers through the system. All that is rubbish, as anyone who has encountered the new ticket barriers can testify. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to examine the barriers at Westminster underground station. Again, the Evening Standard reported that passengers avoid using the automatic barriers, preferring to queue up at the barrier staffed by a uniformed ticket collector, because other passengers get stuck as they put their tickets into those wretched automatic barriers and find that they do not open.
I do not know who invented that machinery, but whoever it was should be shut into one of those barriers and left there to rot for a few years. He might then realise that those fiendish contraptions, which are now ringing London stations, are unacceptable and a complete waste of public money. There are all kinds of capital items on which London Underground could have used that
744
investment to improve amenities. It is a useless system, just like that used for one-man buses. I guarantee that within a matter of a few years they will fall into disuse and the barriers will be permanently jammed open, if they are not already. I say that because I do not have a great deal of trust in the manufacturers' ability to make sure that those barriers do not jam. One day, people will ask who was the fool who invented the system.
Mr. Cecil Franks: I realise that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not often stray very far from Newham, but if he were to cross the Channel and travel on the Paris metro he would find there a similar ticket barrier system that has worked well for many years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We are moving away from the subject of the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the point.
Mr. Banks: I trust that that stricture was not directed at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was keeping to the point. I would very much like to go to Paris. I would go there with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), even though he is not quite my sort.
Dr. John Marek: If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) had been here for the past three hours, he would have heard us exploring all the differences between the Paris metro and the Underground in this country.
Mr. Banks: It is all about capital investment, flat fares and a range of other issues. As one of my hon. Friends said, we should not make comparisons based on only one aspect of the system. If we are to make European comparisions we should compare the levels of capital investment, fares and wages, and the number of staff employed. Given our parsimonious attitude to investment, it is not surprising that London's transport system is approaching breaking point and we have to resort to silly, cosmetic, passenger-delaying manoeuvres.
The Bill does not address the real problem. It tinkers with it, as the Government do with so many other aspects of our transport life. The Government's transport policies, like their policies on other matters, actually produce problems; then they come up with some fart-arsed cosmetic idea to try to deal with the problems that they have created.
Ministers, with one or two honourable exceptions, do not use the public transport system. One of the reasons why all Back Benchers want to become Ministers is the chance of getting into one of those chauffeur-driven limousines, reading their red boxes with the light on. As we trudge down into Westminster underground station, the Ministers go past in their cars splashing mud all over us. If they knew what it was like to travel on public transport they would not be defending this wretched little Bill and the silly things that are happening to London transport.
The best way to deal with the problem of fare evasion would be to return to the flat-fare system that the GLC was trying to construct, and keeping fares at a low level. If the system is seen as a service, there will be no excuse for anyone to evade paying fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like in Paris."] As hon. Members say, that is what it is like in Paris.
We must start to look on transport as a social service, not a service that must always pay its way in straight

745
revenue terms. A proper social cost analysis for the economy as a whole, whether in London or the whole country, will show us that a flat-fare system would not only deal with the problem of fare evasion but would speed passengers through the system and take private cars off the road, because transport would become both cheap and attractive.
I suppose that the final solution would be a free transport system. I understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch—even for Members of Parliament—but given its economic benefits a flat-fare or free transport system would enable the service to pay for itself over and over again. It would be good for London, the travelling public, the Government and the economy.
I doubt whether that proposal will receive a very sympathetic hearing tonight, but the day will come when Labour Members are sitting on the Government Benches, and we shall return to the sane transport policy that the good old GLC tried to pioneer. That was stopped because we were having so much electoral success with our flat-fare system. Fare evasion was not the problem that it is now. When that day comes, I hope that I shall be standing at the back cheering on my good friend and saying what a wonderful job he is doing as a Minister—
Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be in Paris.
Mr. Banks: One hates to think who my hon. Friend might be in Paris with. Who knows? It might be me.
We should be looking at the new system and deciding that having got it wrong for so long we will get it right this time. This is no way to get it right, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill.
10.24 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): There is a danger that after the contribution by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) my contribution will seem a little dry. However, it may be convenient if I set out the Government's attitude and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on explaining the Bill so lucidly.
The Government support the Bill, as they support the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill. We believe that London Regional Transport should be allowed the opportunity to levy penalty fares on passengers travelling on its services without having purchased the ticket required. London Underground Ltd. currently estimates that fare evasion costs £26 million a year. Such a measure can therefore benefit only the honest passenger and ease the burden on the taxpayer and the London ratepayer.
LRT of course already has powers to operate a penalty fares system under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and specifically on the Docklands light railway under the London Docklands Railway Acts of 1984, 1985 and 1986. But because some dissatisfaction was expressed with these powers, the Government established a working group on penalty fares in May 1986 to review the principles which should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport and to look at the existing provisions concerning LRT services. The Bill before the House is based closely upon the recommendations of the working group.
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill. Suffice it to say that the Bill underwent considerable scrutiny in
746
another place and a number of changes were made, primarily to ensure that the honest passenger is fully protected. The Committee stage in this House will allow further consideration of those matters, and others.
It should, however, be stressed that an activating order issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to bring the powers in this Bill into effect. It will be for LRT to convince us that it can operate a fair and workable penalty fares system on the particular service or services for which it is proposed before an activating order will be issued.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it intended to introduce the system on one underground line at a time, or for the whole network?
Mr. Portillo: That will have to be considered at the time. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out some of the points on which we shall need to be satisfied.
Before any such order is made the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the system and that these include safeguards to ensure that honest passengers are not penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. He will therefore need to be assured that ticket offices are properly staffed, that the necessary ticket and deferred authority machines are in place, that there are satisfactory arrangements for monitoring and reparing machines, that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the new system, that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the system and are deployed appropriately, and that they have adequate indentification. He must also be assured that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place.
10.27 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thanks to your interpretation of the rules, that I said a few words a short time ago about the impact of the Bill on London.
Once again the Opposition find the assurances about the Secretary of State's involvement totally unconvincing. The long list of assurances that the Secretary of State will need before he gives permission for the penalty fare scheme to be implemented led to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He asked a short but succinct question about whether the system would be introduced on one line or throughout the underground system. It was a sensible question, despite the Minister's mirth. How will the Secretary of State satisfy himself or herself that all the arrangements that the Minister outlined in his brief speech are satisfactory and have been implemented?
Secretaries of State are good at giving assurances but they are not very good at coming to the House to explain any breaches that have occurred. I hope that the Minister will intervene during the next 30 seconds and tell me just how the Secretary of State plans to enforce that long list of arrangements. That part of the Bill has not yet been fully thought out.
The figure of £26 million—the cost of fare evasion—has been plucked out of the air. Without repeating my earlier opinion that London Underground does not appear interested in collecting fares late at night, I must say that that estimate is as wild as the £36 million mentioned in connection with Network SouthEast.

747
When representatives of one of the railway unions approached London Underground Ltd. about the amount of late night fare evasion caused by lack of staff, the unofficial view, given him in an aside by management, was that it would not be worth paying staff to work overtime to collect the comparatively small number of fares that
748
were evaded. So when London Underground wants to save on staff, passengers are honest; when it wants a Bill like this passed, they are dishonest and they cost Londoners, and those of us who are unwilling Londoners for a few days a week, a sizeable sum.
Although briefer, the Minister's contribution was no more satisfactory on this Bill than on the previous one. I hope that my hon. Friends will act accordingly.
10.32 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about ticket barriers. I also agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
There is a great deal of public concern about the deplorable extent to which London public transport has been run down, and it was incredible that the Minister should fail, in his very brief speech, to deal with that concern. He should be ashamed of himself.
When the issue of penalty fares on London Underground came up before, I brought up the subject of violence directed against staff—an immensely serious problem. Only a month earlier, staff at Leyton bus garage had stopped work to bury a colleague who had been killed. I wanted to know whether penalty fares would increase violence against staff who work for LRT. The reply I received failed to address the point and the Bill was expected to go through without doing so.
Now the legislation is here again. We have received only one document from LRT, and it arrived today, the day of Second Reading. Once again, it does not deal with our genuine concerns about the implications of penalty fares for the safety of staff. No one has said anything to me about them.
LRT is forcing this Bill through and treating hon. Members with contempt. That is reason enough to throw the Bill out. I cannot see a case for imposing penalties on travellers. Indeed, it should be the other way around: LRT should compensate passengers for the appalling journeys and risks they must undertake. I notice that British Telecom runs a scheme to reimburse subscribers whose phones are faulty. That is a bit gimmicky, but if it is good enough for Telecom, it should he used by LRT, too.
Serious safety problems for travellers have not been dealt with. I am sure we shall come to some of those in the debate tomorrow, so I do not want to encroach on them now. I realise that we are dealing with the question of penalty fares, but there is the question of such things as the public address system being inaudible and the risk that that can cause. There is also the question of dangerous overcrowding, which could well result in loss of life.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend noticed the way in which the public address system on the London Underground always seems to start up just as the doors are closed? As the train is moving out of the station, one can just hear that there is a station further down the line where the lifts are out of action, causing delays. They do not seem to be able to get such messages announced on board the trains; they simply make the announcements at the stations, and it is very frustrating. Has my hon. Friend ever experienced that frustration?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, I have experienced it personally, and I have been told all sorts of horror stories about the public address system. Worst of all, a lot of the stories have been told to me after the Fennell report on the King's Cross disaster. It seems that that lesson has not been learnt.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has been led astray. I am sure he is going to come back to the question of the penalty fares.
Mr. Cohen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing myself to be led astray. The question that was
750
raised was the automatic exit barriers, which, of course, is directly relevant to the penalty fares aspect. I am strongly opposed to the automatic exit barriers. As hon. Members will know, I have put down an early-day motion on that matter.
I think that automatic barriers are a danger in the event of a fire. They could result in more loss of life. A fire on the Underground is not just a one-off event; King's Cross is not a one-off affair. Tonight's "World in Action" reported that in a seven-week period between October and December there were 125 fires on the London Underground. Any one of those could have had fatal consequences, as could these barriers.
In this respect Fennell certainly has not been implemented. Many of the Fennell recommendations have not been implemented, yet these barriers are being put in place and creating problems.
Mr. Tony Banks: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work that he is doing in drawing attention to the shortcomings of this new automatic ticket gate system. Has he seen tonight's Evening Standard which says:
"Fire chiefs demand Tube gate changes
Fire chiefs have ordered modifications to London Underground's controversial automatic gates".
They consider that they are unsafe and they would not allow speedy evacuation of a station in—God forbid—another King's Cross type disaster.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general debate on this Bill dealing with the London Underground. It is a fairly narrow Bill restricted to penalty fares. and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Bill.
Mr. A. F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that in the letter that we have had from the London Underground specific mention is made of the automatic ticket barriers and the new system of issuing and collecting tickets, to illustrate that it is improving collection. Surely, if it is reasonable for the promoters of the Bill to refer to the new ticketing machines and barriers as part of the build-up to the Bill, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to make mention of them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The promoters, of course, do not decide what is in order in the House of Commons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks to the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: I will endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The key point, of course, is that penalty fares and the automatic exit barriers are part of a joint package from LRT in relation to fare evasion. I am not in favour of either, particularly the automatic exit barriers, which I think are dangerous. They affect each other, so I think that it is in order for me to mention them. Others have concentrated on the subject.
I pay tribute to the Evening Standard for trying to expose the dangers. On "World in Action" tonight, Mr. Richard Warburton, director general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, described barriers as an obstruction, especially where there is heat and smoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the article in the Evening Standard. I recently

751
tabled a parliamentary question about LRT and London Underground Ltd. not publishing the fire brigade reports. I asked the Minister about
"all relevant correspondence, reports and documentation communicated between themselves and the fire authorities for London about the consequences for safety of automatic exit barriers installed at London underground stations; and if he will make a statement."
The Minister answered:
"It is for London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. and the London fire and civil defence authority to consider whether to make available such exchanges."—[Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c.210.]
That is a negation of the Minister's responsibility, yet there is so much anxiety about the matter. They should publish what the fire brigade has to say about the subject.
The travelling public of London have a right to know if the fire brigade says that barriers are unsafe of if any station is unsafe. London Underground is going in the opposite direction. That must be stopped. It is up to the Minister to take more positive action. These barriers are a danger when there are large crowds. They run counter to the operation of London's underground. I shall consider fare evasion later—the unsafe implications of the barriers far outweigh any considerations about collecting fares. There is a far better way in which to collect fares—having proper staffing levels.
I know that we are short of time, so I shall not make a long speech. I could read any number of letters from women with children and passengers with luggage or shopping who find the barriers immensely inconvenient. Even commuting office workers with an umbrella in one hand and a briefcase in the other have written to me saying that they have only two hands and asking how they are supposed to get the ticket into the machine. I have letters from elderly people who are worried about the machines and from people who have paid for expensive season tickets which they put into the machine but do not get back. This is a thoroughly unpopular system which creates congestion and danger.
The machines do not even work. A fit youth can easily hop over them. In "World in Action", the reporter showed the immense congestion and how inconvenient the exit barriers are. He then said that he was travelling on a child's ticket and the machines did not spot it. They are not even effective. They should be withdrawn and no concourses should be closed off, especially after the King's Cross disaster. Hon. Members referred to the Paris metro, but the stations and the concourses there are usually much wider and do not have the safety problems that exist in stations in London. As has been said, the Paris metro operates a much cheaper fares policy so there is not such a great problem of fare evasion. We should be moving towards such a system. The real solution to fare evasion is not automatic barriers or penalty fares but more staff.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Hon. Members are pointing out quite rightly that the priorities being used at present accentuate the problem of fare evasion, but are disregarding the real problem within London Regional Transport. My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that London's becoming the most congested and run-down transport system of all the capital cities in Europe?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I am finding it difficult to relate some of his remarks to the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me that his remarks relate to the Bill and identify the particular clause in the Bill to which his remarks relate.
Mr. Cohen: I can give you that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am told that my remarks relate to my interpretation of clause 2.
The problem is how to tackle fare evasion. London Regional Transport has proposed a package of automatic exit barriers and penalty fares. The alternative, which I think is much better, is a cheap fares policy and increased staffing to collect fares and protect the travelling public. Many women find travelling on the tube an absolute nightmare, a descent into hell. Certainly many women fear taking that risk.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recall that during a recent debate on London Transport I mentioned the long delay in the repairs to the Pimlico escalator, extending over many months, since last May or June? It meant that many ladies and old and disabled people found negotiating that long stairway so difficult and demanding that they probably felt like evading the fare. Will my hon. Friend take note that when the matter was raised in the other place I am advised that Lord Brabazon immediately replied to the noble Lord who raised the issue? However, no Member of the House of Commons has had the courtesy of any comment from London Transport, although I understand that the escalator may well be in operation in another month or two.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman came in fairly recently, but the Chair allowed a fairly wide debate on the first Bill on condition that the debate on the second Bill would be related strictly to the Bill now before us. It would be an abuse of our procedures, and very unfair to hon. Members who have business after this, to have a wide debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respond to what I have now said on a number of occasions.
Mr. Cohen: I shall do that, and therefore I shall not respond to the point about escalators, although my hon. Friend will know that at any particular time one in four escalators on the London Underground does not work. However, I shall not respond to that point because of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A better way forward would be increased staffing, a proper railways inspectorate, and for more people to be employed on the London Underground for fare collection, to look after the travelling public and to assist them, with courtesy. The way forward chosen by London Underground, London Regional Transport and the Government will lead to chaos. London will become known as a black spot among European capitals. That is what it has become under the Government. Penalty fares and blocking the way out of stations will simply make congestion and safety problems worse.
The barriers are not cheap—they cost well over £3 million. What a waste of money, especially when London Transport intends to hammer London ratepayers with a 50

753
per cent. increase in the levy order which the House will be discussing in the future. Therefore, they are a waste of money in addition to all the other problems.
The real way to stop fare evasion is a cheaper fares policy. I appreciate that that would create problems. There is already overcrowding and some might say that cheaper fares would make the overcrowding worse. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, that has to be tackled by capital investment. New lines and new rolling stock should be introduced. Some of the rolling stock being introduced now means that more people will have to stand up because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be taking any notice of the appeals I have made to him. He must restrict his remarks to the Bill and not widen the debate. I have told him on more than one occasion and I must repeat to him that there is other business after this. He can talk for as long as he likes provided he stays in order but at present he persists in being out of order. This is the last occasion on which I am prepared to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am addressing the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? If a check on fare evasion is to be carried out on the trains, which is what I understand the Bill provides, why is it not relevant for my hon. Friend to refer to the rolling stock—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I am sure that he will take notice of what I have said to him.
Mr. Cohen: I certainly will. I do not intend to evade the important issues and I do not want to filibuster. The points I want to make are too important for me to filibuster and concern the interests of the London travelling public. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
Instead of penalty fares and automatic barriers, which just make everything worse, we need a cheaper fares policy. We need more public investment and cheap, efficient and safe travel. We need a co-ordinated transport system that covers all modes of transport and helps ease the problems of overcrowding. We need a change of direction in investment with more money spent on the tube and less on the roads. We need democracy so that the people who run London Underground and London Regional Transport are subject to the democratic pressures of the travelling public and the people of London. If they were subject to that democratic pressure, I do not believe that they would introduce such penalty fares or the automatic ticket barriers. They would have to argue their case if they were electable. Democracy must be restored to our London transport system if we are to solve some of the problems.
Everyone who uses London Underground cares and worries about the safety implications. They do not want to travel in pig-sty or unsafe conditions; they want an efficient and proper system. They pay enough for it, so they deserve it. They care passionately about having a good London transport system. It is the Government who
754
do not care and show that they do not care. They have a contempt for the travelling public for which they should be exposed.
10.55 pm
Dr. John Marek: I shall be brief, because some of my points have already been made. I agree with the points made by hon. Members about what is wrong with London Regional Transport. It is, however, necessary to make some points as the two Bills are separate.
I admit that in relation to the previous Bill efforts were made to consult British Rail unions, and I understand that consultations are continuing. However, I am not sure that there have been any consultations with the unions about this Bill. If there were any consultations they were perfunctory. It is a pity that, whichever board or company is concerned, it does not gain the support of its employees in the first place. If there were a spirit of consensus, I am sure that many of our debates would be much shorter.
I know that many London Regional Transport employees are extremely worried about the provisions in this Bill. They do not appear to be consulted by London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. or by London Buses. As we are all in favour of cutting the number of fare evasions, it is a great pity that unions are not taken into partnership with the board—in this case London Regional Transport—so that a mutually agreed system can be put forward for the House to consider.
The number of assaults on staff on the London Underground in 1983 was 300; in 1984, 286; in 1985, 364; in 1986, 378; and in 1987, 409. I shall not go into why there is an increase in the number of assaults on staff, but I merely say that it is because of the society in which we live and those who are responsible for that society. I am sceptical that one or two guards, conductors or ticket inspectors will be able to deal with the average late night incident on the Underground when trying to exact a £10 penalty fare from a passenger. As we know, some passengers will have had more drink than is good for them, others will be argumentative and others will respond with violence at the drop of a hat. We know only too well what happens day in and day out on the London Underground. I do not believe that it is good enough that civilians or employees should have to exact the £10 penalty fare from people at the risk of physical harm.
If, of course, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will say that there would be British Transport police on every train or accompanying every penalty fare collector, I may modify my views. It is a sad historical fact that the number of London Underground police has been dropping, until recently, for reasons completely extraneous to London Regional Transport. If more police were employed, the public and employees would be more confident that violence would not occur. I fear, however, that such violence will increase as a result of the Bill.
I shall not dwell on the subject of barriers, which has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), but I am concerned about the servicing of the fare machines. I am not confident in LRT's ability to operate machines that do not break down and that will always give change. As a result of poor servicing I fear that such machines will soon run out of change and will demand exact fare money only. If one is at a tube

755
station where the machines are either broken or taking exact fare only, I have no confidence that the booking office will be open. If it is, there is bound to be a queue.
The public do not want the guarantee that for 80 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning from 5.30 am until 12.30 at night. The public want to know that for 98 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning. I do not believe that that is sufficient and I believe that that guarantee should stand for 99·9 per cent. of the time.
There are about four fare machines at Westminster and LRT should be able to guarantee within 0·01 per cent. that at least one of those machines will work all the time. I do not believe that such a gurarantee can be given. I do not believe that LRT has the will to fulfil that commitment. In common with British Rail, LRT is trying to get machines to take the place of people. That will not work. Has the board of LRT estimated how much it would cost to employ a couple of people at every underground station? There are 200 or more stations. It is easy to calculate how much it would cost to have three shifts of two staff at each station—1,200 staff would cost between £10 million and £12 million. The revenue lost as a result of evasion is put at £26 million and I would not be surprised if the employment of additional staff resulted in a £12 million reduction, if not more, in the cost of evasion. We should not give the Bill a Second Reading unless some estimate has been made of the cost and implications of such additional employment.
If extra staff were employed not only would fare evasion be reduced, but violence and vandalism. We would also have cleaner stations and help could be given to mothers and children. It seems that LRT is not worried about any of those extra benefits; all that it is concerned about is making people unemployed and putting machines in their place. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will deal with that later.
The Bill is not written in the same style as the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill and I believe that it is a little more authoritarian. Clause 5(1) on penalty fares on trains says:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, if a person travelling on a train service fails to produce a fare ticket or a general travel authority on being required to do so by an authorised person, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare if required to do so by an authorised person."
Both Bills contain similar provisions. Clause 5 (2)(a) says:
"A person (other than one falling within paragraph (b) below) shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare under this section if at the time when and the station where he started to travel on the train service there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey."
The clause specifically says that there must be facilities for the sale of the necessary ticket. That means that if such facilities exist the person travelling will be deemed to be in default and liable for the penalty fare even if there is a mile-long queue outside the booking office with many people waiting to buy tickets to other destinations. The Bill does not say that such a queue can be an exception. Clause 5(2)(b) gives an exception because it talks about a person transferring to a service.
Clause 5(2)(c)(i) says that the penalty fare is not payable if
"there was displayed a notice (however expressed) indicating that it was permissible for passengers beginning a journey at that station."
756
Clause 5(2)(c)(ii) says that a person would not have to pay the penalty fare if
"an authorised person in uniform gave permission to the same effect."
In terms of legalities I am a layman, and on a layman's reading of the Bill it seems that it will make the innocent person guilty and put him into a worse position in terms of proving his innocence. I gave a specific example of a booking point that is open and has a long queue. As far as I can see from the Bill, a passenger will be liable for the penalty fare unless he waits for a long time in the ticket queue.
The Bill does not deserve a Second Reading. It is worse than the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that we discussed earlier, and that is because of the questions that it raises about assault and civil liberties, and because the management of London Regional Transport seems to have made no effort to talk to the unions and employees concerned. I hope that the Bill will be roundly defeated.
11.7 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some specific and short questions for the Minister. First, what is the position on deferred fare authorities? Will he tell us whether they are intended for use only on the Underground system when they have been issued at a British Rail station or is it intended to make them available at all London Underground stations where for some reason machines are not working?
How will the ticket barriers work? Perhaps the Minister could give some guidance about how to proceed through a barrier when one is pushing a pram. I am told that it is extremely difficult to get both the pram and the adult pushing or pulling it through the barrier without either the pram or the adult being snapped at by the closing gates. What happens if a passenger inserts a ticket and the green light comes on, indicating that for some reason or other the ticket is not accepted, especially when many people standing behind are impatient to get out of the station?
The other day I saw a person put in a ticket. The green light came on but before the passenger could read the message he was pushed forward by the person behind him who put in his ticket and the two people came out through the gate. I do not know whether that happened because the gate was not functioning properly or whether it was supposed to happen, but it is fairly frightening when one is at the front of the queue with many people behind and for some reason a perfectly valid ticket is thrown out by the machine.
Will the Minister tell us what is to happen to the monthly, weekly and even daily tickets which are made of fairly flimsy material? They are placed in a plastic wallet and have to be shown on the way out of the station. That suggests that the material of which they will be made will have to be one that the machine will be able to read easily after repeated use.
We hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will be able to reassure us on these points. He should try to ensure that, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, it spends as long as possible in Committee. I am certain that the mood of people in London and of hon. Members is that the Bill should not become law until the new ticketing system on London Underground has worked out all its teething troubles, if that is possible. It would be

757
criminal for the House to give London Regional Transport the authority to carry out a penalty fare system when it cannot operate efficiently the system of collecting fares.
11.10 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I have a number of specific questions about compulsory ticket areas. These are defined in clause 2, which says:
"A 'compulsory ticket area' means that part of a station which, under the byelaws of the person providing a train service to which this Act applies, passengers are not permitted to enter without a fare ticket, general travel authority or platform ticket".
What instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory ticket areas in an emergency? Ticket inspection staff will be operating in these areas, and they will be trying to check on people going into them. When there is an emergency, they will have to direct people through those areas, so the compulsory ticket area will have to be waived. What sort of instructions is LRT giving about what should happen in an emergency? We do not want compulsory ticket areas in which staff are operating being used as a barrier to people moving. In an emergency, such areas must merge in with the thoroughfares.
My hon. Friends have mentioned ticket barriers for leaving stations and the difficulties of inserting tickets and getting the gates to open. What pressure is required to use those barriers in emergencies? I am staggered that these automatic ticket barriers are being installed so soon after the dreadful King's Cross fire. I know that questions have been raised time and again about installing such ticket barriers when the lessons of the King's Cross fire show that there has to be rapid escape from a fire to get away from what is, in effect, the top of a chimney. What sort of pressure is involved? Could, for example, a slightly built woman move the barriers to one side, bearing in mind that she might have a couple of toddlers with her? If there is smoke, panic and fumes, could she move the barrier to one side, as LRT claims?
11.13 pm
Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. We have had an interesting debate and some important points have been made. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was not the only person to mention employment. We must be concerned about that important issue. If people have given their life to an industry, it would be wrong to cast them aside without looking after them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his journey from East Ham this morning, and the difficulty that he had because of the long queue of people waiting for tickets. One of the important aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before he agrees to the implementation of the scheme that there will be adequate facilities for automatic ticket dispensing machines to be available. At about the same time as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was dodging a queue and boarding a train without a ticket, which he admitted, I was feeding my money into an efficient machine at Ilford station, which dispensed a ticket without any problem. There were more ticket machines than people who wanted to use them. There was a hiccup on the network line as some of the overhead cables had malfunctioned at Bethnal Green, but the Underground was able to relieve the pressure from Stratford and the system worked efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Tony Banks: I ask the hon. Gentleman to complete the story about my travel on the Underground this morning. I paid when I reached Westminster, and I want that to be on record.
Mr. Thorne: I would not dream of suggesting that any hon. Member did not pay the full fare on reaching his destination. That goes without saying. I accept that there must be a sufficient number of adequate ticket machines installed at East Ham station before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be satisfied that he can allow their introduction.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the reduction of staffing at stations and suggested that it would amount to one sixth of the Underground staff. I hope that one of the main advantages of such a scheme will be to enable the system to redeploy staff.
Several hon. Members have mentioned their concern about safety on the Underground system. As recent events have shown, the public require more British Transport police to be present within the system. Undertakings have been given that over the next 12 months additional personnel will he deployed. I am sure that everyone will agree that with the advantages of new technology we should take the opportunity that is presented to us and redeploy staff where they are most needed.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and others talked about the breakdown of ticket barriers and the need for comfort and safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the ticket barriers will be of an adequate standard and will not break down, thus causing a gross inconvenience to passengers. Considerable experience with the machines has already been gained in other parts of the world. We can learn from the experience of others, and I trust that we shall have as reliable a system in Britain as they have in Hong Kong and various other countries, where it works extremely efficiently.
I agree that special attention must be given to comfort and safety. It must be understood that the ticket-issuing clerk and the ticket collector will occupy important positions and will both be on duty at all times when the stations are open. They will have access to a button to neutralise the automatic barriers and allow a free flow. That important safety measure will be required.
Mr. Cohen: I have received much correspondence about ticket barriers, and a section of it relates to an explosion—perhaps a bomb—in the Underground system. If the staff could not press the so-called magic button, the gates would remain locked. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Thorne: Anything is possible, but I do not think that that is likely to happen. There are special provisions that we must examine for smoke detection, for example. If any smoke is generated from an explosion, it would be noticed. The staff who would be on duty at all times would be present to take care of those situations. I am confident that the staff that we expect to be employed on the Underground will be of such a standard that they will be able to cope with those eventualities.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was particularly concerned about employment. I hope that his fears are unfounded and that we will be able to redeploy staff in the system more effectively and efficiently. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) criticised the Minister for the shortness of his statement. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leyton was in

759
the Chamber when the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill was debated, but my hon. Friend the Minister gave a longer explanation then. He also explained that he was not the promoter of this Bill and was adopting a neutral position. He was not replying to the debate. That is my job, with the permission of the House.
The danger to staff when collecting penalty fares is a very important and worrying point. I hope that more transport police will be involved and that it will be possible to protect staff who might be in danger. We must bear in mind that there is an undertaking that staff will at least work in pairs. Undoubtedly late at night, after drinking hours, we should expect them to work in threes and fours. In the very near future, possibly before this scheme is implemented, we hope that it will be possible to introduce radios on the system that can work underground. Therefore, a call could be made requesting police to be available at the next station, should that need arise. Staff safety is paramount and it would be wrong to try to introduce a system which put the staff at risk. That would not work.
The hon. Member for Leyton also referred to exits. Where automatic barriers are neutralised to allow free passage, it is possible for between 50 and 60 passengers a minute to pass through each barrier. We must remember that the space allocated for exiting is greater with automatic barriers than with manned. The constriction is greater with manned barriers than with a number of exit points. It should be possible to exit much quicker where automatic barriers are in position.
The hon. Member for Leyton also said that automatic barriers were unpopular. I hope that, like many things, they will become more popular as people become more familiar with them. He also asked about someone using a child's ticket. When a child's ticket is inserted in the machine, it is supposed to switch on a light to show that a child is passing through. One of the duties of the ticket collector is to ensure that the light does not come on when adults are passing through. His attention may have been distracted at that moment, but that is the intention.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned the absence of union consultations. Such consultations have taken place at a very basic level. Now that the process has been started, we hope that it will develop during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and once it goes into Committee I hope that it will be possible to deal with some of the union fears in more detail and more positively. We should get these matters into perspective. If the proposals had been introduced a year or two ago, they would have been out of date now and we would have had to go through the whole matter again. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Wrexham on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of assaults on staff by passengers who have been drinking, which I have covered, and expressed concern about mechanical breakdowns. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is an effective system for dealing with malfunctioning apparatus. I understand that a control panel will indicate which apparatus is malfunctioning, so that the area supervisor will be able immediately to know if an unacceptable number of machines are faulty and when to send help.
Dr. Marek: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will be an area supervisor at every London Underground station? I cannot see that happening.
Mr. Thorne: My understanding is that the machinery at a number of stations will be monitored at one particular location. Signals will be sent from the barriers at each station to a central control point. There will not be a supervisor or mechanics at every station, but if an unacceptable number of machines at any one station malfunction, assistance will be sent as soon as possible.
If long queues form, the staff on duty must indicate that there is an emergency and that passengers will be allowed through. The inspecting staff will be given notice that a number of ticket-dispensing machines have broken down. That will be part of the human input at the station concerned—it will be the responsibility of the staff there to take that decision. Provided a sufficient number of machines are working, such a thing should rarely, if ever, happen.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned inoperative machinery and I have answered that point. Passengers pushing prams will be able to pass through the manned barrier.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will always be an alternative to using the mechanical ticket barriers?
Mr. Thorne: The intention is that there will always be that option available.
I suppose that two people could pass through the barrier together, but, as the machinery becomes more sophisticated, perhaps that abuse will be defeated. Season tickets, like many other items, can be magnetically read. That can help prevent them from becoming tatty, in the same way that a credit card does not become tatty. I accept that the Bill's Committee stage will be important. All the questions that have been raised must be sorted out then.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked what instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory exits in ticket areas in an emergency. In most cases, two points will be manned by staff, who will have the ability to neutralise the automatic barriers to permit free exit. The manned barrier will also be in operation, but the intention is that passengers, other than those pushing prams or in invalid chairs, will pass quickly through the opened mechanical barriers.
I hope that those replies deal with all the points that have been raised, and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, so that its provisions may be further clarified in Committee.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 37.

Division No. 77]

[11.29pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amess, David

Carrington, Matthew

Arbuthnot, James

Carttiss, Michael

Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bevan, David Gilroy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Durant, Tony

761

Fallon, Michael

Mills, Iain

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forman, Nigel

Needham, Richard

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Franks, Cecil

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gill, Christopher

Portillo, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Ground, Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Harris, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

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

Summerson, Hugo

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Irvine, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Jack, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Knapman, Roger

Thurnham, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Wallace, James

Lightbown, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Maclean, David

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mans, Keith

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Miller, Sir Hal

Mr. Roger King.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Marek, Dr John

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

Meale, Alan

Buckley, George J.

Michael, Alun

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Clay, Bob

Morgan, Rhodri

Cohen, Harry

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

Parry, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Patchett, Terry

Dixon, Don

Pike, Peter L.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Prescott, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ruddock, Joan

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Galbraith, Sam

Snape, Peter

Graham, Thomas

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hardy, Peter

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Haynes, Frank

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Tony Banks and

Loyden, Eddie

Mr. Martin Redmond.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

Adoption Allowance Schemes
11.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.
I hope that it will be convenient for the House to take both orders together.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): So be it.
Mr. Freeman: The orders, the Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989 and the Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, have the effect of repealing section 57(7) of the Adoption Act 1976 and section 51(8) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Without the repeal of these sections there will be no provision for further approval of allowance schemes to adopters after 14 February.
The provision we are considering has its origin in a recommendation in 1972 of the departmental committee on the adoption of children—the Houghton committee. In its report the committee addressed the case for paying allowances to adopters in certain circumstances: circumstances in which adoption had been identified as the best future for a child, and a suitable family had been found, but in which there was a financial obstacle to the adoption. The aim would be to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise readily be adopted and who could face a childhood spent in care without a family of their own. The committee recommended that a small number of pilot schemes should be authorised as a trial of this new idea.
The proposal was taken up in section 32 of the Children Act 1975, now consolidated as section 57 of the Adoption Act 1976 and section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. During the passage of the Bill a number of reservations and cautions were voiced about the wisdom of the measure—natural and thoughtful reservations, to which I shall turn briefly in a moment. Accordingly, the Houghton committee's recommendation of an experimental period was adopted by Parliament. Adoption agencies were given the opportunity to seek the approval of the Secretaries of State to schemes for payment of allowances for a period of seven years from implementation of the provision. The provision would come to an end automatically after seven years unless both Houses agreed to its continuation, and the Secretaries of State were required to publish before that date a report on the operation of the schemes.
The provision duly came into force, in England and Wales and in Scotland, in February 1982. Adoption agencies began to put together and submit for approval schemes drawn up according to guidelines issued by the Department. These agencies were for the most part local authorities, although two voluntary approved adoption societies in England now have schemes. It became clear over the following few years that the experiment was taking a somewhat different turn from—
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend mentioned that a few local authorities did not have such schemes. It is shameful that they should not. Can he identify them?
Mr. Freeman: Only four authorities in England do not have such schemes. That means that about 104 do, which shows that there is broad acceptance of the scheme.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would the Minister be prepared to name the four authorities that do not have such a scheme?
Mr. Freeman: I shall draw the point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will answer it later.
It became clear over the next few years that the experiment was taking a somewhat different turn from that expected. The interest and enthusiasm of local authorities far exceeded expectations, and many more schemes were submitted than the few envisaged by the Houghton committee. In England, indeed, the rapid flow of applications caused some strain on the resources of the Department of Health. However, we decided that this high level of interest was to be welcomed, with its potential benefit to children in need of adoptive families. Now, after seven years, there is universal coverage in Scotland and in Wales, where all local authorities have a scheme, and, as I have already indicated, in England 98 authorities and two voluntary societies have approved schemes, with a further six local authority schemes going through the approval process. That makes a total of 104 authorities either with schemes or going through the approval process.
Research projects were put in hand to investigate and report on the operation of these schemes—in Scotland by the social administration department of Edinburgh university, and in England and Wales by the National Children's Bureau. The Secretaries of State have published the reports, as they were required to do. Copies are in the Library, and I commend these excellent and valuable reports to hon. Members.
We have naturally been influenced by the reports in deciding to seek the House's agreement to the orders before us, and I shall touch briefly on one or two of the findings. We were, of course, particularly looking to the reports, first, to find out whether allowances had succeeded in their objective of enabling agencies to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise be adopted, however much they might need an adoptive family, and, secondly, to shed light on the concerns which were in the minds of some in the House when the experiment was originally agreed.
There is no doubt about the answer to the first question. The hope was that adoption allowances would benefit two groups of children in particular: children who were happily placed, in long-term placements in foster families, but whose foster parents could not afford to forgo the whole of the boarding-out allowance; and children with special needs involving a level of expenditure beyond the power of adopters to meet—children with mental and physical and emotional handicaps, older children needing help with behavioural difficulties, and groups of brothers and sisters who must remain together as a family. The two groups do, of course, overlap.
We now know from the research reports that in Scotland, up to the end of 1986, more than 500 children were placed with allowances. In England and Wales there were nearly 1,000 such placements by the end of 1986. At this point the researchers from the National Children's Bureau thought that numbers would slow down after
764
clearance of the backlog of cases which were awaiting introduction of schemes. However, this has not proved to be the case. With more schemes in England continuing to come into operation, the arrangements have rather gathered momentum, so that the bureau now estimates that the number of agreed allowances in England and Wales has doubled in the past two years and has now passed the 2,000 mark. This is a trend which we can hope to see continue as more authorities begin to operate and appreciate the advantages of schemes.
In all the countries, the majority of adopters were foster parents. Up to the end of 1986, in Scotland nearly one half, and in England nearly one third, of children were adopted with one or more brothers and sisters. In Scotland, nearly one quarter, and in England and Wales nearly one half, of the children had special needs, in the sense of physical, mental or emotional handicaps or behavioural difficulties. Some were severely handicapped, with multiple handicaps.
The reports demonstrate that people adopting with allowances were people in modest circumstances, with many on low incomes. The allowances themselves were not extravagant. In England the average allowance is about £30 a week. Nor has adoption with allowances become the norm. The majority of adopters are still able to adopt without an allowance. All schemes have criteria for allowances, so that allowances are restricted to circumstances of special need.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Minister says that the majority of people do not have an allowance. Does he have an exact figure?
Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly seek advice on that point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
I believe we can now be satisfied that where children cannot be cared for by their own families, adoption allowances have their place, and a place of proven value, in the range of options open to agencies seeking to provide the happiest, most secure and best future for such children. I must stress that there is no intention to remove children from natural parents where there is economic difficulty or hardship and to subsidise them elsewhere. Children are placed for adoption using non-financial criteria, as I know that many hon. Members who take an interest in this subject realise.
Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of £30 a week as the average adoption allowance. Would he like to compare that with the cost of keeping a child in residential care?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that the average costs of keeping children in residential care are greater, but I find that comparison invidious. We are concerned here with the welfare of children. Although I take the sense of my hon. Friend's question, I would not like to place too great an emphasis on the financial benefits. What really counts is what is best for the children. If the opportunity of adoption with this modest financial inducement means that they can come out of residential care, or if they are with foster parents and that can be made permanent through adoption, that is the main criterion.
I should like to add a final point in relation to the framework within which agencies pay allowances. In Scotland, I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister

765
that adoption allowance schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and have worked smoothly. It is not intended, therefore, that there should be any change in the arrangements for schemes set out in section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act.
In England and Wales, the position is different. The diversity of schemes led to much discussion between the Department and local authorities and at times there have been long intervals between application and approval. Many authorities are now finding, with the benefit of experience, that they wish to make changes in their schemes, and such changes require further approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The number and variety of schemes have provided rich feedback during the experimental period, but we see a need now to look for a less cumbersome and potentially frustrating system which requires less intervention from the central Departments.
Accordingly, we shall introduce as an amendment to the Children Bill, which is now proceeding through another place, a regulation making power so that agencies will be able to determine and pay allowances within the framework of regulations instead of within the framework of an approved scheme. It is our intention that regulations should draw on the experience of schemes and, like schemes, give agencies sufficient flexibility to respond to a diversity of circumstances. Until a regulation-making power is available and regulations made, the order will ensure that schemes continue in operation. I am talking about a prospective amendment so that, in future, the operation of these schemes becomes a little easier to adminster. Those few authorities that are still considering whether to put in a scheme can still do so. I ask the House to approve the orders.
11.52 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for the lucid way in which he introduced the orders. We welcome the orders and the opportunity to discuss them.
The House, local authorities and the various agencies to which the Minister referred will feel that the experiment has been successful. It is right to renew the orders. As the Minister said, the allowance to adopt owes its origins to the Houghton report. Much of the controversy to which the report gave rise has dissolved in the light of experience. There can be no greater tribute or compliment to the Houghton committee's recommendations than the success of these schemes.
Allowances are made when adoption is the right course for the child, when a suitable adoptive family has been found, but there is some financial obstacle. In other words, the idea is to secure suitable adoption for children who would not readily be adopted if allowances could not be made.
The Minister has made it clear that the Government have performed their statutory duty by referring the National Childrens Bureau Lambert-Seglow report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, which enthusiastically endorsed it, and the Hill-Triseliotis report for the Scottish Office, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) would like to refer. They certainly said that the scheme should be retained. As the Minister said, the order was influenced by section 32 of the Children Act 1975. That had a controversial baptism. I understand that in
766
Committee the Chairman had to use his casting vote. I doubt whether the same circumstances would arise were the same proposition put today.
According to the NCB report:
"Children with 'special needs' are being adopted and some who, hitherto, might have spent all their lives in institutional care now experience family life."
That can only be profoundly welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government consider that specific aspect of the orders as being consistent with a strategy for community care. Certainly Sir Roy Griffiths felt that community care embraces the rights of children with learning difficulties and their carers and adopters.
The point has been made that £30 a week in modern times does not offer all that much, given the expenses that parents have, so if the orders are considered as part of a strategy to embrace community care in the widest possible sense, we certainly welcome them.
The Minister mentioned the Children Bill. We are paying a great deal of attention to its progress in another place and we look forward to debating it in the House. The Minister said that an amendment will be tabled. When we debate the Children Bill, obviously we shall give the matter the utmost consideration and consult extremely closely with the voluntary bodies and the individuals mostly concerned with that amendment and with those sections of the Bill.
According to the NCB report, unemployment affected almost one in every five allowance families, and many others were subject to job or wage insecurity. Clearly, in the past, low income has been a stumbling block to adoption and the experiment challenged what amounted to an obstruction in earlier days.
The report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office says on page 94 that provision is "under-used". Is that the case, and in view of the excellence of the reports and the welcome that they have received, what action do the Government intend to take to ensure that the provisions are fully used? The success of the scheme invites that suggestion.
Do payments continue when families move to other areas or to other local authorities? Are the Minister and the Government satisfied with existing arrangements?
I have mentioned, as has the Minister and as will my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the two reports before the House. I should like briefly to refer to the major points that emerge from those reports. The report to the Department of Health and the Welsh Office states:
"Our comparative study of adoptions with and without allowances showed that a significantly higher proportion of `special needs' children were adopted with the assistance of an allowance, especially those with multiple difficulties. Other children, who did not have these specific needs, were school-age or were placed with siblings and they, too, were likely to be costly for the families to look after."
Elsewhere in the same report we read:
"Even though the adoption allowances received by these families were often paid at lower rates than the amounts calculated by NFCA relating to average family expenditure for children, they enabled these families to proceed with adoption. Our interviews with several families in this position indicated the sense of relief and gratitude generated by this additional security, and also pleasure at the recognition of their suitability to parent these children."
That is an impressive comment.
The report to the Scottish Office states:

767
"Let us briefly recap the main characteristics of those granted an adoption allowance. The majority of the children were aged over 5—indeed about half were aged over 10. Those who were younger mostly had some kind of handicap, of which Down's Syndrome was by far the most common. About 4 in 5 of all the children were to be adopted by their foster parents. Many had in fact, lived with the same family for several years, often since infancy."
The same report observed:
"Only a few of the families had above average incomes. The foster parent adopters included higher than usual proportions who were aged over 40, already had children of their own (some already grown up) and were working class. By and large they were stable, caring people who life-style was home-centred."
That is a tremendous tribute to the experiment but, more than that, it is a tremendous tribute to the adopters who have taken on a difficult role which calls for great dedication.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome the orders in a spirit of recognising that there is a need for care, concern and commitment towards those who do so much for children who started out with a considerable disadvantage. However, as a society, we recognise that the adopters are doing their best to assist those with that disadvantage.
12.3 am
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing these welcome measures which take the place of the original measures introduced seven years ago as an experiment following the casting vote of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Children Bill in 1975. It is an experiment that has resulted in great benefit to over 2,000 children. As my hon. Friend said, it is the needs of the children that we must keep in the front of our minds.
The orders provide excellent news for thousands of children currently in care. I am uncertain of the number of children who are eligible for adoption, but I have seen figures suggesting that up to 3,000 severely handicapped children in residential care are eligible for adoption. These measures are a green light for families who have been thinking of adopting but have been uncertain about the arrangements. They can now go ahead with full security.
The old measures run out on St. Valentine's day and I ask the Government to put their heart on their sleeve and introduce such measures throughout the country. I hope that the four authorities that do not yet have schemes in place will introduce them and that the regulations to be introduced in the Children Bill will be sufficiently standardised for the Government to be able to advertise and promote the schemes widely. Next week ITV is running a series of programmes on families for children. I hope that the Government will support that and run advertisements.
The debate is about love. That is not a word we hear much in other debates in the Chamber. Financially, the measures will benefit the Government but it is the love for the children which causes parents to adopt children who, in the majority of cases, they have been fostering for some years. I am a parent who has been through that experience. We fostered our child for three years before we were able to complete all the legal formalities for adoption. I am sure that parents who have been wanting to adopt and who have been hesitating because of lack of certainty about the financial arrangements will welcome all the new measures.
768
There is a history of difficulty with some councils, and I hope that we can overcome any remaining objections there. The excellent book by Catherine Macaskil, published by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, entitled "Against the Odds" summed up some of the difficulties that parents can have when they wish to adopt severely handicapped children. However, I hope and believe that that is becoming a thing of the past. I commend the work done by Bolton council, which has been prominent in helping families in deciding to adopt children from the Elizabeth Ashmore home for severely handicapped children. There have been wonderful examples of children adopted in that way.
Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that parents who adopt children will be thinking not only of their childhood, but of what happens to them when they are older. I believe that the parents of natural children and those of adopted children will be asking what the provisions are for children when they reach the age of 19. I am not sure whether any of the existing adoption schemes allow for payments to continue up to the age of 19 or beyond, but, obviously, that is when parents have the greatest anxieties and when respite care schemes are of the greatest help in keeping children with their families. I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to debate care in the community on another occasion, because that will be an additional factor in helping families to take the benefits from these proposed measures.
I am not sure whether I will have the opportunity of being a Member of the Committee discussing the Children Bill—I would certainly like to be considered if I am not tied up on another Bill—when, no doubt, we shall be able to see more of the proposed regulations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing forward these measures. We look forward to their being implemented. We look forward to seeing St. Valentine's day pass by as the end of the experiment, with, as I have said, the Government wearing their heart on their sleeve in the future.
12.6 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, am happy to support the orders. I have read the relevant sections of the reports that the respective Secretaries of State were required by statute to commission. If I draw a little more on the report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I mean no disrespect to the authors of the report commissioned for England and Wales. I do so merely for the sake of convenience and, at this hour of the night, brevity. One understands, as the Minister has confirmed, that both reports reach broadly similar conclusions.
No discussion of adoption should ever begin without a generous recognition of those who are willing to take into their homes the children of others—children who, by cruel chance, are unable to experience the warmth and care of being brought up in their own families by their natural parents. In my professional life as a practising advocate, I have seen many cases where ordinary people, with no particular pretension to sainthood, with open hearts and much practical common sense, have given a warm and loving home to children who would otherwise have lived in institutions all their lives. Those were ordinary people giving ordinary children ordinary lives, and they would not have had it described in any other way.

769
It is perhaps easy now to understand why the Houghton committee's recommendations were received without universal approval, not only, I suppose, because of the existence of a general principle of law that banned the making of such payments—in Scotland at least—but because an uncritical response to those proposals could lead one to a kind of visceral reaction that such payments were intrinsically repugnant. I believe that the wisdom lay in the legislation allowing for a trial period and even further in the fact that, before the legislation could be reconsidered—as it is, in effect, being reconsidered—there was required to be a report, relying not upon instinct, but upon evidence.
I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily with extensive quotation from the report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it contains a number of passages that repay careful reading. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made certain references to it, but I want to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 3.5 which states:
"What is more satisfying is that many families who start as temporary carers become attached to their respective children and eventually prefer to adopt them rather than see them experiencing continued moves and disruptions in their lives. The allowance is vital to many of these families if they arc to continue providing the children with an accustomed and acceptable standard of living."
Paragraph 3.8 is most revealing as the authors write:
"As an example, the media who tried to sensationalise the introduction of allowances as an opportunity to profit gave a reasoned response following the publication of our first report showing the benefits of allowances to children."
That betokens a substantial sea change in public attitude. Paragraph 4.3 states:
"Some adopters were adding two, three or even more children to their families, which is a major undertaking from any point of view. Some children were enabled by allowances to move out of residential care and join a family on a permanent basis, including some children with extremely limited mental and physical capacities who were leaving hospital to receive individual care and attention."
It is probably impossible for us to calculate the improvement in the quality of the lives of such children who had the good fortune to find themselves treated in that way.
Paragraph 4.6 states:
"Special needs children make the kind of demands which stretch families' coping abilities requiring a range of resources to manage with the need for extra clothes and footwear, holidays, respite care"—
that important element is recognised much more now than it has been for a long time—
"visits to specialist services etc. In this respect the allowance was vital for the maintenance and stability of the placement, which was corroborated by the research."
The report does not contain instinctive reactions, but conclusions based upon observation and evidence. The report gives the most eloquent justification for the decision to set up the experiment, especially as we have been told that certain parts of its progress were furthered only by the casting vote of the Committee Chairman. Tonight we should give thanks for the foresight of the Chairman who was prepared to exercise his casting vote when the media reaction was far from universally favourable.
The orders are plainly necessary to continue and maintain a system that has served well the children—not the House—who are their subject. The essence of the law of adoption, north and south of the border, is that the interests of the child should be paramount.
770
The orders are necessary to ensure that the interests of many children who are either already or may become the subject of adoption will remain paramount and that such children will be given the opportunity that otherwise they might find denied to them. If that happened they would he put in a different position from others and, through no fault of their own, that would necessarily attend their lives. For that reason I and, I have no doubt, the entire House will be happy to support the orders.
12.13 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I give a warm welcome to the orders. It is particularly important that the legislation has not only been successful, but has been seen to be so, and seen to be fair. That is important when one considers the public attitude to the laws passed by this establishment.
On behalf of the Nationalists in the House, I accept and welcome the orders and the philosophy behind them, that the care and love of the child is at the heart of the matter. We cannot buy love and care for the children in our society, but through the orders we can certainly allow love and care to flourish in homes where not too much financial strain is placed on the people who adopt children.
Hon. Members have spoken about children with special needs. I have a social work background and am conscious of the great efforts that have been made by Scottish local authorities to ensure that such children are fostered and adopted. We tend to think of children with physical and mental handicaps, but there is a new area of concern in Scotland and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. I am speaking about the additional problem of youngsters with AIDS, or who are affected by the HIV syndrome. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the legislation could include positive discrimination in favour of families who are prepared to take on what is seen as a major risk to all other children in the family and to neighbours and others? We must address that problem because Scotland is facing an AIDS crisis.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that adoption allowances will net in any way affect the payment of child benefits. Many hon. Members, including the few who have remained to participate in the debate, are worried about the Government's decision to freeze child benefits. We need an assurance that the payment of adoption allowances will not be set against child benefit. It is important for families to know that they will not be penalised as a result of the continuation of the orders.
I have already had correspondence with the Minister on my final matter, which is about the definition of adoptive and natural parents. I had a case in my constituency of a natural mother, a widow, who remarried. Her new husband decided to adopt the children of her previous marriage but in the process of registration the natural mother was recorded as being the adoptive mother. She had great difficulty in ensuring that she continued to be recognised as the natural parent of her children. The: original birth certificates were withheld from her, although photocopies can be made available.
In the process of adoption, I should like to see a recognition of the natural parent. I hope that the Minister will look at that. Perhaps it is not directly relevant to the orders, but in our society divorce is a regular occurrence and it is necessary to define natural and adoptive parents.

771
Would the natural mother that I have mentioned be eligible for an adoption allowance or would that be denied to her because she is the natural parent?
12.18 am
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have noticed our co-operation in merging the two orders. I hope that no hon. Member takes that as a weakening of our commitment to devolution. Judging from the speeches in the debate, one would think that Scottish Members had taken over. We have had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), from my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and the Minister, who is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is to reply. We are grateful for, and much appreciative of, the contribution made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who speaks with such experience and feeling on this matter.
As every hon. Member has said, we welcome these orders. The scheme has worked smoothly, particularly in Scotland. It was started as an experiment, for good and sound reasons. There were fears that paying for adoption would lead to problems, but those fears have proved to be without foundation. I pay tribute to the Chairman whose casting vote ensured that the Committee recommended this scheme. It has worked well, and has been to the benefit of children, which is what it is all about.
I have certain questions for the Minister, which I make not in a carping, but in an open and constructive manner because this matter should not divide the House. These questions will relate to Scotland, where my responsibility lies, but will, I trust, be relevant to the rest of the United Kingdom. Can we introduce a single national scheme? As the Minister knows, there are variations within Scotland, and a national scheme would be more simple, and would avoid competition. Some children would qualify for an adoption allowance in one area, but not in another. Will the Minister examine this point in detail?
Another problem with the variations is that the allowance is different in different areas. In Grampian, the value of the allowance is twice the value of that in Dumfries and Galloway, which is an anomaly that we should at least be examining, to avoid what can be construed as competition, and to make the whole scheme more simple.
Will the Minister also look at the criteria for inclusion in the scheme? As we know, there are many reasons for inclusion—mostly physical and mental handicap. One that is not included, although it can be on top of a physical and mental handicap, is simple emotional and behavioural difficulties. Some children have these alone, and it is doubtful whether they are included in the scheme. These children can be quite difficult to manage and to foster. Will the Minister consider widening the scheme to include these children, and will he also consider the actual, rather than the potential, difficulty in placing? The two do not necessarily go together.
Will the Minister also look at the matter of lump sum payments, referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East? These are an important part of respite
772
care, as they are an important part of any care, but they cost money, so it is important that lump sums are available. I understand the argument against such payments, but in respite care or when initial finance is needed to set up an adoption, they are particularly important. Other areas such as tuition are also important, and I reiterate the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member.
Will the Minister abolish the limit on the number of allowances? I understand why that was instituted—so that there would not be too many allowances. They were curtailed, not because of finance but to ensure that the scheme was not abused. With one exception, the limit of allowances has not been reached, so it would be appropriate to abolish them.
It would be helpful also if the Minister were to clarify the way in which different regions take into account the mobility and attendance allowances when considering the value of the adoption allowance. That could be done by the issuing of guidelines. A national scheme would avoid discrepancies between the various adopting authorities.
I trust that the Minister will accept that the issues which I have raised are constructive. The Opposition are seeking to improve the scheme, and we have no wish to be carping. We welcome unreservedly the orders that the Government have placed before us and we shall give them our wholehearted support.
12.25 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): This has been a useful debate and I welcome the support from both sides of the House that has been forthcoming this evening. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was especially interesting. His direct personal knowledge and experience was valuable. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Bearsden and Strathkelvin (Mr. Galbraith) gave such a positive welcome to the purpose that lies behind the orders.
The hon. Member for Moray asked which four authorities in England were without schemes. The answer is Staffordshire county council, Barking and Dagenham, Southwark and the City of London. I understand that the first three authorities are considering submitting a scheme. The City of London has an agreement with Westminster for the provision of child care and adoption services where needed.
The hon. Member for Bearsden and Strathkelvin was interested to know about take-up. Between 1983 and 1986 in England and Wales, about 6 per cent. of children adopted, excluding those adopted by step-parents who were not eligible for the adoption allowance, were adopted with an allowance. The signs are that the percentage has risen over the past two years. In Scotland, less than 25 per cent. of all adoptions by non-relatives that took place during 1983–87 attracted adoption allowances. That is covered by paragraph 3.1 of the report.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked about the Griffiths report. I can do little more than repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 24 January. He said:

773
"The Government are…engaged…in working up our own proposals for the future of community care."
The Government are mindful of concern that we should reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
"I hope to be in a position to bring forward our plans in the near future."—[Official Report, 24 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 527.]
I note what my right hon. and learned Friend said about consistency.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked whether allowances continue to be paid if adopters move out of the local authority's area. I am glad to say that all schemes provide for allowances to continue to be paid if the family moves elsewhere within the United Kingdom. Many authorities include provision for allowances to be paid if the family temporarily moves overseas.
I have been asked whether the provision is under-used. As the hon. Member for Monklands, West will appreciate, page 103 of the report, which deals with adoption allowances in England and Wales and updates the 1986 report, makes it clear that adoption allowances are now well used.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East showed the House his extensive legal knowledge. He is correct in suggesting that, as a theme, it is important that the interests of the child should be paramount. I believe that the Scots courts have adopted that principle for many years. I agreed with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman said and—[interruption.] Perhaps I should not have said that. I must be careful in my further comments.
The hon. Member for Moray raised the question of the rights of an adoptive mother. If the hon. Lady raises the circumstances of the case to which she referred, I shall ensure that she receives a full reply.
The hon. Member for Bearsden and Strathkelvin talked about a national scheme. This is a simple, straightforward proposal, but it suffers from the fatal flaw of inflexibility. We believe that local authorities should be left to assess the needs and circumstances of individual children.
Uniform amounts of payments cannot be laid down because of the diversity of circumstances of the children and families concerned. The system of approval of schemes was intended to ensure consistency in basic principles while allowing for variations in the experimental period. In England and Wales regulations will draw on experience—
Mr. George Howarth: What does that mean?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question, I will happily give way to him.
In England and Wales regulations will draw on experience of schemes and research to provide a universal framework with scope for flexibility in response to the differing needs of children and families. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will study the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West and, if necessary, will write to him.
Hon. Members have not raised any fundamental objections to the orders. It is particularly appropriate that the hon. Member for Monklands, West participated in the debate in view of his long-standing interest in the disabled and the Bill that he piloted through the House. For my part, I was pleased to see the passage of the Law Reform
774
(Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986, removing the stigma of illegitimacy, which has now been removed throughout Britain.
The basic principle in the order is that adoption allowance schemes should facilitate adoption of children who would not otherwise be readily adopted. Such children include those with mental and physical handicap and emotional and behavioural difficulties. Permanent placement for such children is difficult and problems may be compounded by the age of the children concerned who may have passed the young age that usually appeals to most adopters.
Adopters must be assessed for their ability to cope with special demands. In those circumstances, the availability—
Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister mentioned local authorities, can he tell us whether the Government have consulted the local authority associations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities? If he cannot tell us now, perhaps he could write to me.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check that. I am certain that the views of the local authorities have been made known to the Government. I will have to check up on the dates. I am constantly in touch with COSLA and I addressed a conference on Friday about the Widdecombe report. That meeting was chaired by the president of COSLA. I will have to check on the exact time scale and the number of representations and advise the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
Despite the full range of central benefits and local services, family breakdowns occur and local authorities have a duty to secure the welfare of children involved through the implementation of relevant care programmes. Adoption and allowance schemes, by complementing those programmes, serve as a small but enabling measure to assist children with special needs where adoption is in their best interests.
The hon. Member for Moray asked about young persons infected by HIV. Local authorities already counsel foster parents who care for HIV sufferers. They might well regard such children, if they are adopted, as children with special needs. I would expect that that would would be the case. The order would help children in the special needs category.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East suggested that children in the special needs category require a range of resources including extra clothes and footwear, holidays, respite care and visits to special services. Our position tonight is strengthened by research which corroborates the view that adoption allowances are necessary in some cases, even in situations where the family was initially hesitant about accepting an allowance. There is clear evidence from the research of families who came to appreciate the continued extra financial demands which children were making on them and were glad that the allowances were awarded, despite their initial hesitation.
As to the cost to local authorities, the current adoption allowance rates, which are in line with rates recommended by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, range from £25 to £46 per week, depending on the child's age. Child benefit is available to persons who adopt children, so those who may be eligible for adoption allowances will

775
generally receive allowances lower than boarding out allowances—whose recipients are not eligible for child benefit. In other words, child benefit is available to adopters but not to foster parents. However, foster parents are eligible for the boarding out allowance, which is not available to those who adopt on a permanent basis.
It is true that child benefit is taken into account, except where a family is in receipt of income support since in those cases the child benefit element is deducted at source by the Department of Social Security. In other words, families receiving income support will not sustain a double deduction—which I believe is the point that particularly concerned the hon. Member for Moray.
At present, more than 100 adoption allowance schemes operate in England and Wales. Individual approvals for such numbers create understandable processing problems for the Department of Health. A regulation-making power is therefore to be introduced for England and Wales, as an amendment to the Children Bill now before Parliament, to produce a less cumbersome system. In future, agencies will be able to operate schemes within specific regulations, rather than as a result of individual approvals. However, the scale of operation in Scotland is considerably smaller, with only 12 schemes, and allows for individual approval by the Secretary of State without regulations. Twelve local authority schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and are working smoothly. It is not intended to make any change to the schemes as set out in section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. In those circumstances, I strongly recommend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Funeral Costs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
12.37 am
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I have no doubt that the Minister will have read early-day motion 258, supported by 61 right hon. and hon. Members, asking for a specific and detailed inquiry by a Select Committee into the A to Z framework of the funeral industry. That motion quotes official figures from the Office of Fair Trading in the last three weeks showing that 75 per cent. of funeral directors ignore the very code of practice agreed between Government, this House and the industry's associations in respect of advising arrangers of funerals of their rights—particularly in respect of estimates.
This is a delicate and sensitive subject, and one that is regarded as being taboo. No one likes talking about funerals in terms of being a commercial proposition, but I shall do so this evening. Neither does anyone like talking about something that should usually be addressed in sympathetic and diplomatic terms. One is talking about distress, bereavement and other matters of delicacy.
It can be readily understood that the subject of death is largely taboo, and that the ordinary funeral arranger has traditional methods of dealing with the local funeral director. These are established family firms, with which—generation after generation—bereaved families have dealt. But certain problems have now arisen.
I use the word "arrangers" to describe those who "negotiate", as it were, on the type of funeral desired by the bereaved. The "industry" is now turning over £2,500 million a year in funeral costs and roughly £1,000 million a year in ancillary costs—flowers, obituary notices and so forth. It is big business, by any stretch of the imagination. And, as the OFT report points out, a monopoly is being created. Local firms are constantly being taken over by larger companies, while still operating as the same local family firms in the community. Ordinary people believe that they are still dealing with the same undertaker, well established for many years and with a local system, character and tradition.
According to the OFT report, funeral charges have escalated in the past 12 years at a rate of some 28 per cent. above that of inflation. Some 18 months ago I received a complaint from a constituent whose father had died. The funeral was arranged and the bill paid. Within three and half weeks the mother also died and exactly the same arrangements were made, but the bill differed from the first by £106.
When the funeral arranger and I asked the reason for such a discrepancy in a period of three and a half weeks, we were told that the firm had been subjected to a takeover bid: a larger company had bought it out, leading to an increase in overheads generally and an increase in what could be described—;unfortunately—as "profit margins".
I then conducted an inside investigation—a modern technique. I spent some time with a couple of coffin manufacturers. I visited their factories and saw the investment that they had made in modern machinery. I examined their labour costs, which they willingly showed me, and also the supply costs to the directors and the various organisations that were now part of the monopoly.
I was astonished to find that the cost of a simple coffin—including all the trade names—to be used in

777
crematoriums showed, when prices were compared, that the profit margin varied by between 500 and 1,500 per cent. That is bringing the profession into disrepute. The selfish profit margin has been increased to a degree that most people, deplore.
According to the report, prices for a coffin vary from £19·50 to £27, depending on the type and grade of coffin. The OFT report did not probe profit margins. It said that that was not its remit. It referred to 2,500 firms of funeral directors in the United Kingdom trading through nearly 4,000 outlets. There have been about 650,000 funerals each year during the last decade.
The report pointed out that the average cost of a funeral was £586. That figure enables us to work out the industry's approximate turnover. That turnover leads to considerable doubt about whether the industry is obtaining a reasonable profit margin. However, many independent funeral directors run their businesses with the dignity and respect that ought to accompany funeral services. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the big businesses that are creating monopolies. I intend to refer fairly and rationally to a few of them and to draw some comparisons.
The report refers to the code of practice that has been adopted by the National Association of Funeral Directors. It points out that 75 per cent. of funeral directors do not honour their code of practice. It says that if they cannot get their act together within the next six months, the Government ought to consider legislation to bring some discipline into the industry.
The report stated:
"Under the code funeral directors should 'provide clients with full and fair information about their services…The funeral director must explain to his client the types of funeral he has on offer, and their cost, and relate these to the wishes and needs of the client"'.
Clients are understandably confused and distressed at such times. People usually accept what they are offered under such circumstances without questioning. But the association is not imposing and implementing the code.
The report describes how certain enterprises obtain monopoly control. Some firms still operate under their traditional local names. I am a member of the racing of bloodstock all-party committee. We know that four major firms control about 86 per cent. of dog and horse-race betting, but at least when those firms bought out the thousands of local bookies they had the common decency to use their own trade names. Hundreds of independent local funeral directors are being systematically taken over, but their new trade names are not shown. People still honestly believe that they are dealing with local established family firms of undertakers—but that is a myth. Deception and trickery are being practised. The sooner we open the doors of this highly secretive industry, the better.
The report says that estimates should be itemised before a funeral takes place so that the arranger can choose the type of funeral he wants according to what he can afford. That is not being done; 75 per cent. of firms do not do it. A constituent of mine asked twice for a estimate for a funeral that took place on 19 January 1989. I quote:
"Professional …charges …£350 …
Supplying Worcester Coffin …£158".
Disbursements are then listed. Funeral directors have no control over these, admittedly.
The bill was for a simple, dignified funeral. I shall list its basic elements, as agreed under the code of practice. My
778
constituents had asked twice for estimates, but none had been forthcoming. So she decided to ask other firms and chose one of them—Monks—because of the shortage of time. The total cost was £791. I remind the House that the average cost for the whole country, according to the Office of Fair Trading, is £586. This was a simple dignified funeral—what we call a basic service and what the association calls a basic service.
I want to explain what happened. Because estimates were not forthcoming, quite understandably the woman had to accept that the sooner the funeral could take place the better. Later this lady received from a competitor firm an estimate for exactly the same amount.
The Bolton Metropolitan borough council—described as a very forward-looking, progressive authority, prudent with its finances and its ratepayers' interests—along with the Wigan Metropolitan borough council, is offering an exactly similar low-cost dignified funeral service: the embalming, the dressing, the plate, the funeral undertaker's chapel of rest, conveyance, arrangements for the crematorium or cemetery, hearse, following limousine, basic funeral staff, floral tributes if required, oak-veneer coffin, engraved plate and handles, fees for doctors arid clergy, any particular religious request, and transport of the deceased to the church or chapel. The cost is £366. That woman would obviously have accepted that estimate, but she did not have the opportunity because what the code of practice of the National Association of Funeral Directors says was not delivered. In my view, that is contemptible.
I am not saying that the majority of funeral directors behave in that way, but I do say to the Minister that if undertakings given by the national association are not honoured this House is duty-bound to examine what is going on and, if necessary, to legislate. Even the report of the Office of Fair Trading says that if something is not done within six months to ensure satisfactory performance, in terms of open advertising of cost and code of conduct, some action will have to be taken. There is increasing public anger about escalating funeral costs and about the veil of secrecy in the industry, and unless something is done public reaction and mistrust will become greater and greater.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively. His civil servants put a query to me this evening, and I had the common courtesy to tell them that the report of the Office of Fair Trading would be the main basis of my remarks. I exhort the Minister to consider what has been said and to examine the industry, about the framework of which I have talked, and the high degree of secrecy—in particular Hodgson Holdings raising from one-twelfth to 6 per cent. its share of the total market. In the case of the funeral service I mentioned, the lady could have saved about £500. We really should be asking whether a monopoly is developing in the industry. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what I have said and will recommend to the Secretary of State that action be taken.
12.59 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on bringing this important subject to the House's attention. I hope that, in the eight or so minutes left to me, I shall cover as many of the points that he raised as possible.

779
The hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated on the recent report by the Office of Fair Trading, which reviewed the operation of the National Association of Funeral Directors' code of practice, which has prompted a great deal of interest and, as the hon. Gentleman said so eloquently, some concern. We are all conscious that a funeral is not like any normal transaction. The House does not need to be reminded of that.
I would like to remind the House of the context of the OFT report. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to encourage associations to adopt codes of practice providing a standard which promotes and safeguards the interests of consumers. There are currently 26 such codes endorsed by the director general and they form a valuable part of the consumer protection framework. The Government are convinced that effective self-regulation is better than regulation.
The director general's involvement does not end with the satisfactory launching of a new code. In practice, he keeps an eye on its working and his mailbag and the various statistics he collects are often a good sign of whether problems are continuing. Periodically, he will do a formal monitoring exercise. The recent report on funerals is just one of these.
A sample survey was undertaken of recent users of funeral services by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the OFT. The questions asked in the survey were linked to the key requirements of the code of practice and therefore covered the quality of service, the price charged, and the quality and detail of information provided. The results form the basis of the director general's recommendations for improvement in the working of the code.
The conclusion of the survey, done in 1987—that the average funeral director's bill was £586 and that this represented an increase of 28 per cent. above the rate of inflation since 1975—has attracted much attention. The hon. Gentleman dwelt on aspects of that. The comparison is with another sample survey done by the OPCS in 1975 for the Department of Health and Social Security. The OFT report is careful to point out important factors qualifying the figure which it uses.
For example, the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included in his bill, funeral directors' own costs such as staff and equipment may have risen above the costs of inflation and the two OPCS surveys are not directly comparable. Indeed, I do not read the OFT report as necessarily suggesting that funeral directors are overcharging, but it highlights the fact that the cost of a funeral is substantial, and that the bereaved sometimes find the final sum larger than they had anticipated. The hon. Gentleman gave examples of that. Those involved need more information at the right time and in a suitable form.
It is important to note what the report does not cover. The director general did not carry out a survey of funeral directors, and collected no information about their costs and margins. As I have already mentioned, the cost of a number of the elements which are part of a funeral service, such as local cemetery charges, the attendance of a minister, flowers, and notices in the press, are outside the funeral director's control. Disbursements to third parties
780
normally account for about 30 per cent. of total costs. The arranging of a funeral is a very labour-intensive service, and this also has a significant impact on costs.
The fact that during the past few years a number of small independent funeral director firms have been taken over—the hon. Gentleman stressed that development—is perhaps an indication that profit margins in some parts of the industry are low.
The hon. Member for Leigh expressed concern at the increasing concentration of the market, particularly in local areas, but the report tells us that the Co-op is the largest supplier of funeral services, with some 25 per cent. of the market. Hodgson Holdings has 6 per cent., Kenyon Securities has 4 per cent. and the Great Southern Group has 4 per cent. I do not think that those figures show excessive monopoly, although it is a trend which must be watched closely by the appropriate bodies and my Department. It is going too far to say that the market is in any way overwhelmed or dominated by that small number of companies. I am confident that the Director General of Fair Trading will remain alert to what is happening in the market and be ready to take action if and when the need arises. He has discretionary powers to refer abuses of monopoly and anti-competitive practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Indeed, the commission investigated the acquisition by the Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. of the Scottish funeral businesses of House of Fraser plc in 1987. It concluded that the acquisition would result in choice for the consumer being severely limited in certain areas in Scotland and the Co-operative Wholesale Society was required to dispose of certain companies it had acquired from House of Fraser. That shows that the mechanism is in place to deal with such developments as and when they arise.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Minister please respond to my hon. Friend's request for some action to be taken on the cost of coffins, which range from £19·50 to £27 but are sold for £150 or more?
Mr. Forth: The report has been produced and the OFT is examining carefully what is happening. It has already been in touch with the National Association of Funeral Directors and a meeting has been arranged for 22 February. That demonstrates the degree of urgency. There is no doubt that, as the association's national public relations officer said in a recent interview on Radio 4, the National Association of Funeral Directors is
"very disappointed about some of the aspects that have come out of the report".
It is clear that the association is taking the matter very seriously. The OFT is following it up with the association and I am confident, indeed optimistic, that the association now has every reason to address the problems that were dealt with in the report and the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it does not do so within the time scale mentioned in the report and by the hon. Gentleman, in six months' time further action can and may be taken by the OFT. My Department certainly will be watching developments very closely indeed.
In conclusion, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such important matters and for drawing to the attention of the House the report, which I believe is very useful. I undertake that we shall watch very carefully the

781
OFT's discussions with the NAFD in the hope that they will lead to a very real improvement in the position that he has described.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycled Materials
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking to promote the use of recycled materials.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is pursuing an awareness campaign to encourage industry to consider the benefits of using recycled materials in its production processes. We are holding a series of sector conferences in this field and technical advice for industry is provided through our Warren Spring laboratory. Where appropriate further initiatives will be introduced.

  Telecom Advisory Committees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the membership of telecom advisory committees is decided.

  Mr. Forth
  The chairman and members of the four national advisory committees for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are appointed by the Secretary of State and those of the two specialist committees for the elderly and disabled and for small businesses by the Director General of Telecommunications. In appointing members to the committees the Secretary of State and director general aim to have a balanced membership representing the interests of all telecommunications users and of the special needs of small businesses and the disabled and elderly people.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the role of telecom advisory committees.

  Mr. Forth
  The common duty of all the advisory committees is to advise the Director General of Telecommunications on telecommunication matters affecting the interests of people which the committee was established to represent. Matters may either be referred to the committee by the director general or the committee may decide to offer advice on its own initiative. The national committees for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, also have a specific role in handling consumer complaints where the consumer has been unable to resolve the matter directly with the industry.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many telecom advisory committees have been established.

  Mr. Forth
  There are six advisory committees on telecommunications in total. These are made up of four national committees—one for each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and two specialist committees, one to represent the needs of small businesses and one for the disabled and elderly people.
  458
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will name the chairpersons of telecom advisory committees and provide a contact address for each.

  Mr. Forth
  The chairmen and contact address of the advisory committees are as follows:

  Committee

  Address

  English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. H. R. Hutton, Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1N 2HQ

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. T. D. Lynch, Caradog House, St. Andrews Place, Cardiff CF1 3BE

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. W. K. Begg, Alhambra House, 45 Waterloo Street, Glasgow G2 6AT

  Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. J. J. Eccles, 3rd Floor, Chamber of Commerce House, 22 Great Victoria Street, Belfast BT2 7PU

  The Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Disabled and Elderly People (DIEL)

  Mr. D. Hobman, Atlantic House Holborn Viaduct London EC1N 2HQ

  The Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Businesses

  Mr. M. Ashton, Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC 2HQ

  GATT Talks
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the result of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks in Montreal.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 12 December at column 400.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, for each company or part of company in the aerospace, ship building and motor vehicle businesses privatised since 1979(a) the annual turnover in the year prior to privatisation, (b) the value of assets in the year prior to privatisation, (c) the number of employers in the year prior to privatisation, (d) the approximate total of Government financial assistance in the five years prior to privatisation, and (e) a breakdown of the public expenditure costs in terms of capital reconstruction, elimination of debt or guarantees, redundancy and other restructuring, any other items and total receipts stating the year in which they arose.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library.

  Ford Sierra (Manufacture)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he estimates would be the effect on Britain's balance of trade and hence on the balance of payments, of a transfer of the manufacture of the Ford Sierra car from Britain to another country.
  459
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Such an estimate would depend on a large number of variables, including projected consumer demand, the incidence of import substitution, dealer incentive programmes and others. I do not think, therefore, that it would be of tangible value.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Arts Education Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will allocate funds to offset the loss of local education authority funding to theatre-in-education and other arts education services under sections 33 to 36 of the Education Reform Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Circular 7/88, issued on 6 September, a copy of which is available in the Library, makes clear that local education authorities will be free to except from delegation the school-related costs of services such as arts education under schemes of local management. Where authorities exercise this discretion, they will continue to fund arts education services directly. Where authorities choose to delegate the costs to schools, the schools themselves will decide whether they wish to continue to support the services.

  Heriot Watt
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what Government assistance is being given to establish the private medical laboratory on the Heriot Watt campus at Riccarton in Edinburgh; and which companies are being considered to manage it.

  Mr. Jackson
  I know of no such proposal.

  University Staff
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has recieved from the Association of University Teachers regarding pay increases; and what action he intends to take.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend exchanged correspondence with the Association of University Teachers in August last year, and there has been informal contact since. My right hon. Friend is considering a letter from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers about the pay of academic staff and technicians in the universities.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to alter present Treasury practice which prevents selected university staff in part-time employment who have in the course of the last three years taken a privately funded early retirement scheme from qualifying for reimbursement and redundancy costs if the period of part-time employment exceeds three or four years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Public funds are provided to meet universities' expenditure on premature retirement compensation where staff retire fully, but the Government do not consider this appropriate where the change is simply from full-time to part-time employment. The rules of the scheme operated by the University Grants Committee have now been appropriately clarified. Contrary to some institutions' fears, this clarification does not have retrospective effect.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what are the average annual earnings of(a) primary and (b) secondary state school teachers in each of the European Community countries, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United States of America and the United Kingdom in their (i) first, (ii) fifth, (iii) tenth and (iv) fifteenth working year for 1987 and 1988;

  (2) what are the comparable average weekly working hours of (a) primary and (b) secondary state school teachers in the European Community countries, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United States of America and the United Kingdom in 1987 and 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Comparable information is not available for 1987 and 1988. Some information on EC teachers' salaries and conditions in 1985 is published in a detailed report, "The Conditions of Service of Teachers in the European Community", published by the European Commission in 1988 (pages 133 to 160 in particular). A copy is available in the Library.

  Computers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make available copies of the report produced by the National Council for Education Technology on the compatibility of computer hardware and software for local education authorities.

  Mr. Butcher
  This report was commissioned by the Department to inform the guidance given to local education authorities on microcomputers for educational use in schools. Consideration is being given to how the information contained in the report can be conveyed most effectively to LEAs.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report full details of the educational support grants he made to Lancashire county council in 1987 and 1988 for the purchase of micro computers; and if he will show which of these was capable of running MS-DOS software.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend approved education support grant expenditure by Lancashire LEA on the purchase of microcomputers in 1987–88 and 1988–89 as follows:

  Activity

  1987–88£ thousands

  1988–89 £ thousands

  IT in NAFE

  63·5

  —

  Micro equipment for FE students with special educational needs

  14·0

  —

  IT in schools

  —

  267·4

  It is for authorities to decide, in consultation with Her Majesty's Inspectorate as appropriate, what machines and software are best suited to their needs. DES guidance to LEAs is that new computers purchased under the IT in Schools programme should offer access to MS-DOS, but this is not mandatory.

  Halls of Residence
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether rates paid in respect of
  461
  university halls of residence will be reimbursed by the Universities Funding Council, including business rates for university halls of residence, for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Universities Funding Council has yet to decide its approach to this and other funding issues for 1990–91 and subsequently.

  AS Courses
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the best information known to him on the availability of AS-level courses in schools and colleges, including the information relating to the variety of courses on offer, and the proportion of A-level students who are also able to follow a course at AS level.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The results of a survey of school pupils and FE college students studying AS-level courses in England from September 1987 and of the courses studied, were published in the Department's statistical bulletin 12/88 last October, a copy of which is available in the Library. 'This shows that about 4 per cent. of first year A-level students in schools were studying AS levels and that about 15 per cent. of schools were offering these courses. It also provides information on the courses on offer. First indications from a similar survey for September

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  West Glamorgan institute of higher education

  —

  —

  19

  36

  44

  London university institute of education

  13

  15

  13

  11

  11

  Exeter university

  12

  10

  19

  20

  18

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many(a) pupils in secondary schools, (b) students in colleges of further education, (c) students in polytechnics and (d) students in universities take media studies courses;

  (2) how many (a) secondary schools, (b) colleges of further education, (c) polytechnics and (d) universities offer media studies as part of their curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Readily available information is as follows:

  Number of pupils/students

  Number4

  Secondary schools

  na

  na

  Colleges of further education1

  2,280

  53

  Polytechnics1

  279

  5

  Universities:

  Undergraduates

  22124

  334

  Postgraduates

  2708

  na

  na = not available.

  1 England, November 1987. Covers both higher education and further education level courses.

  2 Great Britain, 1987–88. Has wider subject coverage than colleges of further education and polytechnic figures.

  3 United Kingdom institutions offering first degree courses for October 1989 entry.

  4 Institutions with pupils/students on relevant courses.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the teacher training colleges which offer media studies courses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In England and Wales the West Glamorgan institute of higher education and London
  462
  1988 are that nearly three times as many students and schools are starting and offering AS-level courses. l hope to announce the results of the latest survey shortly.

  Community Charge (Scottish Universities)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the University Grants Committee-Universities Funding Council will reimburse Scottish universities in 1989–90 for the standard community charge on vacant flats registered with the accommodation service of universities, as against halls of residence.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Universities Funding Council will reimburse the standard community charge in 1989–90 in respect of vacant property owned by Scottish universities for the purpose of students.

  Media Studies
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many trainee teachers have taken media studies courses in each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table gives details, for the past five years, of the number of students recruited to courses of initial teacher training which include media studies.

  university institute of higher education offer initial teacher training courses with main subject specialisms entitled, respectively, "literature and media studies", and "English and media studies". Exeter university offers "media studies" as a second subject specialism.

  Under-Fives
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the annual expenditure by central and local government on education for the under-fives for each year from 1971 to 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table below shows annual recurrent spending by local authorities on under-fives since 1976–77. These figures include expenditure supported by grants from central Government which cannot be separately identified. Figures on a comparable basis before 1976–77 are not available.

  Recurrent local authority spending on under fives

  Spending £ million cash

  Index from 1976–77

  1976–77

  127

  100·0

  1977–78

  128

  100·8

  1978–79

  146

  115·0

  1979–80

  177

  139·4

  1980–81

  222

  174·8

  1981–82

  241

  189·8

  1982–83

  274

  215·7

  1983–84

  296

  233·1

  1984–85

  331

  260·6

  1985–86

  350

  275·6

  1986–87

  397

  312·6

  463

  Spending £ million cash

  Index from 1976–77

  1987–881

  443

  348·8

  1988–891

  495

  389·8

  1 Provisional outturn figures.

  Institute of Terrestial Ecology
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time scientific, administrative and other staff were employed at the Institute of Terrestial Ecology research station at Bangor and at the research vessel support service at Barry in each of the years 1979 to 1988; and what figures are projected for 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information on staffing is as follows:

  ITE Bangor—staff

  Science

  Administration

  Part-time

  1979

  32

  12

  (1)

  1980

  33

  10

  (1)

  1981

  32

  11

  (2)

  1982

  31

  11

  (2)

  1983

  33

  10

  (2)

  1984

  33

  10

  (2)

  1985

  33

  9

  (2)

  1986

  34

  9

  (2)

  1987

  27

  9

  (1)

  1988

  27

  7

  (1)

  1989

  1 21

  5

  (1)

  1 Five staff transferred to ITE Monks Wood

  RVS Barry—staff

  Science

  Administration

  Ships crew

  Other

  Total

  1981

  32

  17·0

  128

  29·0

  206·0

  1982

  32

  17·0

  132

  29·0

  210·0

  1983

  34

  16·0

  116

  30·5

  196·5

  1984

  32

  15·5

  127

  31·5

  206·0

  1985

  30

  14·5

  98

  28·0

  170·5

  1986

  34

  1·0

  104

  26·0

  165·0

  1987

  31

  4·0

  106

  29·0

  170·0

  1988

  29

  3·0

  106

  27·0

  165·0

  1 1989

  1No significant change expected.

  A breakdown of full- and part-time staff, and separate figures for Barry before 1981, are not available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what budget his Department has allocated(a) in cash terms and (b) adjusted to today's prices to the Institute of Terrestial Ecology research station at Bangor for each of the years 1979 to 1988; and what figure is projected for 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information in the form requested is not immediately available and I shall write o to the hon. Member.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what factors he has taken into account in considering the budget to the Natural Environment Research Council for 1989; and what indications he has given to that council of the purpose of any budget increase.

  Mr. Jackson
  In considering the level of grant-in-aid to the Natural Environment Research Council in 1989, my 464
  right hon. Friend will take account of advice from the council, the Advisory Board for Research Councils, and other representations that he has received. A detailed announcement will be made shortly.

  Discovery (Refit)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he estimates to be the cost of a major refit for the Natural Environment Research Council vessel Discovery at today's prices; what allowance he has made for funding such a refit in whole or in part in the coming financial year; and when he anticipates that refit may commence.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total cost of a major refit for the RRS Discovery was estimated by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in their advice published in July 1988 as about £10 million at current prices. Details of the grant-in-aid to the Natural Environment Research Council for the period 1989–90 to 1991–92 will be announced shortly. It will be for the NERC to determine its priorities, both in 1989 and later years, in the light of the available resources.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the stated increase in the Natural Environment Research Council's budget for 1989 has been allocated to the Antarctic survey based in the Falklands.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 8 November (Official Report, columns 134–5) an additional ·10 million allocation to the British Antarctic survey in 1989–90 for a new BAS airstrip and rebuilding the Halley station. Details of the overall grant-in-aid to the Natural Environment Research Council will be announced shortly.

  Environmental Research Vessels
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what facilities currently exist at Southampton for the support of environmental research vessels; and how many staff are employed there.

  Mr. Jackson
  Southampton has a deep-water port that is well suited to environment research vessels. I understand that support facilities and staff for their proposed oceanographic centre would be organised by the Natural Environment Research Council.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Motions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days each of the motions tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) entitled(a) Procedure, (b) Sittings of the House and (c) Members' Facilities has appeared in the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions during the parliamentary Sessions (i) 1987–88 and (ii) 1988–89.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:
  465

  Session 1987–88

  Number

  (a) Procedure

  69

  (b) Sittings

  69

  Session 1988–89

  Number

  (a) Procedure

  33

  (b) Sittings

  33

  (c) Facilities

  25

  UP to and including 3 February 1989.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current daily cost of printing on the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions the motions in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) entitled(a) Procedure, (b) Sittings of the House and (c) Members' Facilities.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office estimates that the current daily printing cost of the three motions totals £145.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times since 1959 each signatory to the European convention on human rights has been found to be in violation of the convention by(a) the European Court of Human Rights and (b) the Committee of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member.

  Soviet Union (Visits)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on holding briefings for hon. Members planning to visit the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Eggar
  We actively encourage hon. Members to contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before and after their overseas visits. We welcome the opportunity to offer written and oral briefing when hon. Members would find this useful.

  Caribbean Territories
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent study by Coopers and Lybrand of the development of the offshore financial sectors in the Turks and Caicos Islands, there is any intention to extend this scrutiny to other dependent territories in the Caribbean.

  Mr. Eggar
  After consultation with the dependent territory Governments concerned, Coopers and Lybrand, acting as financial consultants to Her Majesty's Government, have been appointed to carry out a review covering the regulation of the offshore financial sectors in Anguilla, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The terms of reference for this consultancy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of assaults on prison officers in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available. The table shows the number of offences of gross personal violence to a prison officer, or of assault on a prison officer, or of attempts to commit such offences, of which inmates were found guilty on adjudication in each of the years 1985–87. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Gross personal violence

  17

  12

  10

  Attempt to commit gross personal violence

  125

  37

  17

  Assault

  1,216

  1,221

  1,149

  Attempted assault

  117

  158

  151

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were used in experiments either for medicine or cosmetics in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available information is published in "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1987" (Cm. 515). Information for medicine for 1985 to 1987 is given in table 20 and for cosmetics for 1987 in table 3. Information on experiments for cosmetics for earlier years is contained in table 15 of "Statistics of Experiments on Living Animals Great Britain 1986" (Cm. 187). Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in finalising his plans for broadcasting in the 1990s, he will make it his policy to take full account of the resolution of the Scottish Association for the Deaf, of which he will have a copy.

  Mr. Renton
  Careful account will be taken of all the comments we receive on the broadcasting White Paper (Cm. 517) including all representations made on behalf of those with impaired hearing.

  Probation Committees
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many area probation committees employ a public relations consultant; and what is the cost of providing this service.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish details of the number of port refusals made at each of the major ports of entry, by week for the months of October, November and December 1988 and the first three weeks of January 1989.
  467
  Mr. Renton
  The figures for those initially refused entry at the major ports are given in the table:

  Refusals at the Major Ports

  Terminal 1

  Terminal 2

  Terminal 3

  Terminal 4

  Gatwick South

  Gatwick North

  Dover

  Total

  Week ending

  8 October 1988

  37

  88

  69

  76

  47

  27

  99

  443

  15 October 1988

  44

  86

  72

  87

  73

  22

  73

  457

  22 October 1988

  41

  71

  51

  65

  53

  21

  73

  375

  29 October 1988

  34

  93

  61

  72

  34

  28

  61

  383

  5 November 1988

  40

  83

  49

  57

  48

  25

  75

  377

  12 November 1988

  31

  82

  88

  53

  56

  30

  58

  398

  19 November 1988

  35

  86

  61

  52

  45

  24

  45

  348

  26 November 1988

  27

  78

  57

  69

  49

  30

  55

  365

  3 December 1988

  33

  74

  82

  48

  45

  26

  39

  347

  10 December 1988

  39

  86

  58

  63

  50

  35

  44

  375

  17 December 1988

  46

  88

  70

  42

  46

  32

  62

  386

  Fortnight ending

  Week ending

  31 December 1988

  113

  224

  143

  131

  175

  82

  198

  1,066

  7 January 1989

  51

  72

  54

  26

  62

  31

  46

  342

  14 January 1989

  28

  88

  37

  25

  63

  41

  46

  328

  21 January 1989

  26

  87

  48

  22

  59

  28

  46

  316

  Total

  625

  1,386

  1,000

  888

  905

  482

  1,020

  6,306

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the'
  Home Department whether he will publish details of(a)the number of deferrals of removal requested by hon. Members of this House and (b) the number granted, by week for the months of October, November and December 1988, and the first three weeks of January

  Mr. Renton
  Details of the number of deferrals of removal granted in the months of October, November and December 1988 are as follows:

  Number

  October

  175

  November

  153

  December

  150

  Weekly totals for this period are not readily available. There are no central records of the number of deferrals of removal requested by hon. Members during this period.

  As to the number of requests for deferral of removal in the first three weeks of January 1989, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16 January to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) at column 6.

  Passports
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of issuing passports in each of the past 10 years; and what was the annual revenue received in each of these years.

  Mr. Renton
  The table below shows the available information for the financial years 1981–82—1988–89 covering;

  (a)the cost of issuing standard United Kingdom passports in the United Kingdom and at United Kingdom consular posts overseas, and;

  (b)the cost of issuing British visitor's passports, mainly at Crown post offices in Great Britain,

  together with the revenue accruing from the issue of such passports.

  Information for earlier years is not readily available.
  468

  (a) Standard passports

  (b) British visitors' passports

  Issuing costs £ million

  Revenue £ million

  Issuing costs £ million

  Revenue £ million

  1988–891

  33·7

  44·6

  9·0

  17·7

  1987–88

  31·7

  38·7

  9·4

  17·7

  1986–87

  26·5

  39·9

  10·2

  14·9

  1985–86

  25·6

  34·7

  9·3

  11·8

  1984–85

  25·9

  33·8

  8·2

  12·4

  1983–84

  14·6

  25·3

  8·

  8·5

  1982–83

  14·8

  22·3

  7·7

  7·7

  1981–82

  12·8

  19·8

  7·0

  9·9

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. Figures under (a) for 1981–82 to 1983–84 exclude overseas costs and revenues.

  2. Revenues include an element for non fee-bearing Consular services available to United Kingdom passport holders abroad.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has as to the cost of establishing and maintaining a national identity card system for every British citizen aged 12 years or over.

  Mr. John Patten
  The cost would depend on the administrative details of the system and the checks required before an identity card was issued. If a similar system was operated to that used for issuing passports the unit costs could be about £7.50. The costs (excluding initial capital costs) of issuing identity cards to all British citizens aged 12 or over would then be around £350 million. The annual running cost would depend upon the number of new card holders applying each year, the frequency with which cards had to be renewed, and whether card holders had to notify changes of address. It would probably be between £50 million and £100 million.

  Voting Rights
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce legislation to extend the period of eligibility for voting rights for United Kingdom citizens living abroad.
  469
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 2 February 1989, at column 383.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions searches of premises have been authorised by a superintendent of police under the provisions of paragraph 4(4) of schedule 3 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, and the similar provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and 1976.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Searches have been authorised under these provisions on nine occasions in England and Wales. I understand from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State that such searches have been authorised on five occasions in Scotland and on no occasion in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from the Viscount Colville of Culross QC on the operation in 1988 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions Act) 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received the report from Viscount Colville on the operation in 1988 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and placed copies in the Library.

  Street Offences (London)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences are recorded as having occurred on the streets in each of the Chelsea, Fulham, Tottenham and Wimbledon Metropolitan police districts in each of the weeks since 1 August 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]The available information relates to offences of street robbery of personal property and theft from the person (snatches) and is given in the following table.

  Street robbery of personal property and theft from the person (snatches) recorded by the police in certain areas of the Metropolitan police district

  Number of offences

  Chelsea

  Fulham

  Tottenham

  Wimbledon

  1987

  August

  12

  17

  108

  7

  September

  16

  24

  96

  8

  October

  13

  18

  114

  11

  November

  3

  12

  64

  9

  December

  12

  12

  79

  12

  1988

  January

  6

  6

  54

  10

  February

  12

  10

  1

  10

  March

  19

  5

  129

  13

  April

  8

  14

  64

  6

  May

  4

  8

  2

  11

  June

  2

  13

  138

  14

  July

  6

  9

  54

  10

  August

  11

  10

  99

  8

  September

  6

  31

  59

  12

  October

  19

  20

  2

  11

  November

  6

  6

  102

  17

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Crop Substitution
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of projects aided by his Department to encourage crop substitution in the fight against the illegal trade in drugs.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are currently financing projects to encourage crop substitution to a value of about £7 million. In addition, we provide training and other support for drugs control organisations in developing countries and we contribute to several multilateral aid agencies whose programmes include projects which help diversify income-earning opportunities in drug-producing areas.

  Development and Aid Budget
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest figure for the development and aid budget, expressed as a percentage of gross national product.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest available figure for United Kingdom net official development assistance expressed as a percentage of gross national product is 0·28 per cent. in 1987.

  UNICEF
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase governmental contributions to UNICEF's general resource funding to £12·5 million; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I propose to increase Her Majesty's Government's contribution to UNICEF's general resources to £8 million in the next financial year.

  Developing Countries (Nationalised Industries)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the terms of reference of the exercise undertaken on gathering information in relation to possible assistance with the privatisation of nationalised industries in the developing world.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Diplomatic missions were asked to try to identify possible opportunities for assisting developing countries with their promotion of private sector development, including privatisation. They were also asked to look for chances of co-operating on such projects with USAID.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Poultry and Eggs
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many poultry have been killed. and how many eggs have been destroyed, following the recent publicity about salmonella diseases since 1 December 1988; what has been the cost of compensation to producers in Northern Ireland; if the scheme for compensation is being continued; and if he will make a statement about the present state of the poultry and egg industries and their future prospects.
  471
  Mr. Viggers
  Under the Slaughter of Hens (Northern Ireland) Scheme and the Egg Industry (Northern Ireland) Scheme 50,663 hens have been slaughtered and 10,230,120 eggs had been destroyed in Northern Ireland up to 26 January at a compensation cost of £333,837. Slaughtering of hens has been completed. Eggs for which applications were submitted by 17 January, the closing date, are still being destroyed. The Government have no plans to extend either scheme.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications have been made for fish farming developments around the Antrim coast; what approvals have been given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  There have been three applications; two have been granted consent to discharge under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 of which one has also been given a fish culture licence under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The most recent application is still under consideration.

  Mr Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had concerning fish farming developments, and their impact on Glenarm and Red bay.

  Mr. Viggers
  Besides representation by the developers a total of 24 letters and submissions from 13 different groups and individuals have been received. The Northern Ireland Ministers for Agriculture and Environment jointly met a delegation comprising most of the parties who have made representations against these salmon farming developments.

  RUC (Deaths)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve were killed as a result of road traffic accidents during 1988; and how many were killed by terrorists in the same period.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During 1988 11 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve were killed in road traffic accidents and six were killed by terrorists.

  Prisons
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently being held in each prison in the province, and in total; and how many prison officers are currently in each prison in the Province, and in total.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As at 1 February 1989, there was a total of 1,780 prisoners in prison establishments in Northern Ireland, including 272 untried prisoners. The following is a breakdown by establishment:

  Number

  Her Majesty's Prison, Belfast

  1 521

  Her Majesty's Prison, Maghaberry

  2253

  Her Majesty's Prison, Magilligan

  285

  Her Majesty's Prison, Maze

  578

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Centre

  143

  1 Includes 264 untried prisoners.

  2 Includes eight untried prisoners.

  472
  As at 31 January 1989, there was a total of 3,166 prison staff in prison establishments in Northern Ireland. This figure includes staff serving at the prison service college and headquarters. The following is a breakdown by establishment.

  Number

  Her Majesty's Prison, Belfast

  662

  Her Majesty's Prison, Maghaberry

  483

  Her Majesty's Prison, Magilligan

  468

  Her Majesty's Prison, Maze

  1,294

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Centre

  223

  Prison Service College

  26

  Headquarters

  10

  Special Branch
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much from the total budget was allocated to special branch for each year from 1979 to the current date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]The allocation of expenditure on special branch activities is a matter for the Chief Constable. In the particular operational circumstances of Northern Ireland this information is confidential.

  Sinn Fein Councillors (Lisburn)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the approximate sums and the hours of police time it has taken to provide protection for the Sinn Fein councillors at meetings of Lisburn district council in 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]No. During 1988 police were not detailed to protect individual councillors or specific groups within Lisburn district council.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rolls-Royce
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the implications for the Government's privatisation proposals of the European Commission's decision of 21 December 1988 to initiate proceedings against the Government over the infringement of competition policy in the case of the flotation of Rolls-Royce.

  The Prime Minister
  None. There is no parallel with the Government's proposals for water and electricity privatisation.

WALES

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in Wales suffering from schizophrenia and discharged from hospital in 1986 and 1987 after a second or subsequent admission went(a) to their own homes, (b) to local authority residential accommodation, (c) to live with a relative elsewhere, (d) to private residential accommodation, (e) to residential accommodation provided by voluntary bodies and (f) to other accommodation.
  473
  Mr. Grist
  Information in the form requested is not available. Details of after-care arrangements for discharged patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are as follows:

  Discharges, after a second or subsequent admission

  1986

  1987

  Local authority residential accommodation

  18

  20

  Psychiatric hospitals

  87

  87

  Non-psychiatric hospitals

  20

  24

  Mental nursing homes

  —

  2

  Convalescent or after-care home

  18

  23

  Other forms of after-care1

  1,460

  1,511

  Total

  1,603

  1,667

  1 Including for example, that provided by GP's, out-patient departments and those not requiring further treatment.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients suffering from schizophrenia and discharged from Welsh hospitals in 1986 and 1987 after a first admission went(a) to their own homes, (b) to local authority residential accommodation, (c) to live in with a relative elsewhere, (d) to private residential accommodation, (e) to residential accommodation provided by voluntary bodies and (f) to other accommodation.

  County

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  Clwyd

  365

  334

  364

  343

  336

  320

  Dyfed

  1,021

  1,065

  1,088

  1,087

  1,048

  993

  Gwent

  335

  93

  139

  151

  220

  204

  Gwynedd

  482

  477

  466

  414

  462

  415

  Powys

  497

  492

  490

  487

  479

  456

  Mid Glamorgan

  107

  84

  34

  32

  60

  89

  South Glamorgan

  109

  96

  48

  55

  90

  103

  West Glamorgan

  138

  103

  64

  53

  115

  111

  Total

  3,054

  2,744

  2,693

  2,622

  2,810

  2,691

  1Provisional.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many abattoirs there are in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of abattoirs by county is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  16

  Dyfed

  12

  Gwent

  4

  Gwynedd

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  5

  Powys

  11

  South Glamorgan

  —

  West Glamorgan

  6

  Group Practices
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many group practices there are in Wales, by region.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:
  474
  Mr. Grist
  Information in the form requested is not available Details of after-care arrangements for dischared patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are shown in the following table:

  Discharges, after first admission

  1986

  198 7

  Local authority residential accommodation

  —

  —

  Psychiatric hospitals

  14

  9

  Non-psychiatric hospitals

  1

  —

  Mental nursing homes

  —

  —

  Convalescent or after-care home

  1

  2

  Other forms of after-care1

  201

  153

  Total

  217

  164

  1 Including, for example, that provided by GPs, out-patient departments, and those not requiring further treatment.

  Bee Keepers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bee keepers there are in each county in Wales; and what was the number of bee keepers during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Group practices as at 1 October 1987

  Family practitionercommittee

  Number

  Clwyd

  37

  Dyfed

  44

  Gwent

  44

  Gwynedd

  35

  Mid Glamorgan

  47

  Powys

  15

  South Glamorgan

  47

  West Glamorgan

  42

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of National Health Service general practitioners in Wales for each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of general medical practitioners in Wales is given in the table. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Unrestricted principals as at 1 October

  Number

  1979

  1,339

  1980

  1,372

  1981

  1,397

  1982

  1,431

  475

  Number

  1983

  1,465

  1984

  1,492

  1985

  1,523

  1986

  1,549

  1987

  1,587

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the services provided by the Welsh regional health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no regional health authorities in Wales. However, certain services which to be clinically effective and economically viable need to be provided to a population which is greater than that of a health district are designated as regional services by the Welsh Office. The responsibility for planning their capacity and location and for the funding of approved developments rests with my right hon. Friend, whilst the district health authorities which host the regional services are responsible for their operational management.

  The services presently designated as regional are:

  Assay services

  Blood transfusion service

  Bone marrow transplantation

  Burns, plastic and maxillo-facial surgery

  Invasive cardiology and cardiac surgery

  Medical genetics

  Perinatel intensive care

  Pharmaceutical quality control services

  Poisons information service

  Radiotherapy and medical oncology

  Forensic psychiatry

  Renal dialysis for end-stage renal failure

  Renal transplantation

  Spinal injury rehabilitation

  Thoracic surgery

  Welsh Hearing Institute

  The catchment areas of these services vary.

  Hospitals (Beds)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in each Welsh district health authority with 250 beds or more.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  The following hospitals had 250 beds or
  more on 30 September 1988.

  Health authority/hospital

  Clwyd

  North Wales

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  Ysbyty Maelor

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais

  St. David's

  West Wales General

  Gwent

  Llanfrechfa Grange

  Nevin Hall

  Pen-y-Fal

  Royal Gwent

  St. Cadoc's

  St. Woolos

  Gwynedd

  Bryn Y Neuadd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  476
  Mid Glamorgan

  East Glamorgan

  Glanrhyd

  Hensol

  Parc

  Prince Charles

  Princess of Wales

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  Powys

  Mid Wales

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  Ely

  Llandough

  University Hospital of Wales

  Whitchurch

  West Glamorgan

  Cefn Coed

  Morriston

  Neath General

  Singleton

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh hospitals are involved in the resource management initiative and whether any will be joining the initiative in the next year.

  Mr. Grist
  Acute hospitals in the Clwyd North unit will be piloting a resource management system based on an order communications network, following initial work in West Glamorgan health authority. Acute hospitals in West Glamorgan are also still involved in the medical records, diagnosis related group (DRG) coding, and organisational development aspects of the initiative; and the authority is currently considering the possibility of testing a "bolt-together" resource management system along the lines of those currently being piloted at various sites in England. Other Welsh authorities have expressed interest in acquiring a resource management capability at the earliest opportunity; and the Government's intention, as noted in the White Paper "Working for Patients", is to ensure that the requisite information systems are in place throughout Wales by 1992.

  NHS Land
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much undeveloped land is owned by the National Health Service in Wales; and if he will list those sites of 10 acres or more.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not recorded in the form requested. Currently the NHS in Wales owns some 358·5 acres of land which it no longer needs. This land, which will be sold at the best possible price for the benefit of health care in Wales, includes plots of 10 acres or more at the following sites:—

  Aberdare general hospital, Aberdare

  Bronllys hospital, Brecon

  Bryn-y-Neuadd hospital, Llanfairfechan

  Mid Wales hospital, Talgarth

  Parc Beck nurses home, Swansea

  St. Cadoc's hospital, Caerleon

  Whitchurch hospital, Cardiff

  William Nicholl home, Cardiff

  477
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much land has been sold, and for how much in 1987–88 prices, by the National Health Service in Wales, in each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:

  Financial year

  Acreage sold

  Proceeds of sale (1987–88 prices) £000

  1979–80

  10·1

  0·33

  1980–81

  148·5

  1·02

  1981–82

  205·8

  0·28

  1982–83

  740·9

  1·77

  1983–84

  52·5

  0·95

  1984–85

  11·1

  1·55

  1985–86

  28·0

  1·78

  1986–87

  76·4

  2·88

  1987–88

  9·4

  1·73

  Source: NHS Wales Land Sales 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  M4 (Storm Damage)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Gwent county council concerning damage caused to the M4 following storm damage to manhole covers; and when he proposes to carry out the remedial work necessary to repair the damage.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No damage has been caused to the M4 motorway by the existing drainage system although there have been isolated instances of manhole covers becoming dislodged in exceptionally heavy rainfall conditions.

  A scheme to remove the manholes from the M4 carriageway to prevent further incidents has been designed in conjunction with Gwent county council and, subject to the availability of finance, work is planned to start in 1989–90.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) farmers and (b) farmworkers were employed in each county in Wales in June 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information for June 1988 is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when the county figures are available.

ENERGY

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what exploration activity for oil and gas has taken place in the firth of Clyde in each of the past 10 years; if he is able to state the conclusions reached on the commercial potential of any finds; and if he will make a statement on the latest position.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Exploration for oil and gas in the firth of Clyde had been limited to the acquisition of seismic data in 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1985, but no wells have been drilled to date in the firth of Clyde.
  478
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total value of North sea oil revenues to the United Kingdom Treasury in the period 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 24 January to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) at column 488.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In the 1987–88 financial year, the most recent for which full figures are available, the Department of Energy represented Her Majesty's Government on the following international organisation:

  Contribution £

  International Energy Agency

  524,000

  International Atomic Energy Agency

  4,527,000

  Nuclear Energy Agency

  270,000

  Nuclear Power (Publicity)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total funding of the current publicity campaign by the nuclear electricity information group; and what contribution is being made to that campaign from his Department's budget.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority contributes to the nuclear electricity information group's costs using funds provided by my Department through the public information programme letter. I understand that the authority's contribution to the current nuclear electricity information group advertising campaign is £42,500. The total level of funding of this campaign is a matter for the nuclear electricity information group.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made any representations to British Nuclear Fuels concerning inaccuracies in its recent publicity material.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have made no such representations.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give(a) the original design rating, (b) the cumulative average load factor and (c) the present actual annual load factor of each nuclear power station operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board; and if he will project the efficiency of Sizewell B in the same terms on the basis of the actual performance of the board's existing nuclear plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman of the board to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will specify each donation made by his Department in response to public appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department of Energy has made one donation in response to public appeals for financial aid since financial year 1979–80. This was a donation of £1 million to the Piper Alpha disaster fund in 1988–89.

  Gas Reserves
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates for natural gas reserves in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The latest estimates for remaining recoverable natural gas reserves within the United Kingdom and its continental shelf were published in the 1988 Brown Book (my Department's report to Parliament on the development of United Kingdom oil and gas resources) and lay in the range 644 to 1,950 billion cubic metres.

  The figures for remaining recoverable gas reserves for end 1988 will be published in the 1989 Brown Book in April; they are not yet available.

  Fiddlers Ferry
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects flue gas desulphurisation equipment to be fitted at Fiddlers Ferry power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board and its successors will decide the order in which large coal-fired power stations should be retrofitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment in order to meet their share of the United Kingdom's commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions. I expect to receive a planning application for the next plant shortly.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date cost in the present and next financial year of the cost of privatisation of the electricity supply industry to each of the 12 area boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Expenditure incurred in preparing for privatisation is a matter for the individual boards concerned.

  British Coal (Trading Margins)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet fully assessed the financial implications of the squeeze on British Coal's trading margins discussed in the recent Public Expenditure White Paper, Cm. 606.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The projections set out in Cm. 606 assumed breakeven in 1988–89 and steadily growing profitability thereafter. External finance requirements were set as follows:480

  £ million

  1988–89

  750

  1989–90

  560

  1990–91

  385

  1991–92

  273

  However, subsequent negotiations with the CEGB and other major customers have resulted in a price freeze. This, together with the effect of higher cost inflation than expected, loss of output due both to geological difficulties and to industrial relations problems, mainly in Yorkshire, and the reduction in sales caused by the recent mild weather have caused the industry's trading position to deteriorate. As a consequence the corporation's operating profit in 1988–89 is likely to be reduced by some £50 million to about £450 million.

  The corporation is responding firmly to these pressures by accelerating the restructuring of its operations into 1988–89 and the first half of 1989–90, by shedding unprofitable business in non-core markets, and by further reduction of its capital requirements over the period to 1991–92. While these actions should lead to a more profitable industry in the future, there is nevertheless an adverse short-term effect on the corporation's bottom line result because of additional restructuring costs and terminal depreciation. This together with the lower operating profits and a higher interest charge will lead to an overall loss for 1988–89 of around £100 million. The adverse market factors which have affected operating profit and the bottom line in the current year will have an even greater effect on British Coal's outlook for 1989–90. The industry is planning at least to sustain the level of operating profit in 1989–90; however, after taking account of significantly higher restructuring and terminal depreciation costs, and interest charges, a further overall loss is expected.

  The corporation's external finance requirements are now projected as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  850

  1989–90

  720

  1990–91

  335

  1991–92

  223

  I am accordingly raising the corporation's external financing limits for 1988–89 and 1989–90 to £850 million and £720 million respectively. These increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The capital allocations for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are being reduced from £650 million and £575 million to £600 million and £550 million respectively. British Coal's temporary borrowing limit is being increased from £1,800 million to £2,050 million immediately and further increased to £2,500 million from the beginning of 1989–90. A Supplementary Estimate for additional voted loans to meet the extra financing requirements in 1988–89 will shortly be laid before the House.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what percentage of coal mining face-workers are mechanically transported underground from the shaft to the coal face;
  481
  (2) what percentage of British coal is (a) cut, (b) conveyed and (c) cleaned by mechanical means.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for British Coal and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to assist with child care costs recipients of income support who wish to take employment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. Such costs are not disregarded in housing benefit and family credit. It would be inequitable to allow a concession for those in part-time work when none is available to those in full-time work. We have said that we will monitor the new earnings rule in income support and consider what changes, if any, are necessary in the light of its operation.

  Pensions and Earnings
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is considering restoring the index link between pensions and earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to restore the link between pensions and earnings. The key factor in considering pensioners' incomes is the total net income available. Our policies of protecting basic pension against price increases, ensuring that income from savings keeps its value, and encouraging the growth of occupational pensions have resulted in a 23 per cent. real terms increase in pensioners average total net incomes between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how much has been saved by abolishing the earnings link in pensions and linking it to the cost of living.

  Mr. Scott
  The additional public expenditure that would he needed in 1988–89 to uprate retirement pensions in line with earnings would be £3·7 billion.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish details of child benefit payments paid by the United Kingdom and other European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  We have every reason to be proud of our record of recognising the extra costs of providing for children. Our provision for and recognition of these costs compares very favourably with that of other EC countries.

  For a two-parent family with one child under two the United Kingdom stands ahead of every other member state in its child benefit payments. In addition, for a two-parent family with two children under six the United Kingdom ranks third. The details that my hon. Friend is seeking are given in my Department's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1988)", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost to his Department of care in the community for the elderly living in their own homes as an alternative to residential care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Within Government the lead responsibility for community care rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Of course, many elderly people are helped to live in their own homes by a range of social security benefits such as attendance allowance, invalid care allowance and income support, as well as by payments from the independent living fund and the social fund.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest average length of time taken to process applications for family credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have reduced the average length of time from 22·9 working days in November to 21·7 days in January. Of that only 5·5 days was for work within family credit branch. The remaining 16·2 days were taken up by waiting for responses to enquiries, mainly from employers.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the take-up of family credit.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is considering to increase the take-up of family credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received very few representations about family credit take-up from outside this House, where there has been a concentration on the number of people receiving the benefit. There has been less recognition of the fact that expenditure is running above the levels we originally estimated, which indicates that families who most need the benefit are getting it. The average award is over £25 a week, and I am sure that family credit is welcomed by the quarter of a million families currently receiving it.

  We are planning a major campaign, to include television, to coincide with the uprating of family credit in April. The claim form is being revised and a new range of publicity material is being prepared. Our regional information teams will continue to raise awareness of family credit through the local media and by talking to employers, trade unions and others, especially to make clear the levels of income at which it can be paid.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount spending by his Department on pensions and related benefits is forecast to increase in real terms in 1989 over 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The details of expenditure published in the Department's chapter of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 615) show that real terms spending on pensions and other benefits for the elderly is planned to be
  483
  over £500 million higher in 1989–90 than in the current year. In addition, we announced last November a package of help to poorer, older pensioners from October 1989 worth nearly £100 million in 1989–90 and almost £200 million in a full year.

  These increases mean that social security expenditure on the elderly is forecast to rise by 2·7 per cent. in real terms between 1988–89 and 1989–90, at a time when the number of pensioners will rise by less than one half of one per cent.

  16 and 17-Year-Olds (Financial Support)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on financial support available to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are monitoring the effects of the reformed social security structure on all groups, including 16 to 17-year-olds. This monitoring is now in progress.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the number of people receiving disability benefits has changed since 1978–79.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) earlier today.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in receipt of family credit reside in London; and what is the estimated number of families in that area who would be entitled to family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We plan to make information about numbers of family credit claimants in particular areas available shortly. It is not possible to estimate the eligible population in these particular areas.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the family credit ceilings in respect of 1989–90, for each of the following(a) a married couple with one child under five years, (b) a married couple with two children under 11 years, (c) a married couple with two children 11 to 15 years, (d) a married couple with three children under 11 years, (e) a married couple with three children aged 11, 13 and 15 years, (f) a married couple with two children under 11 years and two children between 11 and 15 years and (g) a married couple with one child under 11 years and one child aged 11 to 15 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provided that the family has no more than £3,000 capital, family credit of 50p a week or more will be payable on net income up to the levels shown in the following table, whether the family has one parent or two. In assessing net income, child benefit and one parent benefit are disregarded.

  Family

  Net income £

  (a) One child under 5 (or under 11)

  112·51

  (b) Two children under 11

  122·94

  (c) Two children over 11 but under 16

  138·94

  484

  Family

  Net income £

  (d) Three children under 11

  133·37

  (e) Three children aged 11, 13 and 15 (ie over 11 but under 16)

  157·37

  (f) Two children under 11 and two children over 11 but under 16

  159·80

  (g) One child under 11 and one child over 11 but under 16

  130·94

  Fraud
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to reduce social security fraud.

  Mr. Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) earlier today.

  Unemployment Benefit, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average period for which people claiming unemployment benefit in Coventry have received reduced benefits because their unemployment has been termed voluntary.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to increase the age of eligibility for application for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  This is one of the questions that we shall be considering in the light of the full results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Halifax have claimed, and how many have received, a crisis loan from the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers by month of applications processed for social fund crisis loans together with the number and value of awards made is available in the Library.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local offices are currently running ahead of their social fund limits for the current financial year; and how many have exceeded those limits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Individual offices may from time to time exceed their anticipated expenditure for the year to date, but there are no indications that any office will be unable to manage its yearly budget allocation. No local office has exceeded its social fund allocation for 1988–89.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the expenditure to date in respect of social fund community care grants, itemised by the amount awarded under Secretary of State direction (i) 4(a)(i), (ii) 4(a)(ii), (iii) 4(a)(iii) and (iv) 4(b).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. Information is collected
  485
  by application purpose and client group. Expenditure on community care grants at the end of December is provisionally calculated at £22·8 million of which £1·15 million was paid for travelling expenses under direction 4(b).

  Relocation
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his reasons for relocating social security office work out of London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) earlier today.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money will be saved by his Department due to relocation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are making a significant initial investment in our project to relocate some of the work from some London social security offices, but from 1992–93 we expect to save £4 million per year. The net present value of the project over 20 years is £16 million.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the future of his Department's offices in inner-city areas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since we published "The Business of Service" report in June 1988, we have received about 50 representations concerning our proposals to move some work out of some London offices. Most of these, however, were based on the mistaken belief that we were planning to close offices in London. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are planning to improve our network of offices in London.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the reorganisation of the offices of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For our plans for relocating some work from some London local social security offices, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 16 January, at columns 44–45.

  A team of officials is considering options for moving some headquarters work out of London, and we shall make a full announcement of our conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many jobs will be involved in the relocation of work from social security offices in London to other parts of the United Kingdom; and when he expects the relocation to be complete.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As a direct result of the project to move some work from some London social security offices, we shall be creating 430 jobs in Glasgow, 350 in Belfast and 260 in Ashton-in-Makerfield, near Wigan. Staff savings in London will be approximately 1,200. We expect that the transfer of work involved in this project will be complete by October 1991.

  Mr. Robert B. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how relocation of social security office work out of London will affect his social security staff.
  486
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Relocating some work out of 21 London social security local offices is good news for staff. We are creating more than 1,000 high-quality permanent jobs in the regions; we are taking pressure off our London staff so that they will be able to offer a better face-to-face service and so get more satisfaction from their jobs; staff in London and in the new social security centres will have a better working environment; and, since the project is being phased over more than two years, we see no need whatever for staff redundancies in London.

  Service to the Public
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to improve the service to social security claimants.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that his Department's local benefit payment offices are giving a better service to the public as a result of recent publicity.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The social security reforms which were introduced last April to make the benefit system easier to understand and to operate have led to real improvements in local office service standards. For example, the average time taken to clear income support claims in 1988–89 has been five days compared with six days the previous year, and there has been a substantial fall in average error rates from 11·6 per cent. in 1987–88 to 9·6 per cent. in the year to date. In addition, plans are in hand to tackle individual problem areas, such as some inner London offices, by relocating some of the work to parts of the country where it is easier to recruit and retain staff. In the longer term, the computerisation of social security operations will make an increasing impact in improving service delivery standards from mid-1989 onwards.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to improve the efficiency of the social security system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are making very good progress in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the social security system. The new benefits introduced in April last year have simplified the system and made it easier to understand, both for claimants and for staff. As a result fewer people are finding it necessary to visit their local social security offices and the time taken to clear benefit claims has been reduced from a national average of six days for the last year of supplementary benefit to five days for the first six months of income support. National error rates have also improved, from 11·6 per cent. to 9·7 per cent. We recognise that further progress still needs to be made and to help with this we are setting improved targets and standards of service. For example, a comprehensive system of quality assessment of local office contacts with the public has been developed.

  These changes are complemented by our huge computerisation programme which is transforming the administration of social security, bringing major benefits for the taxpayer and all who use the social security system. Following the successful computerisation of the family credit system in April, trials of the initial version of the new pensions system and the central index system are now under way in the first local offices. A new micro-computer based system has recently been brought into operation for

  487
  the retirement pension forecast service, providing a quick, personalised reply to most inquiries. The public reaction to this has been overwhelmingly favourable. More and more people are taking advantage of the facility which we are providing to have their benefits paid direct into a bank or building society account, and over 1·5 million pensioners are now paid in this way.

  We are taking further steps to provide a better and more efficient service to the public by relocating some work away from some of our most hard-pressed local offices. We are considering the manner in which we organise and run our operational systems and, in particular, whether they could with advantage be run as a "Next Steps" agency or agencies. We have an active and ongoing programme of efficiency scrutinies which has yielded savings of more than £80 million and more than 4,000 posts, and we are encouraging our staff to take an active part in helping to improve efficiency through increasing use of the Department's suggestions scheme. This has saved at least £5 million this year alone.

  EC (Ministerial Meeting)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Community; and whether an agenda has been set.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans at present to meet our European counterparts in a European Community context. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be attending a Council of Europe meeting on 13–14 April.

  Community Care Grants, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the payment of community care grants in Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Take-up of community care grants in Manchester has increased significantly in recent months. The combined expenditure of the Manchester offices at the end of October was 27·5 per cent. of their total annual budget allocation and by the end of December this had increased to 45 per cent.

  The equivalent national figures were 24 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively. Nationally, take-up of community care grants reached 77 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure in December.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that the new income support scheme is simpler to understand than supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The early indications are encouraging. Claims for income support are being processed more quickly and accurately and a higher percentage are successful than claims for supplementary benefit. They are also generating significantly less appeals—some 34,000 between 11 April and 31 December 1988 as against 95,000 supplementary benefit appeals over a similar period. This represents a welcome improvement for claimants and staff alike and provides some indications that the new income support scheme is simpler to understand than supplementary benefit.
  488
  A lot of effort has gone into improving the design of the Department's claim forms and leaflets using specialist design consultants as well as the Department's own professional writers and designers. The integrated claim form, combining a claim form and all the information needed by a claimant to establish if he may be entitled, is one of the results. This is proving popular with the public.

  All this represents a real step forward from the old supplementary benefit scheme. We will continue to press for further improvements in the service provided as staff and claimants alike become more familiar with the new scheme.

  Special Needs Hostels
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has received to the consultation document on the funding of special needs hostels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 23 January at columns 417–18.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he proposes to increase the take-up of housing benefit and income support by pensioner households.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In addition to our normal publicity arrangements, we shall be mounting a special campaign later this year to publicise the extra help which is being made available to pensioners through the income support and housing benefit schemes from October. As part of that campaign we shall be writing to all pensioners aged 75 and over, whose addresses we hold, to explain the changes.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement of his Department's co-operation with the police on missing persons investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments that information held for social security purposes may be disclosed on request to the police in a case which involves a missing person under the age of 18. The information is given orally and in confidence and in respect of specific named individuals only.

  Widows
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the number of widows who have had a reduction in benefits specific to themselves due to changes in circumstances, other than re-marriage, since the changes in regulations in April 1988.

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

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications for his policy on widows' pensions of the decision of the social security appeal tribunal at Walthamstow that a widow aged under 45 years is entitled to a widow's pension because changes made to the law in April 1988, which would otherwise disqualify her, are invalid; and if he will make a statement.
  489
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, in the light of the ruling of the independent social security appeal tribunal at Walthamstow on the change in the age limit for widows' pensions, he has any plans to restore the age limit to 40 instead of 45 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for the office of the chief adjudication officer to decide whether or not to seek leave to appeal to the social security commissioner. If the adjudication officer decides not to seek leave to appeal, the tribunal's decision will be implemented in the normal way.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Housing benefit will continue to be available to help those on low incomes meet their liability for rent and rates. Future expenditure plans for housing benefit are contained in the public expenditure White Paper, (Cm. 615).

  School Meals
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next proposes to review the provision of free school meals to the children of people receiving benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Free school meals are available to children in families receiving income support. The Government have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many benefit claimants in receipt of invalid care allowance, in each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, had that benefit disallowed following the death of a husband, the award of widow's benefit and the application of the overlapping benefit regulations;

  (2) how many applications for invalid care allowance were received in each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 and refused on the grounds that this allowance overlapped with widow's benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The information which is available does not distinguish between women according to their marital status. Since June 1986 (when the allowance was extended to married and cohabiting women) 3,571 claims from women have been disallowed because they were receiving another social security benefit, equal to or higher than the weekly rate of invalid care allowance (ICA). Payments of ICA to a further group of 4,715 women have been stopped because they have become entitled to another social security benefit equal to or higher than the weekly rate of ICA.

  Retirement Age
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the conclusions on the reappraisal of the various options for the equality of treatment of men and women in respect of age eligibility for the state retirement pension, to which he referred on 27 November 1987,Official Report, column 181.
  490
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 18 January at column 246.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will now consult his advisory committee as to whether a successful claim for an attendance allowance should be backdated to the date of the claim, as opposed to the present requirement for at least six months have passed before the allowance is paid.

  Mr. Scott
  Attendance allowance may be paid from the date of the claim if at that date the statutory medical conditions have been satisfied throughout the previous six months. The social security advisory committee considered the qualifying period, but did not recommend its general waiver, in its report "Benefits for Disabled People: a strategy for change" published on 29 November. The qualifying period is an aspect of the attendance allowance scheme which we shall look at when we consider the future of disability benefits in the light of the OPCS disability surveys.

  Isle of Wight Benefit Office
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Isle of Wight office to be linked to the national computer; and what steps he is taking to speed up computerisation of all benefit offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I recently announced that we are accelerating the implementation of our computerisation programme so that all offices will be linked to the mainframe computer systems by mid-1991. Implementation of the systems in the Isle of Wight office is scheduled for the first half of 1991.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money was allocated by the Government to the independent living fund in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89; and from the vote of which Government Department such allocations were made;

  (2) what information he has as to what sources of income the independent living fund has secured, other than Government funding, and as to how much such alternative source amounts to;

  (3) how much money will be allocated by the Government to the independent living fund in 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund was formally constitued on 8 June 1988. No funds were therefore made available for the year 1987–88. For 1988–89 £5 million was allocated from the miscellaneous health services and personal social services vote of the then Department of Health and Social Security. £5 million has been allocated for 1989–90. This sum will be reviewed as management information becomes available from the first year of operation.

  The independent living fund is financed entirely from Government sources.

  West Derby Office (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the strike of
  491
  officials at the West Derby Office of his Department in Princess drive, Liverpool; and what steps he is taking to bring the dispute to a satisfactory and equitable conclusion.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 44 members of staff at the Department's West Derby local office are currently taking strike action over management's proposals to transfer a small number of excess staff to neighbouring offices for temporary periods.

  Discussions have taken place between regional management and the trade unions. The unions are recommending to their members that they return to work early this week.

  A full public service will be restored at the office as soon as possible thereafter.

HEALTH

  Health Service (Charges)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will put in the Library a copy of Sir Donald Acheson's recent formal report on the implications and monitoring of charges for teeth and spectacles.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received no such report.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received regarding the safe level of aluminium in baby foods; and from whom.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's independent expert medical and scientific advisory committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment recently considered the results of analyses by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the aluminium content of infant formulae. The committee saw no need for action to reduce the aluminium intakes from infant formulae. However, the Department's expert advisory committees will continue to keep under regular review the results of research into the effects of aluminium intakes.

  Listeria
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there were in 1988 associated with the bacteria listeria; and in how many cases there was a food poisoning report associated with the death.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the first three quarters of 1988 at ages 28 days and over with underlying cause of

  Ambulance services: 1979 to 1986/87 Number of patient miles—Emergency, non-emergency and hospital car service cases

  Thousands

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984/85

  1985/86

  1986/87

  Northern RHA

  Cleveland

  Emergency cases

  184·0

  219·3

  231·8

  237·4

  269·6

  249·5

  215·8

  227·3

  Non-emergency cases

  985·5

  1,174·9

  1,138·0

  804·1

  1,191·8

  1,264·9

  1,350·2

  1,419·6

  Hospital car service cases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  Emergency cases

  161·0

  195·5

  131·9

  107·2

  215·7

  245·9

  239·8

  242·2

  492
  death assigned as listeriosis (international classification of diseases 9th revision 027.0) is seven. In addition, the provisional number of neonatal deaths (at ages under 28 days, where no underlying cause of death is assigned) where listeriosis was mentioned as a condition on the death certificate is five for the same period and area. In none of these 12 deaths was there any mention of food poisoning on the death certificate.

  From the reported cases of listeria known to the communicable disease surveillance centre of the Public Health Laboratory service who are also known by them to have died, none has been reported, formally or informally, as being confirmed microbiologically to have been associated with food.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of those National Health Service hospitals which have engaged in contractual arrangements with private hospitals and clinics during 1987 and, so far as possible, 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  Contractual arrangements with private hospitals and clinics are not made by individual NHS hospitals. Contracts are usually arranged by district health authorities and occasionally by regional health authorities.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received radiotherapy within the National Health Service in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table. The latest year for which information is currently available is 1986.

  New patients attending radiotherapy departments, NHS hospitals, England, 1983 and 1986

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  1983

  35,337

  93,235

  1986

  31,621

  96,540

  Ambulances
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each ambulance service covering the Yorkshire and northern regions, and for each year since 1979, the number of miles covered by(a) emergency services, (b) non-emergency services, (c) minicabs and (d) volunteer drivers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table.
  493

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984/85

  1985/86

  1986/87

  Non-emergency cases

  1,239.8

  1,572.7

  1,065.2

  865.2

  1,739.0

  1,684.3

  1,738.6

  1,555.0

  Hospital car service cases

  593.6

  718.0

  565.4

  380.4

  307.4

  412.5

  492.0

  713.0

  Durham

  Emergency cases

  398.3

  379.0

  379.6

  405.1

  416.2

  460.3

  385.4

  386.4

  Non-emergency cases

  1,202.5

  1,497.0

  1,695.3

  1,773.5

  1,889.3

  1,924.6

  2,099.6

  2,036.1

  Hospital car service cases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria Metropolitan

  Emergency cases

  672.3

  661.4

  668.9

  867.6

  936.3

  1,102.0

  1,165.7

  1,038.2

  Non-emergency cases

  3,335.9

  3,785.2

  3,746.5

  3,499.3

  3,552.1

  3,311.2

  3,113.5

  3,380.3

  Hospital car service cases

  118.6

  101.0

  77.2

  83.8

  119.4

  215.2

  439.5

  341.5

  Yorkshire RHA

  Humberside

  Emergency cases

  277.5

  275.2

  283.0

  296.8

  300.5

  220.8

  317.8

  314.6

  Non emergency cases

  2,615.0

  2,728.2

  2,701.8

  2,692.2

  2,836.6

  2,891.2

  2,759.9

  2,630.7

  Hospital car service cases

  300.6

  294.9

  249.0

  246.1

  204.8

  313.6

  309.6

  340.9

  North Yorkshire

  Emergency cases

  187.8

  176.5

  184.6

  188.1

  181.5

  190.5

  240.2

  333.6

  Non-emergency cases

  1,547.1

  1,716.7

  1,726.4

  1,671.7

  1,722.9

  1,699.7

  1,754.4

  1,679.1

  Hospital car service cases

  23.8

  51.4

  48.7

  64.6

  134.0

  185.2

  262.9

  193.4

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan

  Emergency cases

  688.3

  712.0

  780.7

  777.0

  790.3

  838.7

  852.1

  936.3

  Non-emergency cases

  3,812.8

  4,547.1

  4,487.8

  4,093.1

  4,442.1

  4,587.3

  4,551.0

  4,677.4

  Hospital car service cases

  564.7

  691.0

  570.2

  649.3

  783.9

  716.8

  1,096.0

  1,465.4

  Source:

  1979–83 DH.

  1984–85 to 1986–87 York health authority.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for non-emergency cases do not include hospital car service cases.

  2. The 1986–87 data for emergency cases in Humberside authority includes some urgent cases.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency-equipped ambulances were available on 30 September 1988 at 6 pm; and what was the equivalent for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not centrally available.

  Listerial Meningitis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of listerial meningitis have been recorded since 1979; and if he will give a regional breakdown of such incidence;

  (R) = Number of notifications of acute meningitis, other specified organism3 by standard region, and (B) = Number of deaths to usual residents of standard regions with listeria meningitis2 assigned as underlying cause 1979 to 1988

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  England and Wales4

  Male

  280

  2

  434

  3

  282

  3

  64

  2

  61

  7

  85

  2

  102

  4

  121

  4

  134

  7

  157

  1

  Female

  194

  3

  301

  1

  253

  3

  67

  0

  45

  4

  56

  4

  84

  4

  88

  6

  100

  9

  140

  3

  Wales

  Male

  46

  0

  35

  0

  16

  0

  10

  0

  5

  0

  6

  0

  3

  0

  7

  0

  10

  0

  17

  0

  Female

  22

  1

  40

  0

  12

  0

  7

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  5

  1

  3

  0

  17

  0

  Standard Region

  North

  Male

  9

  0

  15

  0

  6

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  5

  1

  6

  1

  6

  0

  10

  0

  Female

  3

  0

  10

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  11

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Male

  34

  0

  14

  0

  25

  0

  12

  0

  13

  1

  29

  0

  26

  0

  33

  0

  23

  0

  34

  0

  Female

  19

  0

  23

  0

  28

  0

  12

  0

  8

  1

  11

  0

  25

  0

  27

  1

  27

  0

  24

  1

  East Midlands

  Male

  13

  0

  10

  0

  12

  0

  12

  0

  5

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  6

  0

  8

  1

  11

  0

  Female

  9

  1

  4

  0

  6

  0

  5

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  4

  1

  8

  1

  4

  0

  7

  0

  494
  (2) how many fatalities have been recorded as a result of listerial meningitis since 1979; and if he will give a regional breakdown of such incidence.

  Mr. Freeman
  From the statistics of notifications of infectious diseases, it is not possible to identify separately the number of cases of listerial meningitis. However, the table shows, in addition to the number of deaths registered with underlying cause of death assigned as listerial meningitis, the number of notifications of other specified forms of acute meningitis, including listerial meningitis.
  495

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  (R)

  (B)

  East Anglia

  Male

  13

  0

  19

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  4

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Female

  8

  0

  11

  0

  5

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  3

  2

  3

  0

  South East

  Male

  85

  2

  162

  3

  124

  1

  17

  1

  18

  2

  15

  0

  16

  0

  21

  0

  38

  1

  28

  0

  Female

  83

  1

  95

  0

  113

  1

  20

  0

  9

  1

  18

  2

  13

  1

  20

  2

  30

  3

  23

  1

  South West

  Male

  19

  0

  12

  0

  18

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  8

  0

  17

  0

  12

  2

  15

  1

  23

  0

  Female

  7

  0

  10

  0

  14

  0

  6

  0

  3

  1

  3

  0

  16

  1

  6

  0

  12

  0

  15

  1

  West Midlands

  Male

  10

  0

  16

  0

  19

  0

  3

  0

  4

  1

  7

  0

  8

  1

  11

  0

  17

  2

  11

  1

  Female

  9

  0

  17

  1

  14

  1

  6

  0

  8

  0

  7

  1

  6

  0

  5

  0

  10

  2

  15

  0

  North West

  Male

  51

  0

  151

  0

  60

  0

  7

  0

  11

  1

  12

  2

  21

  1

  23

  0

  16

  2

  20

  0

  Female

  34

  0

  91

  0

  55

  1

  9

  0

  6

  1

  10

  0

  11

  0

  15

  1

  8

  2

  25

  0

  1 Provisional; mortality data are for January to September registrations only.

  2 International Classification of Diseases ninth revision code 027.0 (part).

  3 Acute meningitis, other specified organism includes all specified meningitis organisms other than those in the meningococcal, pneumococcal, influenzal (haemophilus influenzae), and viral categories.

  4 Deaths to those usually resident outside England and Wales are included in the overall totals.

  Note:
  In 1986, neonatal deaths were no longer assigned with an underlying cause of death but mention of condition(s) present at death were given. Therefore in addition to the number of deaths shown in the table there was one neonatal death in 1986 in the South East region, and two neonatal deaths in 1987 (one in the South East region and one in the North West region) with mention of listeria meningitis on the death certificate.

  Health Authority Allocations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will estimate(a) what the allocations would have been to each English regional health authority for 1989–90 if the same national total had been distributed on the basis

  1989–90 allocations

  Difference

  Main1 Provision £ million

  Notional2 distribution in line with 1988–89 allocations3£ million

  £ million column (2) and (1)

  Percentage column (3) and (1)

  Region

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Northern

  832·4

  832·6

  0·2

  0·02

  Yorkshire

  937·4

  939·5

  2·2

  0·23

  Trent

  1,147·2

  1,143·9

  -3·3

  -0·29

  East Anglian

  497·1

  495·6

  -1·5

  -0·30

  North West Thames

  912·9

  918·5

  5·6

  0·61

  North East Thames

  1,137·0

  1,147·3

  10·3

  0·90

  South East Thames

  1,018·3

  1,019·1

  0·8

  -0·08

  South West Thames

  843·7

  846·0

  2·3

  0·28

  Wessex

  699·1

  695·9

  -3·1

  -0·45

  Oxford

  557·6

  546·3

  -11·3

  -2·03

  South Western

  832·4

  828·4

  -4·0

  -0·48

  West Midlands

  1,340·1

  1,342·5

  2·4

  0·18

  Mersey

  663·8

  663·9

  0·2

  0·02

  North Wester

  1,140·1

  1,139·6

  -0·5

  -0·05

  Total

  1,2559·1

  1,2559·1

  0·0

  0·00

  1 Excludes sums earmarked e·g· Supra regional services, AIDS, breast cancer screening.

  2 Total cash 1989–90 pro rata to 1988–89 initial cash limits.

  3 Excludes earmarked sums, but includes special fund of £15 million allocated to Regions who received the lowest increases under RAWP.

  Sexually-related Diseases (Children)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by sex and by age the number of children aged 16 years and under who have been examined and diagnosed for a sexually related disease during the last year(a) in the Trent regional health authority and (b) by district health authority, showing the type of disease; and if he will make a statement.
  496
  of the 1988–89 allocations, (b) if he will estimate the difference between the figure and the actual allocation given to each region for 1989–90 and (c) if he will express (c) as a percentage of (b).

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest available data are for Trent regional health authority in 1986 for syphilis and gonorrhoea only. These are shown in the table.

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Age group—under 16

  1986

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Primary and secondary syphilis

  0

  0

  0

  Post-pubertal gonorrhoea

  8

  27

  35

  Trent RHA
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants are currently employed by the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 30 September 1987, there were 1,322 consultants in post in the Trent region, of these 657 were employed by the regional health authority. This figure includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many:(a) speech therapists and (b) physiotherapy-ists are currently employed by the Trent regional health authority;

  (2)how many nurses are currently employed by the Trent regional health authority;

  (3)how many midwives are currently employed by the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives the number of staff in post in the Trent region for the groups mentioned:

  No. in post WTE

  Speech Therapists

  260

  Physiotherapists

  890

  Nurses

  35,800

  Midwives

  2,170

  Of these only 100 (WTE) nurses are employed by Trent regional health authority itself.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours are worked by junior doctors employed by the Trent regional health authority in an average(a) week and (b) month.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect information centrally. The hon. Member should contact the chairman of Trent regional health authority for an answer to his question.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for treatment in the following specialties in the Trent health region at the latest available date(a) orthopaedics, (b) gynaecology, (c) ear, nose and throat, (d) plastic surgery and (e) cardio-thoracic surgery.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting list for selected specialties, Trent Regional Health Authority, 31 March 1988

  Specialty

  Number waiting

  Traumatic and Orthopaedics

  13,097

  Gynaecology

  8,324

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  8,295

  Plastic Surgery

  3,706

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  773

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in the Trent regional health authority have 250 beds or more.
  498
  Mr. Freeman
  In 1986, the latest year for which we have available information, there were 37 hospitals with 250 or more average daily available beds in Trent region.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for day treatment at hospitals in the Trent health region at the latest available date; and what has been the percentage change in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 9,870 patients on the day case waiting list in Trent at March 1988. There is no comparable figure for March 1987 as day case waiting list statistics were not collected at that time.

  Acute Beds (North Derbyshire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds are currently available to patients in north Derbyshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the financial year 1987–88, there were an average of 579 acute beds available daily in North Derbyshire health authority.

  Health Centres (North Derbyshire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of health centres in north Derbyshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. I would therefore suggest that the hon. Member contact the chairman of North Derbyshire health authority for an answer to his question.

  Waiting List (North Derbyshire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been on the waiting list in north Derbyshire for over one year.

  Mr. Mellor
  At March 1988, 720 patients on the in-patient waiting list in north Derbyshire had been waiting over one year. This compares with 1,280 at March 1979. Provisional figures, currently being validated, indicate that the number reduced still further in the six months to September 1988.

  Cancer
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the incidence of breast cancer in women aged(a) 50 to 64 years and (b) 65 years and over in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what was the incidence of cervical cancer in women aged (a) 50 to 64 years and (b) 65 years and over in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table; 1984 is the latest available data year.
  499

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of(a)female breast(b)cervix uteri, and rates per 100,000 population, ages50–64, 65 and over, England and Wales, 1975–84.

  ICD 174 (Breast Cancer)1

  ICD 180 (Cervix Uteri)1

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  50–64

  65+

  50–64

  65+

  50–64

  65+

  50–64

  65+

  1975

  6,943

  9,592

  155

  223

  1,654

  1,197

  37

  28

  1976

  7,146

  9,419

  160

  217

  1,604

  1,150

  36

  26

  1977

  7,107

  9,779

  160

  222

  1,578

  1,200

  36

  27

  1978

  7,071

  9,814

  161

  220

  1,402

  1,173

  32

  26

  1979

  6,604

  9,738

  152

  216

  1,343

  1,193

  31

  26

  1980

  6,928

  9,846

  161

  216

  1,347

  1,203

  31

  26

  1981

  6,751

  10,132

  158

  221

  1,248

  1,229

  29

  27

  1982

  7,094

  10,055

  166

  220

  1,218

  1,193

  29

  26

  1983

  6,834

  10,174

  160

  224

  1,152

  1,139

  27

  25

  1984

  6,979

  10,100

  163

  223

  1,124

  1,158

  26

  26

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision.

  2 Rates per 100,000 population.

  Crewe DHA (Contracts)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of every private company that has entered into any contract with Crewe district health authority in the past five years, with the addresses of their registered offices and the names of their directors.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of each private company that has entered into any contract with Halton district health authority in the past five years, together with the addresses of their registered offices and the names of their directors.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold details of such arrangements centrally. The hon. Member and my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the appropriate district health authority for the information.

  Haemoglobinopathy
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to secure the delivery of specialist haemoglobinopathy services in districts where they are currently not on offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department recently issued a questionnaire to all district health authorities on haemoglobinopathy services and is currently analysing the responses. The analysis will form the basis for decisions about action that might be needed centrally on these services.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mr. Mellor
  Department of Health Ministers and/or officials represent the United Kingdom at the world health assembly, at meetings of the World Health Organisation's regional committee for Europe and at other meetings arranged by the WHO; the United Kingdom's assessed contribution to the organisation's regular budget—amounting in the current financial year to £7·559 million—is paid by the Department of Health. Departmental officials also represent the United Kingdom at meetings of the European Pharmacopoeia Commission and of other committees concerned with public health and with rehabilitation organised by the Council of Europe, but whose membership comprises only some members of the Council of Europe; the United Kingdom's contribution to the work of these committees—amounting to £287,000 in the current financial year—is made by the Department.

  Departmental Ministers and/or officials also represent the United Kingdom at meetings of a number of international organisations dealing with health and personal social service issues, to which the United Kingdom's contribution is not primarily a charge on Department of Health votes—for example, councils and working groups of the European Community, and ministerial meetings and steering groups of the Council of Europe and of the OECD.

  The cost of attendance at meetings of these bodies are not separately identified.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has published guidelines or instructions regarding the costing of redundancy expenditure arising from competitive tendering.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. Most recently in executive letter EL(87)MB/1 issued in November 1987. A copy has been placed in the Library. The guidance is kept under review.

  Abortion
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet received the final copy of the report of the study conducted by the Royal College of General Practitioners into the psychological sequelae of abortion.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. A large body of data is currently undergoing careful analysis. I understand the report should be available later this year.

  Infant Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases there have been of babies who have become victims of Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally about Alzheimer's disease relates to those cases which received treatment in an NHS hospital. The data which are based on a 10 per cent. sample of patient discharge records, revealed no such cases in the under 15 age group. We are not aware of any cases of babies or children with Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the effect on babies of consuming food with high levels of aluminium.

  Mr. Freeman
  Aluminium in the diet is not known to cause any disease in babies. In 1988 the Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation joint expert committee on food additives set a provisional tolerable weekly intake—PTWI—for aluminium of 7 mg per kilogram bodyweight. This figure was based on the effects on laboratory animals of very much greater intakes of aluminium compounds. The aluminium intakes of babies in the United Kingdom are well below this PTWI.

  Anaemia
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities employ full-time specialist sickel cell anaemia and thalassaemia counsellors.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department recently issued a questionnaire to all district health authorities on screening and counselling services for sickle cell and thalassaemic diseases. Although this did not ask about the employment of full-time specialist counsellors it did ask who was responsible for counselling. The replies to the questionnaire are currently being analysed.

  Hospitals (Opting Out)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under his proposals for the National Health
  502
  Service announced on 31 January, he will make it his policy to allow the local community to have a vote prior to a hospital with more than 250 beds deciding to operate on an independent basis.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The White Paper published on 31 January outlines plans for self-governing hospitals within the NHS. Proposals will be given local publicity but I see no merit in making management changes within the NHS subject to a vote by the residents of a particular locality.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has as to the number of persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom who have attained the age of 12 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is estimated that at 30 June 1987 there were 48,380,000 persons aged 12 and over with usual residence in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the average frequency of household removal.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. However my hon. Friend may find the following information relating to 1986 useful.

  Percentage of Heads of Households according to length of residence at current address: Great Britain

  Length of residence Years

  Percentage

  Under 1

  10

  1 but under 3

  14

  3 but under 5

  12

  5 to 10

  22

  11 to 15

  11

  16 to 20

  10

  21 to 30

  11

  31 or more

  10

  Note: The information is derived from a question on length of residence of the Head of Household in the General Household Survey. (General Household Survey 1986, OPCS/SSD, Series GHS number 16, page 70, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  AIDS
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of AIDS patients receiving treatment in London; and which eight hospitals have the most such patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have information in the form requested.

  The total number of AIDS cases reported from district health authorities in Greater London at the end of 1988 was 1,318, of whom 671 have died. The eight health authorities which had the greatest numbers of reports
  were:

  Riverside

  Parkside

  Bloomsbury

  West Lambeth

  Hampstead

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Camberwell

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Sonia Cabey, aged 18 years, from the dependency of Montserrat now in the Brompton hospital, London, awaiting heart surgery not available in the dependency, will be treated under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement about the funding of this case.

  Mr. Mellor
  Miss Cabey is being treated privately in an NHS hospital. The Monserrat Government have undertaken that the costs will be met.

  Artificial Kidney Assistants
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to his Department about vacancies for artificial kidney assistants in the National Health Service,

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Out-patients (Transport)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals charge transport costs to patients of out-patient clinics and those patients admitted after referral by their general practitioner; what is the average charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ambulance service transport is provided free of charge for those patients considered by a clinician to be medically unfit to travel by any other means. Patients who do not have a medical need but who have difficulty in finding other means of attending hospital may also be carried by the ambulance service but a charge may be made.

  Information on the level and extent of such charges is not centrally available.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of new patients prescribed benzodiazepines by doctors since January 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has on the number of road accidents caused by impaired concentration of motorists taking benzodiazepines;

  (2) what evidence he has on the number of accidents (a) in the home and (b) elsewhere caused to elderly people by taking benzodiazepines;

  (3) what evidence he has on the incidence of structural brain damage causesd by long-term use of benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to undertake a national education campaign to warn young people about the dangers of benzodiazepine addiction.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no such plans. Health, personal and social education in schools, backed by the work of
  504
  drug education co-ordinators in every local education authority, covers the use and misuse of a wide range of substances, including prescribed drugs.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people prescribed benzodiazepines since January 1988 who have taken them for longer than the period laid down by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of chronic users of benzodiazepines in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of these are addicted to the drug.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce regulatory provisions governing the temperature at which cook-chill foods are stored and displayed by retailers and the length of time during which such products are on sale from the time that they leave the manufacturer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Proposed changes to the Food Hygiene Regulations 1970, including requirements for the temperature of retailed chilled food, have been the subject of consultations by my Department and discussions continue. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require pre-packed perishable foods to carry a date of minimum durability.

  Neomycin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are estimated to suffer burns or scalding accidents annually; what is the best estimate of those seriously burned or scalded and likely to have been thickly sprayed with neomycin;

  (2) how many people are known to have been deafened by the use of neomycin sprays after being treated for burns or scalds; and what is the best estimate of the number at risk of being deafened in this way;

  (3) when neomycin was first used in National Health Service hospitals in spray form; what Government safety health checks it had received prior to that date; for what purposes it was recommended; and what warnings of side effects were given;

  (4) at what date neomycin was available to National Health Service hospitals; what Government safety health checks it had received before use within the National Health Service; for what purposes it was recommended; and what warnings of side effects were given;

  (5) what is his best estimate of the number of people known to have been deafened by neomycin used in conventional form;

  (6) when were the first research reports that neomycin could cause deafness; who they were by; and what action was taken by his Department to warn those using the drug;

  (7) if he will set up an inquiry to investigate (a) the number of adults and children deafened by the use of neomycin sprays to treat burns and scalds, (b) the
  505
  possibility of identifying them, (c) the possibility of giving publicity to the fact that, in some circumstances compensation may be possible, (d) the difficulties that people deafened in this way have in getting access to medical records and (e) the effectiveness of procedures which transmit information about the side effects of drugs;

  (8) what information he has as to when research first established that compounds applied to the skin could be absorbed into the bloodstream and as to what action was taken to link this information to known hazards of drugs taken intravenously; and what action was taken by his Department to ensure that this information was known by those likely to treat burns.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Medicines containing the antibiotic substance neomycin were introduced in the early 1950s. There was then no general statutory requirement for pre-marketing approval of the type introduced by the Medicines Act 1968. It is not now possible to be precise about the date of introduction or the conditions of marketing. Reports of ototoxicity (damage to the ear, including deafness) associated with injections of neomycin led to discussion in the medical literature in the early 1960s of the risks of deafness. The injectable forms were subjected in 1966 to the Therapeutic Substances Act (TSA) 1956. TSA control was more limited than the comprehensive system under the Medicines Act 1986. Its chief objects were to ensure purity and potency. The risk of ototoxicity associated with all forms of neomycin was reported by the later 1960s.

  Over the period 1963 to 1988, 14 suspected cases of neomycin-associated deafness were reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicine (CSM) and its predecessor the Committee on Safety of Drugs (CSD). These reports derive from all formulations of neomycin. It is not meaningful to extrapolate from these reports. As with all prescription-only medicines, the decision in balancing the benefit of treatment of individuals against the risk of unwanted effects is a matter for clinical judgment. I am advised that clinical use of neomycin has become progressively selective with appreciation of the risks of ototoxicity, which the licensing authority (LA) and advisory bodies have played their part in fostering. Centrally available information is held on the number of hospital in-patient cases treated for burns and scalds. The latest available figure is an estimate of 11,190 for 1985, but there is no central information as to whether they were treated with neomycin.

  Medicines containing neomycin are subject to all the normal prescription-only controls. Data sheets inform doctors of the risks of ototoxicity. Moreover, in addition to the control of the products, the substance neomycin itself is controlled under the Medicines (Control of Substances for Manufacture) Orders 1971 and 1985 (SI 1971/1200 and SI 1985/1403): Individual batches are tested by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control.

  The CSM issued a warning to all doctors in 1977:
  "The association of deafness with the parenteral use of neomycin is well established. The Committee on Safety of Medicines have recently received reports of deafness following topical administration of aerosol preparations containing neomycin used in the treatment of extensive skin damage resulting from burns or other causes.
  The Committee urge the profession to report any case of ototoxicity which they suspect may have resulted from topical administration of aerosol or any other preparations containing neomycin or other antibiotics."
  506
  The CSM issued a reminder in 1981 in the Current Problems publication to all doctors:
  "The Committee on Safety of Medicines wishes to remind doctors that when otitis externa is treated topically with preparations containing chlorhexidine aminoglycoside antibiotics (eg neomycin, framycetin) or polymxins in patients who have a perforation of the tympanic membrane, there is an increased risk of drug-induced deafness. It is therefore important to ensure that there is no perforation in such patients before prescription of these preparations."

  The LA reviewed in 1979–80 with advice from the Committee on Review of Medicines (CRM), some medicines with neomycin which had been on the market before the Medicines Act was brought into effect; were mainly anti-diarrhoea products; generally, the result was to limit permitted indications for use and require additional warnings in product literature of the products which remained licensed.

  Other neomycin products are brought under scrutiny as part of the review of all pre-Act medicines.

  The independent "British National Formulary" distributed by the Department to all NHS doctors and pharmacists contains explicit warnings.

  Discussions have begun with the medical profession with a view to developing voluntary means of access to medical records. It could be counterproductive 1:o anticipate the outcome.

  It is for individuals who consider that they may have been made deaf by the use of neomycin to take advice. It would be inappropriate to prejudice such advice or any proceedings which might arise by a general statement or by inquiry into numbers affected or by attempting to identify individuals, for which there is no feasible central mechanism.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is being done to meet the needs of those people unable to go into private sector nursing homes

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: Health and local authorities provide a wide range of services to meet the needs of individuals. Health authorities provide hospital in-patient care where this is appropriate, NHS nursing home provision and community nursing support for those able to live in the community, whilst local authorities provide residential domiciliary and day-care services. We encourage health and local authorities to plan and work jointly with the voluntary and private sectors, to ensure that a comprehensive range of provision is available.

  A range of social security benefits is also available to help people who live in their own homes.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advise his Department has given to health districts for their strategic planning in relation to continuing care provision.

  Mr. Mellor [holding answer 2 February 1989]
  Th e most recent advice was set out in Circular HC(88)43, which gave guidance to health authorities on preparing short-term plans for 1989–90 and making any necessary revisions to existing strategic plans.

  A copy of this circular has been placed in the Library. The relevant references are in appendix 4.

  Pensioners (East Cleveland)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with employment training agencies on the loss of hot meal services to retirement pensioners in the East Cleveland area.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: I understand that the East Cleveland employment training group luncheon clubs project has been carried forward into employment training. Loftus Employment Training has been appointed as the training manager and is actively considering ways of ensuring the project's continued

  Hospital and Community Health Services—Current Expenditure

  £ millions

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Cash figures table 14·1 Cm. 614

  Gross

  8,882

  9,386

  9,886

  10,623

  11,730

  Net

  8,628

  9,120

  9,607

  10,320

  11,402

  Figures adjusted by HCHS Pay and Price deflator

  Gross

  11,461

  11,446

  11,469

  11,522

  11,730

  Net

  11,133

  11,122

  11,145

  11,193

  11,402

  The table sets out HCHS current expenditure figures from 1983–84, adjusted by the HCHS pay and price deflator for the years in which it is available. These figures do not take account of income from cash releasing cost improvements which, in the years shown, provided a significant contribution to the total resources available for service development.

  Hospitals (Resource Management Initiative)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals participating in the resource management initiative and those hospitals that will join the initiative in the next two years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: The following are the acute hospital sites that are participating in the resource management initiative:

  Freeman Hospital

  Royal Huddersfield Infirmary

  Royal Hampshire County

  Pilgrim Hospital

  Guy's Hospital

  Arrowe Park

  The acute resource management initiative will be extended over a phased period to the main acute hospitals in England. No decision has yet been taken on which particular hospitals will join the initiative in the next two years.

CIVIL SERVICE

  European Community (Reform)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what changes he expects to take place in(a) the training of the Civil Service and (b) related matters as a consequence of dismantling of internal frontiers in Europe in the run up to 1992.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service has for some time been preparing for the single European market. Departments are developing their training to respond to this opportunity, including the use they make of the courses in European affairs run by the Civil Service college. Details of
  508
  future within employment training. I also understand that Training Agency officials are available to help in this process as necessary.

  Pay and Price Deflator
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the relevant figures in table 14·1 of Cm. 614 adjusted by the hospital and community health services pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]:

  these courses are contained in the college brochure "European and International Affairs", a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of job clubs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  At 31 December 1988 there were 1,214 job clubs open for business. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 27 January at column 810.

  Unemployed Persons (London)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of his Department's survey on the long-term unemployed in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations following the publication of the results of the two London surveys covering employers and the longer-term unemployed, in London, respectively.

  There has of course been widespread interest in the research findings, which reveal that there are 150,000 job vacancies in London, at a time when almost 300,000 people are claiming benefit as unemployed.

  At least one third of the vacancies require no special qualifications or experience, although many of London's longer-term unemployed do have academic or vocational qualifications, with nearly one in 10 possessing degrees. Many also have experience in management and other skilled occupations.

  A quarter of the longer-term unemployed interviewed had not looked for work in the previous week. Many of those who said that they were actively looking for work used methods different from those favoured by employers in filling vacancies. Some of the London unemployed need
  509
  the opportunity to retrain in up-to-date skills, and we now have employment training for them. Others need to look more intensively for the jobs to which they are already well-suited. The surveys underline the importance of the measures which the Government are taking to ensure that benefit is drawn only by those who are genuinely unemployed.

  Japanese Tourists
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to stimulate Japanese tourism to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very aware of the tourism potential of the Japanese market.

  BTA is already involved in a range of promotional activities to stimulate Japanese travel to Great Britain. BTA has also commissioned a study of the Japanese tourism market in conjunction with DTI.

  YTS
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures for the number of filled YTS places for each year from 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  The average numbers of young people in training on YTS for each year from 1984 to 1988 are as follows:

  Number

  1984

  263,000

  1985

  265,000

  1986

  283,000

  1987

  358,000

  1988

  396,000

  YTS (Accidents)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures on the number of(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor accidents to YTS trainees reported to the Manpower Services Commission/Department of Employment Training Agency for each year from 1984 to 1988, giving the average age of trainees involved.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows the number of(a) fatal (b) major and (c) minor accidents to YTS trainees for each year from 1984 to 1987. Figures for the full years of 1988 are not yet available. From the 1 April 1986 changes in legislation on the reporting of accidents were introduced which had the effect of reclassifying some accidents from minor category to the major category—for example, broken wrists and ankles.

  The figures in brackets show the number of major and minor accidents under the previous reporting system. The average age of trainees involved could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Accidents1

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Year

  Fatalities

  Riddor

  Nador

  Riddor

  Nador

  1984

  43

  —

  190

  —

  1,725

  1985

  44

  —

  201

  —

  1,885

  1986

  75

  305

  (221)

  1,624

  (1,708)

  1987

  76

  427

  (262)

  2,466

  (2,631)

  510
  1 Training Agency accident figures for YTS are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, agency figures will include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments which may not have been reportable to the Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 Up to 31 March 1986 major injuries were classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. From 1 April 1986 major injuries have been classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurences Regulations 1985.

  3 This figure includes 2 road traffic accidents.

  4 This figure includes 1 road traffic accident.

  5This figure includes 3 road traffic accidents.

  6 This figure includes 2 road traffic accidents.

  Civil Service Appeal Board
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years his Department has(a) accepted and acted upon or (b) not accepted or acted upon, Civil Service appeal board recommendations concerning his Department's unfair conduct in disciplinary matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Generally speaking rejection of Civil Service appeal board recommendations is not common in my Department.

  Holidays (UK)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the most recent figure for the percentage of the population that take holidays in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest estimates show that 36 per cent. of the population of Great Britain aged 16 and over took one or more holidays of four or more nights in Great Britain in 1987.

  Tourists (East Midlands)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accommodation establishments are available to tourists in the east midlands region at the latest date.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, there were 3,016 tourist accommodation establishments in the east midlands region known to the English Tourist Board's registration unit.

  Vocational Courses
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce duplication between YTS, the technical and vocational education initiative, CPVE and other vocational courses.

  Mr. Cope
  This area is being carefully looked at and a number of lessons are emerging, including developments in records of achievement and vocational qualifications. We will continue to work towards reducing duplication to ensure progression for young people to obtain higher levels of attainment while maximising the increased choices available to young people as they move from school to work.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Training Agency's support for equal opportunities in training and employment for members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Cope
  From 1 April 1989 the Government are to enlarge and redirect their practical help to increase equal opportunities for members of ethnic minority groups through training.

  First, the Government will increase the provision within employment training for unemployed people who need training in English as a second language. There will be extra finance for supplementary grants for this kind of training; extra money for the assessment of people who need such training; and staff involved in the programme will receive training in the relevant expertise and, for the year beginning 1 April 1989, consultancy advice. These improvements to employment training will cost £1·3 million per year.

  Secondly, there will be a major initiative to increase the use of open and flexible learning in English as a second language. A total of £200,000 per year will be available to identify good open learning materials, to commission new material if necessary, and to promote its use.

  Thirdly, the Government are to extend the new programme "Business Growth Training" which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 January (Official Report, 25 January, column 550). In inner city target areas, firms receiving help under the programme for outside advice on training will be eligible for up to two-thirds of the total cost of their project, rather than the normal one-half maximum. A further £5,000— on top of the £15,000 maximum—would be available for such projects, whether or not in inner cities, to fund training which helped to increase equal opportunities for ethnic minority employees of the firm concerned. I am asking the Training Agency to ensure that each of its area offices with a concentration of ethnic minority employees in its area sets up appropriate projects of this kind. The annual cost of this extension of "Business Growth Training" would be £1 million in a full year.

  These new measures will supersede the present funding of the net running costs of industrial language training units totalling £2·2 million in 1988–89. Their original purpose was to provide training in basic English for first generation immigrants in employment. But while members of ethnic minorities in the work force are employed largely by private sector firms, the proportion of private sector employers helped by the units is small. The location of units does not fully reflect the distribution of ethnic minorities in the work force. And, the units focus on people in employment, whereas those in the greatest need are unemployed.

  The new arrangements announced today will create new business opportunities for the units. In order to give them time to adjust, their direct funding will therefore be extended from 31 March to 11 August 1989.

  I am confident that the new arrangements will help members of the ethnic minorities more and more effectively.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 13 July 1988,Official Report, columns 238–39, what is the reason for the decline in the amount of low flying taking place over southern Scotland in the first three months of 1988; and if he will provide an updated table showing the latest available figures for the numbers of movements and complaints in 1988;

  (2) if the figures for low flying aircraft movements over southern Scotland in his written answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, 1 May 1987, Official Report, column 298, and 13 July 1988, columns 238–39, include movements in low flying area 13; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Pursuant to the reply provided by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 13 July 1988, columns 238–39, I regret that an error was made in the calculation of the proportion of United Kingdom low flying movements over southern Scotland in the first three months of 1988. The correct figure is 7·1 per cent. The latest available figures for the numbers of movements in and complaints from southern Scotland are as follows:

  1 January to 31 October 1988

  Movements in southern Scotland

  17,049

  Complaints from southern Scotland

  285

  The figures for movements in southern Scotland do not include movements in low flying area 13.

  SDI (Contracts)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence how many contracts for research or development have been awarded to United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education under the strategic defence initiative programme; and what is their total worth.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Thirty-three contracts with a total value of United States $8 million.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence how many United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education have so far received contracts for research or development under the United States of America strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twenty-one.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the matters under consideration in the course of his current review of military low flying, the time-scale involved and the consideration given to possible public consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is no review of military low flying taking place. However, as part of a continuous monitoring of the United Kingdom low flying system, a programme of reviews of avoidance areas is carried out and changes made when necessary, reflecting changes on the ground,
  513
  and aimed at spreading low flying more evenly and enchancing flight safety, while at the same time reducing, where possible, the disturbance to those on the ground.

  Complaints
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 13 January, column 782 (1) at what level records are kept of the submissions for redress of complaint by service men; what categorisation of complaints is made; whether a report is prepared of the number of complaints made in each category; and what information is required centrally;

  (2) what effort would be required to obtain from existing records the number of submissions for redress of complaint relating to racial discriminniation or abuse; what would be the cost; if he will provide as much information as is accessible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Submissions for redress of grievance are retained as permanent records on the individual's service documents. Complaints may be made orally or in writing and are normally resolved at unit level. Commanding officers have a duty to investigate all complaints seeking redress and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the decision the rules provide for the complaint to be submitted to each subsequent level in the chain of command and ultimately to the service boards. Complaints investigated by the special investigations branch are categorised according to the nature of the offence (assault, theft, etc).

  Central records are kept only of cases submitted to the service boards. To obtain the information requested by the right hon. Gentleman would involve disproportionate cost, requiring individual returns from many thousands of service establishments world wide of cases settled at unit level.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table listing for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) England, (d) The Federal Republic of Germany, (e) Cyprus and (f) the Falkland Islands the number of complaints received in 1988 by his Department concerning the low flying of Royal Air Force or Royal Navy planes and seeking a reduction in this activity.

  Mr. Neubert
  My Department does not keep central records of complaints made about low-flying aircraft other than those involving activity in the United Kingdom low flying system. The total number of complaints received in 1988 is not yet available.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the annual defence budget has been allocated to nuclear weapons design, production, maintenance and deployment in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Estimated spending on strategic nuclear forces is shown in table 2·3 of volume 2 of the 1988 statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm 344-II). Since 1979, this spending has represented the following proportions of the defence budget:
  514

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  1·5

  1980–81

  1·5

  1981–82

  2·2

  1982–83

  2·3

  1983–84

  2·4

  1984–85

  2·3

  1985–86

  2·8

  1986–87

  3·6

  1987–88

  4·7

  1988–89

  15·6

  1Provisional estimate·

  Military Construction Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States military construction projects in the United Kingdom for which funding approval was given in fiscal year 1989, giving for each project its location, the nature of facilities to be constructed and an estimate of when the project will achieve operational status.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: I understand from information provided by the United States authorities that the following United States military construction projects have been funded for fiscal year 1989. Information regarding the operational status of these projects is unavailable. The dates given reflect when the facilities will be ready for occupation.

  Base and facility

  Ready for occupation

  RAF Bentwaters

  Recreation centre

  March 1991

  Sound suppressor support

  September 1989

  RAF Feltwell

  Passive defence equipment store

  January 1990

  RAF Lakenheath

  DEB communications building

  March 1990

  Alter/add to composite medical facility

  May 1993

  Semi-hardened communications facility

  May 1990

  Menwith Hill station

  Expansion of operations facilities

  March 1991

  RAF Mildenhall

  Child development centre

  July 1990

  Alter/add to water storage

  June 1991

  Alter/add to operations facility

  August 1990

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Upgrade/add to vehicle maintenance facility

  1

  RAF Welford

  Fire station

  September 1990

  Munitions igloos

  May 1990

  1 Although funding has been approved for this project. it is currently under United States Air Force review

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest information he has about United States military construction projects in the United Kingdom and its dependent territories for which funding approval is being sought for the United States fiscal years 1990 and 1991, giving for each project its location, the nature of the facilities to be constructed and an estimate of when each project will achieve operational status.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Information on the dates these projects will achieve
  515
  operational status is not available. I understand from information provided by the United States authorities that funding approval for the following United States military construction projects is currently being sought.

  1990

  London

  Automotive vehicle maintenance shop

  Enlisted bachelor quarters and mess hall

  Bovingdon

  Defence communications system site security

  High Wycombe

  Dormitory

  RAF Alconbury

  Alter/add to physical fitness facility

  Conventional munitions shop

  Squadron operations facility

  RAF Barford St. John

  Physical protection

  RAF Bentwaters

  Add to/upgrade fire station

  Alter munitions storage facility

  Central post office

  Chapel

  Youth centre

  RAF Christmas Common

  Defence communications system site security

  RAF Edzell

  Operations building annex

  RAF Fairford

  Digital European backbone facility

  Jet fuel storage/hydrant refuelling system

  Upgrade water storage and distribution system

  RAF Lakenheath

  Chemical warfare protection—squadron operations facility

  Storm drainage disposal

  RAF Mildenhall

  Jet fuel storage

  Upgrade sewage treatment plant

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Alter munitions storage facility

  Combat readiness centre

  Chemical warfare protection—squadron operations facility

  F-111 add to and alter flight simulator facility

  F-111 add to avionics maintenance shop

  F-111 add to engine shop

  Department of Defence dependent schools

  Bicester elementary school

  Upwood elementary school addition

  Defence medical support activity

  RAF Chessington (contingency hospital)

  RAF Lanark (fleet contingency hospital)

  Ascension Island

  Naval communications utilities support upgrade

  Bermuda

  Elementary school

  1991

  RAF Brawdy

  Electronic installation

  London

  Pay and personnel support office

  516

  High Wycombe air station

  Airmen dining hall

  RAF Alconbury

  Aircraft maintenance facility

  Alter dormitories

  Operations facility

  Passive defence equipment storage

  RAF Bentwaters

  Fuel storage

  Passive defence equipment storage

  RAF Chicksands

  Satellite communications terminal

  RAF Fairford

  Add to/alter physical fitness centre

  Domitory

  Organisational maintenance and support equipment complex

  RAF Greenham Common

  Fire station

  RAF Lakenheath

  Alter dormitory

  Alter munitions storage facility

  Combat repair equipment storage facility

  Chemical warfare protection—squadron operations facility

  Munitions storage igloos

  RAF Mildenhall

  Add to and alter physical fitness centre

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Alter dormitory

  Combat repair equipment storage facility

  Dormitory

  RAF Woodbridge

  Combat repair equipment storage facility

  Department of defence dependent schools

  Feltwell middle school addition

  Menwith Hill middle school addition

  Defence medical support activity

  RAF Arbroath (fleet hospital facility)

  RAF Locking

  Bermuda

  Naval air station family housing office

ENVIRONMENT

  Government Offices
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total square footage of the office estate of central Government within the boundaries of the old Inner London education authority area; and what is his estimate of the average rental which could be charged on those offices if they were available for arms length letting to the private sector.

  Mr. Chope
  The best information available is that for the Greater London area as a whole, approximately 2·1 million sq m of office space is held for Government use.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list(a) the bids for control of statutory water companies which will not be affected by

  517
  his proposals for automatic referral of such bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and (b) the announced bids which are likely to be covered by the proposals, indicating in each case the shareholding known to have been acquired by the bidder, and the identity of the bidder.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 January will not affect a bid for control of a statutory water company which does not satisfy the £30 million size of assets test in current merger legislation. A bid for a company with assets exceeding £30 million will be subject to automatic referral if the bidder is another statutory water company with assets exceeding £30 million or a person who already controls another statutory water company with assets exceeding £30 million or a water authority.

  The proposals will apply only to mergers initiated after 9 am on 11 January 1989. I am not at present aware of any bids announced since that time which fall within the scope of my right hon. Friend's proposals.

  Cars (Recycling)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many tonnes of cars were recycled in each of the last five years and as to the number of sites for recycling cars; what measures he is taking to encourage car recycling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. I understand from the British Scrap Federation that its best estimate of the weight of scrap metal derived from all types of motor vehicle is:

  Million tonnes

  1984

  1·73

  1985

  1·85

  1986

  2·08

  1987

  1·79

  1988

  2·20

  Waste Oil
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authorities have facilities for the collection of waste oil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the amount of waste oil that is unaccounted for each year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no annually compiled figures. In evidence to the 1985 House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities inquiry into disposal of waste oils (HL44, 1985–86) it was estimated that 100,000 tonnes were disposed of without re-use, from a total annual generation of 430,000 tonnes of waste oil.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to publicise(a)
  518
  the dangers to the environment of the disposal of waste oil and (b) the availability of safe disposal and recycling sites; and what measures he is taking to ensure that waste oil is not used in heaters without proper pollution control equipment and to ensure sufficient safe disposal and recycling sites exist.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A workshop, under the auspices of the Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, was held last October to promote awareness of the dangers of illegal disposal of waste oils and to encourage the use of suitable disposal facilities. Most local authorities provide such facilities at civic amenity sites.

  Plants which burn waste oil will be among the processes for which controls would be strengthened under the proposed revisions to air pollution legislation.

  Bottle Banks
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of people per bottle bank in the United Kingdom and for other European Community countries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand from the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation that the average density of bottle banks in the United Kingdom is one bottle bank for approximately every 14,000 people.

  In 1978 there were just 17 bottle bank sites in the whole country. By 1982 there were 1,230 or one for 45,000 people. Our target is to reach one for 10,000 people in 1991.

  In Europe, the average latest available (1985) figures for the provision of bottle banks are:

  Austria

  1 bottle bank per 1,200 people

  Switzerland

  1 bottle bank per 1,300 people

  Netherlands

  1 bottle bank per 1,400 people

  France

  1 bottle bank per 2,000 people

  Germany

  1 bottle bank per 2,000 people

  Textiles (Recycling)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authorities have sites where textiles can be taken to be recycled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Plastics (Recycling)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the number of facilities available for the recycling of plastics; and what steps he is taking to ensure their wider existence;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to encourage the use of environmentally benign plastics;

  (3) what information he has on the long-term viability of biodegradable plastics; and what measures he is taking to encourage their development;

  (4) what measures he is taking to ensure that plastics are either recycled or disposed of in a manner that enhances the environment and does not involve their dumping in land fill sites.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Recycling of plastics is carried out within the plastics industry with about 50 firms engaged in this work.
  519
  Recycling of plastics used by consumers is more difficult because of the variety of polymers used and the difficulty of separating mixed plastics accordingly.

  The Government encourage recycling as an environmentally sound disposal option where it is economic to do so and held a workshop in October 1986 with industry to promote this. The Government are supporting the proposal by UK 2000 for a "Recycling City" demonstration in Sheffield later this year and are pressing the plastics and soft drinks industries to include one or more post-consumer recycling projects in the plans. The demonstration will be monitored and the results publicised to encourage other towns and cities to follow suit.

  The use and development of biodegradable plastics has been the subject of research within industry and progress has been made in a number of areas. In the long term, however, market forces will determine the extent to which such materials become widely used. The Government are satisfied that controlled landfill is a safe and practicable disposal method for plastic waste that cannot be recycled.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of archaeology surveys and researches that his Department is funding in the three counties of Yorkshire together with the cost to date; and if this is separate from English Heritage's input.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for English Heritage.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect his Department's emphasis on funding in conjunction with English Heritage and on sponsorship of archaeological sites with tourist potential has had on sites of lesser potential in the three counties of Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  English Heritage has the responsibility for deciding priorities for funding, within its overall resources.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new controls over intensive farming 520
  and sewage works his Department expects to bring into force in the light of the two new draft European Community directives putting controls on fertilisers with the aim of preventing the pollution of drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to designate vulnerable areas under the European Community directive on nitrate levels in drinking, ground and sea water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: The European Commission has just published its draft proposal for a directive on the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against the pollution caused by nitrates.

  It is too early to predict the form or timing of the measures needed to implement the draft directive, were the proposals to be agreed by the member states.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the contribution made to acid rain in and around the United Kingdom by car exhaust fumes; what progress is being made to reduce this proportion by the fitting of catalytic converters and other means; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of Transport is preparing regulations to apply the limits for car exhaust emissions agreed within the European Community. The means by which these limits can be reached are a matter for the motor industry. It is expected that most cars over 1400 cc sold in the United Kingdom will require catalysts to meet them. A further measure for cars below 1400 cc has recently been agreed by the European Community and it is the Government's intention to implement it. The limits are such that most cars below 1400 cc will also then require at least an oxidation catalyst to meet them. Estimates of road transport emissions of nitrogen oxides, the main acidic pollutant from vehicles, are given in the annual digest of environmental protection and water statistics. The 11th edition will be published shortly and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Radon
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and location of the public sector buildings in England and Wales that receive a level of radon in excess of that which they were designed to withstand, and the number of milliSieverts by which that design standard is exceeded.

  Mr. Chope
  I can add nothing to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 23 January (Official Report column 455).

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities where the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90 shows an increase of less than 3 per cent.; and what is the average percentage increase for all local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The list below shows those authorities with increases in block grant of less than 3 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1989–90. The average increase for England is 8·8 per cent. The grant figures for 1988–89 have been adjusted for the transfer of higher education establishments to the polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Authorities with increase of less than 3 per cent. in block grant between 1988–89 and 1989–90

  East Cambridgeshire

  Craven

  Caradon

  Ryedale

  Erewash

  Ashfield

  North East Derbyshire

  Gedling

  Mid Devon

  Vale of White Horse

  North Dorset

  Oswestry

  Lewes

  Mendip

  Rother

  Sedgemoor

  Brentwood

  Taunton Deane

  Cotswold

  South Somerset

  East Hampshire

  Tamworth

  Rushmoor

  Warwick

  Malvern Hills

  Chichester

  Holderness

  St. Helens

  Kingston upon Hull

  Barnsley

  Ashford

  Rotherham

  Gravesham

  Gateshead

  Maidstone

  Hounslow

  Rochester upon Medway

  Avon

  Tunbridge Wells

  Dorset

  Fylde

  Essex

  South Ribble

  Hampshire

  Boston

  Isle of Wight

  East Lindsey

  North Yorkshire

  South Holland

  Nottinghamshire

  South Kesteven

  Staffordshire

  King's Lynn and West

  Suffolk

  Norfolk

  Wiltshire

  Tynedale

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on what new plans he has to deal with the future disposal of chemical hazardous waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 14 December to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd),Official Report, column 612. Since then, we have issued a further consultation paper, on
  522
  24 January, proposing additional measures affecting the future of waste disposal control. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report initiatives taken since 1979 to deal with the problems associated with the storage of hazardous chemical waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires, under section 3, that any land being used for the purposes of waste disposal must be licenced by the local waste disposal authority. These licences were originally issued under the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) Regulations 1976 (as amended) and subsequently by the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988.

  The 1988 regulations require the licensing of premises used to store wastes (including hazardous wastes) under certain circumstances. The regulations require a licence to be issued where special wastes—as defined by the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980—are stored above certain quantities. These limits are as follows:

  (a) liquid wastes in excess of 23,000 litres stored in secure containers;

  (b) non-liquid wastes of a total volume greater than 80 cubic metres stored in secure containers; and

  (c) non-liquid wastes of a total volume greater than 50 cubic metres stored in a secure place or places.

  The licence issued by the waste disposal authority should contain all necessary conditions to ensure that the operation of the licensed facility does not give rise to a danger to public health or cause pollution to water. It is the duty of the waste disposal authority to enforce the conditions of the licence and ensure compliance.

  The operators of such facilities also have responsibilities towards their workers which are covered by health and safety legislation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report those sites now designated as official storage sites for hazardous chemical waste; and when each site was last inspected by his inspectors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires, under section 3, that any land being used for the purposes of waste disposal must be licensed by the local waste disposal authority. Sites which store hazardous waste (specifically) special waste as defined in the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations above certain quantities have required such licences since 1976.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has records of some 126 such licensed facilities in England and Wales. As Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not hold copies of all waste disposal licences it would be necessary to obtain copies from the respective waste disposal authorities in order to provide full details. This would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the additional requirements that a site designated as suitable for storage of hazardous chemical waste has to have before it is so designated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires, under section 3, that any land being used for the purposes of waste disposal must be licenced by the
  523
  local waste disposal authority. Sites which store hazardous waste—specifically special waste as defined in the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations—above certain quantities have required such licences since 1976.

  Waste disposal authorities are required to licence each waste disposal site individually taking into account all necessary measures to ensure that the facility operates in such a way as to prevent danger to public health and to avoid the pollution of water. Premises licenced to store hazardous waste are treated in exactly the same manner as any other waste disposal facility and, as such, there are no specific statutory requirements that apply solely to such facilities. Guidance on the issues that might be addressed in a licence for the storage of hazardous waste has been given by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in waste management paper No. 4.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests have been made to him by the Walsall metropolitan borough council regarding action over the disposal of hazardous and toxic waste; and what has been his response.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 February 1989]: In the past year, the Department has responded in detailed correspondence and discussion about the council's views on the need for more controls over disposal operations and imports and about their wish to eliminate hazardous waste disposal operations from their area. Those responses have included emphasis on the need for waste disposal authorities to meet the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in planning and controlling waste disposal and explanations of the Government proposals for legislative improvements and the mechanism of the recently introduced Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report initiatives taken since 1979 to deal with the problems associated with the storage of hazardous chemical waste.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  My officials have taken part with the Department of the Environment in the preparation of United Kingdom waste management papers on a number of topics relevant to special wastes, including:

  Year

  Wood preserving wastes

  1980

  Arsenic bearing wastes

  1980

  Pesticide wastes

  1980

  Special wastes

  1981

  Clinical wastes

  1983

  Cadmium bearing wastes

  1984

  Heat treatment cyanide wastes

  1985

  The Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 1977 and the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations, made in 1980, are being reviewed.

  The need for a licence covering storage of special waste is drawn to the attention of waste disposal authorities during formal visits by the hazardous waste inspectorate.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report those sites
  524
  now designated as official storage sites for hazardous chemical waste; and when each site was last inspected by his inspectors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  Waste disposal authorities are not obliged to make returns giving details of their licences. From information held centrally we have identified four facilities in Scotland which are licensed solely for the storage of certain hazardous waste. These are:—

  Address of storage facility

  Waste disposal authority

  Eni-Chem Elastomers

  Falkirk District Council

  Bo'ness Road

  Grangemouth

  Non-Tox Limited

  Inverness District Council

  Dalcross Industrial Estate

  Ardesier

  Strathclyde Department of Education

  Hamilton District Council

  Auchingramont Road

  Hamilton

  BP Petroleum Development Limited

  Shetland Islands Council

  The Vadill

  Sullom Voe Terminal

  It is the duty of waste disposal authorities to supervise the operation of all licensed facilities in their area. An inspector from the hazardous waste inspectorate did however visit the Sullom Voe site in 1984.

  Storage facilities exist at other sites licensed for the disposal of waste, but are not identified separately.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the additional requirements that a site designated as suitable for storage of hazardous chemical waste has to have before it is so designated.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  Waste disposal authorities are required to license each waste disposal site individually and such licences may incorporate conditions relating to storage. There are no specific statutory requirements that apply solely to storage facilities.

  In setting licence conditions applicable to any site, a waste disposal authority will take account of the materials to be stored, the nature of the operation and its location. Licence conditions for each site seek to ensure that each waste facility does not present a danger to public health, cause water pollution or become seriously detrimental to the amenity of the locality.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of reference given by the London Docklands Development Corporation to Research Bureau Ltd. on employment in the London Docklands; on what date it was commissioned; what was the fee paid; on what date he received a copy; and what is the likely date of publication.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC commissioned Research Bureau Ltd. to report on the changes in employment in Docklands since the previous survey in 1985, by letters
  525
  dated 1 May and 21 July 1987. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, fees for individual consultancies are not normally disclosed. The corporation plans to release the survey results this month, and a copy will be placed in the Library. My Department will also receive a copy.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies Her Majesty's Government have commissioned on the sub-sea disposal of nuclear waste; which private companies are involved; and if he will summarise what role each has.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment commissioned research on the feasibility and safety of subseabed disposal of radio-active waste as part of an international programme co-ordinated by the nuclear energy agency of OECD. The research was completed in 1987. No private companies are now involved.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the United Kingdom has complied with the European Economic Community directive on the conservation of wild birds; which other members of the Community comply with the directive; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that its terms are complied with throughout the Community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The directive's requirements are implemented by means of part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England, Scotland and Wales and by the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Orders 1985 and Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 in Northern Ireland.

  The directive is binding on all member states of the Community and requires them to introduce their own legislation to implement the directive, and to ensure that it is applied effectively. It is the responsibility of the EC Commission to check that adequate measures have been taken, and they have shown themselves willing to use their powers to refer to European courts of justice cases where, in the Commission's view, member states have failed fully to comply with the directive.

  Methane Gas Escape (Denton)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions officials of his Department have had with Tameside metropolitan borough council about the escape of methane gas at the old tip in Ruby street, Denton.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  HM inspectorate of pollution has held discussions with Tameside MBC regarding the migration of landfill gas from the closed landfill at Ruby street, Denton. Inspectors have visited the site and are keeping closely in touch with progress on remedial action.

  Water Authority Land
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many sites of special scientific interest lie wholly or partly on water authority land; and if he will list the sites of special scientific interest and the water authorities concerned;
  526
  (2) how many sites of scientific interest lie wholly or partly on water authority land;

  (3) if he will list the sites of scientific interest which are wholly or partly owned by the Yorkshire water authority;

  (4) how many sites of special scientific interest are wholly or partly owned or administered by British statutory water companies; and if he will list these sites of special scientific interest and the water companies concerned;

  (5) how many sites of scientific interest are wholly or partly owned or administered by British statutory water companies; and if he will list those sites of scientific interest and the water companies concerned.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information about sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) is currently being assembled by the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  I understand that the term "sites of scientific interest" refers to non-statutory designated sites and was used mainly by the former county councils of West and South Yorkshire in the context of development plans. The information about such sites may be available from the appropriate successor local authority. It can not be provided by the Department except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of(a) statutory public footpaths, (b) statutory public bridleways and (c) permissive footpaths lie within British statutory water companies' land holdings; and if he will list the mileage for each company in each category.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This detailed information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Warrington and Runcorn new town development corporation; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  I had a useful meeting with Professor Mercer on Monday 30 January. We discussed a wide range of matters, including progress towards the wind-up of the development corporation in September, housing, and progress with asset disposals in Warrington and Runcorn.

  Environmental Awareness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a consultancy research contract with the countryside interpretation unit, presently based at the Open university, Milton Keynes, as part of his Department's promotion of countryside environmental awareness.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment has no immediate intentions of placing a consultancy research contract with the countryside interpretation unit. Research contracts are commissioned in keeping with the Department's research priorities and on the basis of competitive tenders, unless there are special reasons for inviting a single contractor. The Department will consider proposals for research relevant to its responsibilities in line with its established contractual procedures.

  Under-used Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost to central and local government of preparing, publishing and updating the public registers of under-used land; how many staff have been employed on this work; and what is the additional number of acres which have been added to the registers, in each of the last five years.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Area added (gross)

  7,700

  10,800

  6,300

  7,700

  4,800

  Area removed

  6,800

  12,300

  12,200

  15,500

  10,900

  Area added (net)

  +900

  -1,500

  -5,900

  -7,800

  -6,100

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of under-used land currently on the public registers are in the ownership of(a) the water authorities and (b) the electricity boards; and how many acres have been removed from the registers following the privatisation of British Gas.

  Mr. Trippier
  At the end of January 1989, the registers of unused and under-used land owned by public bodies contained details of 2,243 acres of such land owned by water authorities and 2,938 acres owned by electricity boards.

  Following the privatisation of the former British Gas Corporation, 1,456 acres of land owned by that body were removed from the registers.

  Future Bills
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the next Bills on(a) local government, (b) town and country planning and (c) housing.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government's Local Government and Housing Bill was published on Thursday, 2 February. There are no proposals for a Bill on town and country planning in the present Session. I cannot anticipate the contents of legislative programmes for future years.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would on present estimates(a) a ward sister and (b) a teacher of five years experience and living in an average three bedroom terraced house in Waveney pay under (a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) a combination of local income tax and capital value rates.

  Mr. Gummer
  A ward sister earning £13,000 living in a house in Waveney worth £60,000 and with a rateable value of £200 would pay a rates bill of £422, a community charge of £194 (disregarding the transitional safety net) and £485 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax (LIT). A teacher on a similar salary, living in an identical property, would pay the same rates and community charge bills as the ward sister, and broadly the same capital value rates/LIT bill. In both cases the capital value rates/LIT bill would vary somewhat, depending on the taxable income of the individuals.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of what a married couple
  528
  Mr. Trippier
  The average annual cost to my Department in recent years is calculated to have been £383,000. Details of the annual cost to local government are not held centrally. Within my Department 19 full-time equivalent staff have been employed on this work.

  The table shows the gross and the net area added to the registers, in acres, in each of the last five calendar years:

  with one child, and only one parent working, earning (a) £8,000 per annum living in a two bedroomed house valued at £65,000, (b) £12,000 per annum living in a three bedroomed house valued at £85,000, and (c) £18,000 per annum living in a three bedroomed house valued at £100,000, would pay in (i) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20 and (ii) rates if they lived in Chelmsford.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: The figures are given in the table, together with the assumptions used in each case. It has been necessary to supply assumptions about rateable value and taxable incomes.

  Example A

  Married couple; gross income £8,000; taxable income £1,000; capital value £65,000; rateable value £175

  £

  Rate bill

  413

  Community charge (no safety net)

  1458

  Capital value rate/LIT bill

  525

  1 2 × £229.

  Example B

  Married couple; gross income £12,000; taxable income £5,000;capital value £85,000; rateable value £275

  £

  Rate bill

  649

  Community charge (no safety net)

  1458

  Capital value rate/LIT bill

  730

  1 2 × £229.

  Example C

  Married couple; gross income £18,000; taxable income £11,000;capital value £100,000; rateable value £375

  £

  Rate bill

  885

  Community charge (no safety net)

  1458

  Capital value rate/LIT bill

  920

  1 2 × £229.

  Sewers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of all domestic properties are served by(a) sewers adopted under section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936, (b) sewers connected to the mains but themselves unadopted and (c) private sewers unconnected to the mains; and what proportion of new houses fall into these several categories.

  Mr. Howard
  More than 95 per cent. of the population of England and Wales are connected directly or indirectly
  529
  to the public sewer network. No comprehensive information is available on the proportion of domestic properties served by sewers adopted by water authorities under sections 17 and 18 of the Public Health Act 1936, or which remain unadopted.

  Water Authorities (Finance)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the anticipated outstanding debt for each water authority, expressed in sterling, for 1989–90.

  Mr. Howard
  I expect the liabilities of the water authorities to pass to the successor bodies under the provisions of the Water Bill before the end of 1989. Figures for debt outstanding at the end of 1988–89 will be published in each authority's annual accounts in the usual way.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the external finance limits for each water authority, for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is set out in the table for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89. I expect the water authorities to pass to the successor bodies under the provisions of the Water Bill before the end of 1989.

  Authority

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Anglian

  45·7

  36·0

  23·5

  Northumbrian

  18·0

  -1·0

  4·0

  North West

  58·0

  60·2

  54·0

  Severn Trent

  7·9

  -2·4

  -16·5

  Southern

  2·2

  -5·0

  -13·5

  South West

  4·7

  1·0

  1·0

  Thames

  -82·0

  -95·0

  -95·0

  Wessex

  26·8

  13·0

  25·0

  Yorkshire

  25·8

  21·5

  15·0

  External finance limits for the Welsh water authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Rate Support Grant (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total rate support grant to Cambridgeshire for each year from 1983–84 to 1989–90; and what it would have been if total expenditure had not exceeded Government targets in those years when that occurred.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table shows the latest figures for total rate support grant payable to authorities in Cambridgeshire for each year from 1983–84 to 1989–90.

  In 1984–85 the grant of Cambridgeshire county council was abated by £4·152 million because its total expenditure exceeded Government targets. In 1983–84 Peterborough's grant was abated by less than £500.

  Rate support grant payable to authorities in Cambridgeshire under latest supplementary report and 1989–90 settlement report

  £ million

  1983–84

  93·665

  1984–85

  92·883

  1985–86

  87·556

  1986–87

  83·195

  1987–88

  84·693

  1988–89

  78·166

  1989–90

  72·219

  Waste Regulations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation to strengthen waste regulatory controls.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible based on the Government's announcement of 29 June 1988 and the results of consultation exercises announced on 23 November and 24 January. Copies of the consultation papers have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Inner City Programmes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) of 30 January,Official Report, columns 24–28, which are the inner cities programmes his Department is carrying out; what non-government organisations are taking part in such programmes; where each of these programmes is operating; and on what date each one was started.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department's principal inner city programmes are described in the publication "DoE Inner City Programmes, 1987–88", which also gives an account of their achievements and development and contains a map of the areas in which they are operating. These programmes and the years of their inception are: urban development corporations (1981), grants for urban development (1982—now subsumed in city grant which started last year), the urban programme (1969), derelict land grant (1981 in its present form), enterprise zones (1981) and land registers (1981).

  A large number of non-governmental organisations are making use of these programmes and it would not be practicable to list them.

TRANSPORT

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out for the last 10 years(a) the number of decisions relating to motorway and other major infrastructure projects made by the Secretary of State for Transport that have been referred for judicial review, (b) in how many instances the High Court has found against the Secretary of State and, (c) in those cases where the High Court dismissed an application for judicial review, what was the cost to his Department of defending the action and his estimate of the length of delay caused to the project by such applications.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the last 10 years 16 orders made by the Secretary of State for Transport on motorway and major road projects have been challenged in the High Court. No orders made by the Secretary of State have been referred for judicial review.

  Two of the challenges were successful.

  We do not have details of the costs incurred in defending these cases. On all those where the application was dismissed, costs were awarded against the appellant.

  Delay to the projects varied from nil to four years depending on the particular circumstances in each case.

  Driver Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were his reasons for proposing the direct licensing of personal data contained within driver information systems, as outlined in part II of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill; and how these proposals relate to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The possible licence condition at clause 10(8)(f) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to require an operator of a driver information system to provide him with information from the system and to authorise him to make it available to others. This provision reflects the fact that the autoguide system will generate information on the speeds and journey times of autoguide-equipped vehicles. Such information could be of value to the Department and other highway authorities in developing traffic management strategies.

  It is not our intention that part II of the Bill should provide for the licensing of personal data or that it should override any part of the Data Protection Act.

  If any amendments are necessary to place that beyond doubt, we shall bring them forward.

  Road Traffic Discs
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road tax discs are lost or stolen each year; and if he has any plans to seek to introduce legislation to deter theft of tax discs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On the basis of subsequent applications for refunds or duplicates, very roughly 150,000 licence discs—about 0·5 per cent. of licences issued—are lost or stolen each year.

  Theft of licence discs is a crime. There is no need for further legislation.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been carried out on theft-proof alternatives to the road tax disc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The vehicle excise licence disc includes a number of security features which make it difficult to forge or fraudulently alter, and thus make it unattractive to thieves.

  Research continues into the possibility of making licences more difficult to remove from vehicle windscreens without affecting the security and other design features. They often need to be removed legitimately for refunds.

  Various high-technology alternatives to tax discs have been examined. So far none of them is as cost effective as the present system.

  Road Schemes (Open Space)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used in the evaluation for COBA of public open space to be acquired for road schemes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In addition to the DV's valuation in COBA, the manual of environmental appraisal requires the appraisal framework to include full reference to any public open space taken by a road scheme, and the effect on those who use it.
  532
  The Department is required to provide replacement public open space, of satisfactory quality, for any taken for road schemes. The cost of this is also included in the COBA appraisal.

  The Department accepts the independent valuation of the district valuer for all land and property costs used in the assessment of road schemes.

  Shipping (Western Isles)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the density of shipping traffic on the Atlantic side of the Western Isles where the sea depth is 100m.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Transport does not have this information.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many navigation lights and radar reflectors are at present deployed on the western side of the Western Isles.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are 13 navigation lights and one radar beacon (racon). For general navigation the Northern Lighthouse Board maintains three major lights at Barra Head, Butt of Lewis and Flannan Isles, and two minor lights at Carloway and Greinam in the Isle of Lewis. For local navigation, local bodies provide eight other minor lights. The Ministry of Defence operates a racon at Monach off North Uist.

  British Rail (Staff)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what directions have been given to the British Railways Board in respect of reductions in staffing or manpower of its employees; and what efficiency targets or other targets have been given to the board which impinge on future staffing levels.

  Mr. Portillo
  The only formal directions given to the railways board in recent years concern accounting provision and loan repayments. The objectives which the Government wish the board to pursue were set out in a letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman on 21 October 1986, and published in the Official Report of the same day (columns 772–74). The quality of service standards agreed between the Government and board were published in the Official Report on 17 July 1987 (columns 671–72). It is for the board to decide how best to meet those objectives, including the levels of manpower required.

  British Rail (Meetings)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 26 January at the launch of the central London rail study.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with named bodies or persons having experience of administration of
  533
  driving licences for private drivers, public service licences, and licences for heavy goods vehicles; and if he will place responses to such consultations in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's officials have regular meetings with those involved with the operation of the ordinary and vocational licensing systems. The Department consulted widely last year about proposals for a new unified licensing system. A summary of the responses was placed in the Library.

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify each donation made by his Department in response to public appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is:

  Donation to

  £

  1979–80 to

  Channel ferry disaster fund

  1985–86

  nil

  King's Cross disaster fund

  1986–87

  11,000,000

  Clapham junction disaster fund

  1987–88

  250,000

  East midlands air crash disaster fund

  1988–89

  250,000

  2150,000

  1 Repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund, which was repaid in 1987–88.

  2 The balance of the Government donation of £250,000 was met by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has as to the annual cost in

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of driving licences issued to new drivers

  1,346,373

  1,382,060

  1,290,680

  1,348,336

  1,135,724

  1,273,977

  1,202,565

  1,193,244

  1,120,315

  1,177,748

  Total number of valid licences issued

  6,271,974

  6,622,997

  6,199,578

  6,665,962

  6,346,080

  5,666,748

  5,621,893

  5,621,893

  6,320,371

  6,656,681

  Percentage of total that new drivers represent

  21·47

  20·87

  20·82

  20·23

  17·90

  22·48

  21·39

  18·88

  17·89

  17·69

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences were reissued in each of the past 10 years as a result of(a) a change of address, (b) loss, (c) disqualified drivers requalifying and (d) other causes; and what percentage of the total number of licences issued in each of these years each of these categories represent.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Change of address including names(replacements)

  per cent·of total

  Loss (duplicates)

  per cent· of total

  Disqualification (renewal after disqualification)

  per cent· of total

  Others

  per cent· of total

  Total licences issued (including first issues to new applicants)

  1979

  1,434,904

  22·88

  201,177

  3·21

  61,883

  0·99

  3,227,637

  51·46

  6,271,974

  1980

  1,560,646

  23·56

  234,876

  3·55

  66,166

  1·00

  3,379,249

  51·02

  6,622,99'7

  1981

  1,394,394

  22·49

  206,631

  3·33

  58,422

  0·94

  3,249,451

  52·41

  6,199,578

  1982

  1,773,176

  26·60

  272,278

  4·08

  65,324

  0·98

  3,206,848

  48·10

  6,665,962

  1983

  1,955,790

  30·31

  271,983

  4·29

  59,354

  0·94

  2,923,229

  46·06

  6,346,081

  1984

  2,058,675

  36·33

  304,078

  5·37

  73,852

  1·30

  1,956,166

  34·52

  5,666,748

  1985

  2,222,845

  39·54

  340,650

  6·06

  80,857

  1·44

  1,775,636

  31·58

  5,621,893

  1986

  2,752,320

  43·55

  377,247

  5·97

  87,386

  1·38

  1,910,177

  30·22

  6,320,371

  1987

  2,796,194

  44·65

  396,010

  6·32

  89,623

  1·43

  1,859,915

  27·70

  6,262,057

  1988

  3,052,674

  45·86

  441,056

  6·63

  88,872

  1·34

  1,896,331

  28·49

  6,656,681

  534
  each of the past 10 years of the issue of drivers' licences by the driver and vehicle licensing centre, Swansea; and if he will give the number of staff employed in each year at the centre for this purpose.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total cost of operating the driver licensing system and the staff employed in DVLCs driver licensing division in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  Licensing division staff numbers

  1978–79

  12·3

  1,053

  1979–80

  11·3

  901

  1980–81

  12·7

  919

  1981–82

  16·0

  949

  1982–83

  17·6

  942

  1983–84

  19·4

  932

  1984–85

  20·5

  915

  1985–86

  20·3

  965

  1986–87

  20·4

  964

  1987–88

  21·0

  915

  Total cost

  171·5

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail the number of driving licences issued to new drivers in each of the last 10 years, together with the total number of valid licences in each year and the percentage of the total that new drivers' licences represent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table provides the required information.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no statistics available about the number of driving licences issued for change of address. The driving licence form which is used for this purpose may also be used for change of name—for example, females on marriage. The statistics are therefore combined. The table shows the categories of licences issued in the last 10 years.

  North-West (Road Building)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road building work contracts in the north-west during 1988–89 scheduled to cost over £1 million.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following is the table:

  Scheme

  Total cost excluding land

  M63 (junctions 1–3)

  21·0

  M63 (junctions 3–5)

  21·7

  M63 Portwood-Brinnington

  45·5

  M66 Brinnington-Denton

  M62 widening (junctions 21–22)

  10·00

  A565 Derby Road improvement

  2·1

  A483 Gresford-Pulford bypass

  14·6

  1 English section only.

  In addition work has been carried out on five major motorway maintenance contracts with a value of over? 1 million. Contracts on local authority roads are not included.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his Department's current policy regarding the provision of insulation grants and other assistance for people living adjacent to(a) motorways and (b) airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  For people living near new motorways and other new public roads, there is provision for insulation against noise in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 and for compensation for injurious affection in the Land Compensation Act 1973. Offers of insulation or grant are made where dwellings receive or are expected to receive noise levels which meet the criteria set out in the regulations. Claims for compensation for nuisance caused by specified physical factors arising from the use of a road can be made against the highway authority one year after the new road is opened to traffic. These provisions do not assist those who live near older roads not covered by the legislation introduced in 1973 or who have moved near a motorway since it opened.

  Details of the provisions and procedures for claims are set out in the land compensation series of booklets, in particular No. 2 entitled "Your Home and Nuisance from Public Development" and No. 5 "Insulation against Traffic Noise".

  The Government have designated Heathrow and Gatwick for noise insulation grant purpose and has made, by statutory instrument, various noise insulation grants schemes. The most recent schemes for these airports which provided for grants to be paid by the then British Airports Authority effectively ended in March 1985. As promised in the 1985 airports policy White Paper, these schemes were reviewed. This suggested that small areas outside the scheme boundary at each airport should be included retrospectively. BAA plc have agreed to operate and fund extensions to the schemes which will be promulgated by statutory instrument shortly. We have no plans to introduce new schemes at these airports.

  We are committed to introducing a scheme at Stansted when the airport reaches 2 million passengers per annum.
  536
  We understand that BAA has introduced schemes at its non-designated airports and that several other airports also pay such grants.

  The Land Compensation Act 1973 provides that if there has been depreciation in value of property as a result of change in the noise climate (or other physical factor) arising from major apron and runway alterations to an existing airport, or the coming into use of a new airport then the airport operator is liable to pay compensation equal to that depreciation in value to the property. The Act does not provide for the payment of compensation for loss of property value to owners of property around airports which may be progressively affected by the intensified use of an airport. Although no powers exist to require airport owners or operators to acquire properties suffering from severe noise-blight, BAA plc introduced voluntary schemes to do this at Heathrow and Gatwick. The schemes, with boundaries based on the 65 NNI (noise and number index) contours and ownership predating 17 October 1969, closed on 31 December 1988 though applications received before then are still being processed. Similar arrangements have been made for noise-blighted properties near airports owned by local authorities.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations British Rail will be undertaking with affected individuals and communities following the publication of the four route options for the construction of a fast rail link between the Channel tunnel and London termini.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that BR will be setting out its proposals for further consultations when it announces its preferred route.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that British Rail consults fully the communities affected by any of the four Channel tunnel fast rail links options; and if he will set out his criteria for assessing the effectiveness of consultation.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is well aware of the need to consult those affected by its proposals. It will be for Parliament to judge whether those consultations have been effective if and when it considers BR's Private Bill.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to a loan guarantee scheme, underwritten by his Department, as a possible vehicle for providing extra money for British Rail to construct a Channel tunnel fast rail link from the Kent coast to London termini.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. Such a scheme would not affect the need for BR's investment to be commercially viable.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to use the hybrid Bill procedure to progress British Rail's proposals to build a new railway line through Kent.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to use the hybrid Bill procedure.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received from the proponents the costings for the proposed railway route known to its promoters as Talis.
  537
  Mr. Portillo
  I have not.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to whether the private Bill procedure will be used in the event of the British Railways Board seeking legislative approval to construct a Channel tunnel high-speed fixed rail link from the Kent coast to London termini.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail has no alternative but to use the Private Bill procedure to acquire all the powers that it needs to construct and operate new railway lines.

  Roads and Maintenance
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount spent on roads and maintenance in 1987–88 and the estimated amount for 1988–89.

  Mr. Bottomley
  The total amount spent on roads and maintenance in Great Britain in 1987–88 was £3,382 million. The forecast outturn in 1988–89 is £3,541 million.

  Railway Safety (Survey)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct the chairman of British Rail to publish the survey of safety on the rail network carried out by the British Transport police at Liverpool street and Fenchurch street stations in November 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 3 February [Official Report, column 439].

  British Transport Police
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Transport police officers were employed in total in each of the last five years; and of the total, how many were allocated to British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  BTP figures for officers in post are in the table:

  (end years)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total

  1,961

  1,817

  1,834

  1,846

  1,830

  of which allocated to British Rail

  1,425

  1,446

  1,417

  1,455

  1,427

  The change in the total between 1984 and 1985 reflected the termination of arrangements between Associated British Ports and the BTP.

  M40 Extension
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long the first public inquiry into the M40 extension took; how many witnesses gave evidence; how many pages of evidence were taken; when the first public inquiry ended; and when the inspector presented his report of that inquiry to him.

  Mr. Bottomley
  The public inquiry took 117 days. There were 169 witnesses and 756 documents and 232 plans were taken in evidence. The inquiry ended on 3 June 1983. The inspectors' report was presented to the Secretary of State in March 1984.
  538
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government first announced an intention to construct the Banbury bypass/M40 extension; when the first public inquiry into the M40 extension began; and what were the reasons for the delay between the two dates.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The first announcement about the M40 extension was made in April 1968. The first public inquiry, for the Waterstock to Warwick section, commenced in September 1982. The time between can be accounted for by public consultation, detailed design and statutory procedures on the section between the M42 arid Warwick.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he announced his decision on the route of the M40 extension subsequent to receiving the inspector's report; what were the dates of court hearings for judicial review of that decision; and what is the estimated delay on the M40 extension of such hearings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced their decision on 14 December 1984. The orders were challenged. The court hearings were on 23 May and 20 December 1985. The estimated delay was one year.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the recent public inquiry into the M40 extension commenced; how many witnesses gave evidence; how many pages of evidence were taken; when the inquiry ended; and when the inspector submitted his report to him.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The public inquiry into the Waterstock-Wendlebury section opened on 8 September 1987 and closed on 22 January 1988. One hundred and eighty-three witnesses presented 625 documents of varying lengths. The transcripts for 63 sitting days averaged about 80 pages a day. The inspector's report was received on 28 July 1988.

  Port of Dover (Improvements)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is still Government policy to ensure that improvements to the road and rail access to the ferries sailing from the port of Dover should take place in a manner consistent with enabling the ferries to compete in a fair manner with the proposed Channel tunnel after 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. We are firmly committed to an even-handed approach towards the tunnel and the ferries.

  A20 Folkestone—Dover
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the delay in the inspector's report on the proposed dualling of the A20 between Dover and Folkestone; and when he expects a decision to be announced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The complex issues in the inspector's report and the objections and representations, are being carefully considered. We hope to make an announcement in the summer.

  A1 Morpeth
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the latest available figures for
  539
  traffic flow at peak times on the A1 road between Morpeth and the Scottish border; and if he will make a statement on the growth trend of traffic on that section of the A1 over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's northern regional office has installed three permanent loop counting sites on the A1 north of Morpeth. Two of the sites, one north of Berwick and another north of Alnwick have been in operation for more than a year. The third site, just south of Alnwick, has been operating since October 1988.

  The latest flow figures at these sites showing a seven-day average for the week ending Sunday 1 January 1989 are as follows:

  Vehicles per day (24 hours)

  North of Berwick

  5,650

  South of Alnwick

  8,200

  North of Alnwick

  4,850

  The highest recorded flows during the past 12 months on the two sites in operation in that period were:

  Vehicles per day (24 hours)

  North of Berwick

  9,770

  North of Alnwick

  7,730

  There are no figures available that would accurately reflect the traffic growth over the last ten years on this section of road. Local planning data from the Alnwick and Berwick districts indicates a growth factor of 28 per cent. over this period.

  Cambridgeshire
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been total central Government expenditure on roads in Cambridgeshire for each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89, and that anticipated for 1989–90, at cash figures and at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and may be obtainable only at a disproportionate cost. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Cyril Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on what plans London Regional Transport has to purchase additional rolling stock for the Docklands light railway.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ten vehicles were ordered in July 1987 from BREL. Following competitive tendering, London Regional Transport has recently awarded a contract for a further 10 vehicles costing £9.85 million to BN Ferroviares et Metalliques SA, a Belgian-based company. BN has associated with Hawker Siddeley Rail projects, which will be supplying the major sub-systems. The additional rolling stock is part of the programme for upgrading the capacity of the Docklands light railway and extending it to Bank station.

  A11
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates he envisages the start of each of the various 540
  phases of dualling of the A11 between (a) Stumps Cross and the Newmarket bypass and (b) the Newmarket bypass and the Barton Mills bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Listed below are the five schemes currently being prepared in the national trunk road programme with an indication of the expected start, subject to completion of the statutory procedures. I cannot be more specific at this stage.

  Scheme

  Planned start year

  Stump Cross to Four Wentways improvement

  After 1991

  Four Wentways Junction improvement

  1991

  Four Wentways to Newmarket dualling

  1991

  Newmarket to Red Lodge

  1991

  Red Lodge bypass

  1990

  Railway Development
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each newly constructed underground railway and substantial alteration to an existing railway which has been approved by Transport Ministers since 1959.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: Following is a list of approvals by Ministers of Transport to the use of new or substantially altered underground railways during the period 1959–88, following inspection by officers of the railway inspectorate. It does not include resignalling schemes, station refurbishments or the provision or uplift of maintenance facilities.

  London Underground lines

  Jubilee Line:

  New underground section: Baker Street to Charing Cross.

  Metropolitan Line:

  Aldersgate-Moorgate realignment.

  Northern (City) Line:

  Diversion of northbound line at Highbury as part of Victoria Line scheme.

  Picadilly Line:

  Diversion into Northern (City) Line station tunnel at Finsbury Park as part of Victoria Line scheme.

  Progressive extension to Hatton Cross, Heathrow Central and Terminal 4.

  Victoria Line:

  Opening from Walthamstow Central to Highbury and Islington. Progressive extension to Warren Street, Victoria and Brixton.

  British Rail Lines

  Opening of Merseyrail loop and link line (financed by Merseyside PTE).

  Electrification of Moorgate-Kentish Town (underground section of St. Pancras/Moorgate-Bedford scheme).

  Drayton Park to Moorgate (reconstruction and transfer to BR of former Northern (City) Underground line).

  Blackfriars-Farringdon (electrification and introduction of passenger service; sub-surface section of Thameslink line).

  Passenger Transport Executive Lines

  Strathclyde:

  Glasgow Underground refurbishment.

  Tyne and Wear:

  Sub-surface city centre sections of Metro (Jesmond-Gateshead Stadium and St. James-Manors).

THE ARTS

  "Social Trends 19"
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the arts content of the recently published "Social Trends 19".
  541
  Mr. Luce
  I welcome the evidence of growth in public interest in and total expenditure on the arts. This is clearly shown by the Social Trends publication.

  National Maritime Museum
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what have been the attendances at the national maritime museum since charging was introduced.

  Mr. Luce
  Admission charges were introduced at the national maritime museum on 2 April 1984. Attendances in 1988, at over 700,000, exceeded substantially the estimated level of attendances in 1983, the year before the introduction of admission charges, and represented an increase of 60 per cent. over 1987.

  Area Museums Councils
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will encourage the further establishment of area museums councils.

  Mr. Luce
  I welcome the work of the area museums councils as regional centres of expertise and initiative in museums matters. I have seen much of their work at first hand. I recently had the pleasure of opening the new headquarters of the north of England museums service in Newcastle. I understand from the Museums and Galleries Commission that discussions are at present taking place about the feasibility of establishing an area museums service for Northern Ireland.

  British Theatre Association
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to provide adequate funding to make the British Theatre Association library available for theatrical research.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to provide adequate funding to make the British Theatre Association library available for loans to repertory theatres.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to provide adequate funding to make the British Theatre Association library available for academic research.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on where the library of the British Theatre Association will be moved after closure.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) earlier today.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the size of the British Theatre Association library's acquisition budget in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the BTA that its acquisition budget if the past five years has been as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  3,337

  1984–85

  4,297

  1985–86

  3,961

  1986–87

  7,595

  1987–88

  8,641

  542
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the photographic collection of the British Theatre Association library.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the BTA that it does not set out to maintain a comprehensive collection but does hold several thousand photographs covering west end productions and foreign productions, dating from the 1920s.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many loans of texts were made by the British Theatre Association library in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the BTA that it lends both sets of texts and single texts; a set can he up to 12 volumes. The figures for the past five years are as follows:

  Sets

  Singles

  Totals

  1983–84

  12,580

  6,092

  18,672

  1984–85

  9,040

  5,889

  16,929

  1985–86

  8,980

  6,602

  15,582

  11986–87

  8,310

  4,998

  13,308

  1987–88

  8,640

  6,620

  15,260

  1 The library was closed for two months due to a change of premises.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many first editions of theatrical texts are owned by the British Theatre Association library.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the British Theatre Association that approximately two thirds of the stock (that is, close to 200,000 volumes) consists of first editions. This includes sets of plays (multiple copies of a single title) which are first editions.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many(a) individuals, (b) professional theatres and (c) others are members of the British Theatre Association library.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the British Theatre Association that the total membership is 2,150, divided thus:

  Per cent.

  Individuals active in professional theatre

  30

  Other individuals

  10

  Professional bodies

  11·5

  Amateur theatre groups and educational institutions

  48

  The percentages are approximate.

  The British Theatre Association estimates that the individuals and groups represent some 200,000 people.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when the collection of the British Theatre Association was last valued.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised that the British Theatre Association has never valued the collection, in view of the prohibitive costs of such a valuation.

  Arts Provision (Midlands)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will next make an official visit to Derby to discuss the provision of arts in the midlands.
  543
  Mr. Luce
  I hope to visit Derby before too long.

  Museum of the Moving Image
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the figures for attendances at the museum of the moving image on the south bank.

  Mr. Luce
  Since it opened in mid-September 1988, the museum of the moving image has attracted over 190,000 visitors.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of business sponsorship of the arts is spent outside London and the south-east.

  Mr. Luce
  Figures for the total level of business sponsorship outside London and the south-east are not available. However, under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which matches new sponsorship, 70 per cent. of awards have gone to arts organisations based outside London.

  Museums Training Institute
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what benefits will flow from the establishment of the museums training institute.

  Mr. Luce
  The museums training institute will be responsible for forming a view on the museum industry's training needs, identifying standards for the occupations in the industry, reviewing the content and delivery of training, promoting the provision of training, providing training in selected areas and validating training courses.

  Since publication of the Museums and Galleries Commission working party report on museums training and career structure in July 1987, there has been considerable progress made in the development of museum training. The analysis of key skills and competences, which I announced in my statement of 17 March 1988, has laid a firm foundation for constructive progress. I anticipate that the museums training institute will develop these initiatives further, improving the quality and availability of training in the museum industry.

  Date of sale

  Proceeds to Her Majesty's Government

  Initial share price

  Share price on 25 January 1989

  Size of Her Majesty's Government share holding

  Current value

  £ million

  million

  £ million

  Amersham International

  1982

  64

  142

  514

  —

  —

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  46

  112

  483

  —

  —

  Associated British Ports

  1984

  51

  250

  —

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  1981

  43

  150

  486

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  1985

  347

  375

  —

  —

  —

  British Telecom

  1984

  3,685

  130

  268

  2,941

  7,882·0

  Britoil

  1982

  627

  215

  —

  —

  —

  Britoil

  1985

  426

  185

  —

  —

  —

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  181

  168

  397

  —

  —

  Cable and Wireless

  1983

  263

  275

  —

  —

  —

  Cable and Wireless

  1985

  577

  587

  —

  —

  —

  National Freight Consortium

  1982

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  384

  185

  514

  —

  —

  British Gas

  1986

  5,123

  135

  1711/2

  136

  2330

  British Gas Debt

  33,011

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Airways

  1987

  854

  125

  176

  10

  17·5

  Rolls Royce

  1987

  1,028

  170

  1511/2

  —

  —

  BAA

  1987

  1,218

  245

  276

  22

  60·0

  PBI

  1987

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts Organisations (Assistance)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage greater assistance to arts organisations in rural and deprived areas through the business sponsorship investment programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Seventy per cent. of awards under the business sponsorship incentive scheme go to arts organisations outside London; rural areas such as the Borders and Outer Hebrides feature in the scheme as well as inner cities. In 1987–88, Scotland was the second most successful region under the scheme, attracting £345,938 of new sponsorship which was matched by £194,185 of Government money.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of Civil Service relocation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 16 January at column 75, to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

  Privatisations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations, industries and firms privatised since May 1979, giving in each case the income to Government from the sale of each, the costs of broking, underwriting and advertising of each sale, the initial share price, the present share price, and the size and current value of shareholding retained by the Government, together with the nature of any golden share or any other arrangement to restrict takeover or shareholdings in any way.

  Mr Norman Lamont
  The information required about income to Government, share prices and size of residual shareholdings is as follows:
  545

  Date of sale

  Proceeds to Her Majesty's Government

  Initial share price

  Share price on 25 January 1989

  Size of Her Majesty's Government share holding

  Currant value

  £ million

  million

  £ million

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rover Group

  1988

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Petroleum

  1979

  276

  363

  —

  —

  —

  British Petroleum

  1983

  543

  435

  —

  —

  —

  British Petroleum

  1987

  35,310

  1330

  1267

  167·7

  181·0

  2225

  2164

  238½

  63·0

  British Steel

  1988

  1,139

  1125

  —

  —

  —

  260

  269

  —

  —

  1 Fully paid.

  2 Partly paid.

  3 Total estimated net proceeds.

  Proceeds from the following subsidiaries are retained by parent industry

  Proceeds £ million

  Initial share price

  Share price on 25 January 1989

  Jaguar (BL)

  297

  165

  278

  Sealink (BR)

  66

  —

  —

  Wytch Farm (BGC)

  82

  —

  —

  Warship yards (BS)

  54

  —

  —

  For information about advertising costs, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 3 March 1988, at column 629. For the costs to Government of broking and underwriting I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave today to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).

  For information about special shares held by the Government in privatised industries, I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 15 December 1987 at

  Country

  Wine

  Spirits

  Excise duties

  VAT per cent.

  Excise duty

  VAT per cent.

  Table wine not exceeding 12 per cent, alcohol by volume (pence per 75 cl bottle)

  Fortified wine at 18 per cent, alcohol by volume (pence per 70 cl bottle)

  Spirits at 40 per cent, alcohol by volume (pence per 75 cl bottle)

  Belgium

  16

  28

  25

  247

  25

  Denmark

  74

  129

  22

  1854

  22

  France

  1

  78

  18·6

  210

  18·6

  Germany

  0

  22

  14

  233

  14

  Greece

  0

  1

  36

  7

  36

  Ireland

  125

  169

  25

  492

  25

  Italy

  0

  6

  19

  43

  19

  Luxembourg

  20, 7

  313, 19

  46, 12

  166

  12

  Netherlands

  17

  29

  18·5

  258

  18·5

  Portugal

  0

  0

  58, 17

  39

  617, 30

  Spain

  0

  0

  12

  81

  12

  United Kingdom

  77

  124

  15

  473

  15

  1 Duty on spirits in Denmark consists of a specific element (£11·22 per litre of pure alcohol) and an ad valorem element (60 per cent, of taxable value).

  2 The nil rate applies to Luxembourg produced wines.

  3 The lower rate applies to Luxembourg produced wines.

  4 The lower rate applies to still wine not exceeding 13 per cent, alcohol by volume.

  5 The lower rate applies to table wine.

  6 The lower rate applies to non·aged wine brandy and grappa brandy.

  Note:

  Rates of exchange as at 30 January 1989.

  Source:

  European Community excise duty tables; VAT In Europe.
  546
  column 427 which lists special shares held in companies privatised prior to the British Steel sale. The special share in Amersham International was redeemed on 27 July 1988 and the special share in Enterprise Oil was redeemed on 31 December 1988. There is also a special share in British Steel, the rights of which are defined in the company's articles of association.

  Wines and Spirits (Duties)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the current price of wines and spirits in the European Economic Community and the levels of duty imposed on them; and what equivalent information he has for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on prices of wines and spirits in the European Community member states is not readily available. Rates of excise duties and VAT in each of the member states, according to the latest information available, are set out in the table:

  National Savings
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in administrative costs which will result from the introduction of a minimum £5 sum for deposits in national savings ordinary accounts.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated reduction in staff working on ordinary account at the National Savings Bank is 60 full-time staff. The reduction in running costs there is around £500,000 a year. There will also be savings in Post Office agency charges.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total reduction in moneys deposited in national savings ordinary accounts which may result from the introduction of a minimum £5 deposit.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1987–88 some £10 million was deposited in the ordinary account in amounts under £5. It is not possible to forecast to what extent the new minimum will lead to people accumulating sums to deposit and to what extent they will refrain from depositing such amounts in their ordinary accounts.

  Local Pay Additions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to pay local pay additions to higher executive officers and senior executive officers in London.

  Mr. Brooke
  Departments formulate their own plans for local pay additions, in accordance with guidelines set by the Treasury, and submit proposals to the Treasury for approval. The guidelines do not exclude payments to higher executive officers and senior executive officers. A total of 572 HEOs in the London weighting area, but no SEOs, are currently in receipt of LPAs.

  Pay Agreement
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on a long-term pay agreement with the NUCPS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Discussions on new longer term flexible pay arrangements for the grades NUCPS represent are continuing between the union and the Treasury.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of private sector investment in British industry for the last year for which figures are available, excluding leased assets; what were the comparable figures for the previous 12 month period; and if he will express both figures as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  The information requested is as follows:

  Industrial investment1

  £ million at 1985 prices

  as a percentage of GDP2

  1986 Q4–1987 Q3

  26,357

  8·1

  1987 Q4–1988 Q3

  30,457

  9·0

  1 Investment in the manufacturing, construction, distribution and financial industries.

  2The average measure of GDP at factor cost.

  548
  Sources:

  DTI capital expenditure press notice (15 December 1988).

  CSO gross domestic product press notice (19 December 1988).

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of manufacturing output in the United Kingdom for the last year for which figures are available; what were the comparable figures in the previous 12 month period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Manufacturing output in the three months up to November 1988 was 7·2 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier. The comparable figure for the previous 12 months was 5·8 per cent. Manufacturing output reached its highest ever level during 1988. Over the last five years its annual growth rate has averaged 4 per cent. This is in stark contrast to the economy's performance between 1974 and 1979 when it fell on average by ½ per cent. a year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 11 October 1988 on behalf of Mrs. Lily Grose, of Chyvean, 31 Pennance road, Falmouth, Cornwall.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 1 February.

  VAT
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Justice on 21 June 1988, respecting certain of the United Kingdom's value added tax zero rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I told the House on 21 June 1988 at column 957–58 that the Government would propose legislation to implement the judgment of the European Court of Justice affecting certain of the United Kingdom's VAT zero rates. As I also promised at that time, there has been an extensive consultation. The Government are very grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have responded. Some matters are still under discussion, but I am now able to announce decisions on most features of the implementing legislation which the Government will be proposing to the House as part of this year's Budget and Finance Bill. I am taking this unusual step in order to allow the maximum feasible time for technical consideration of the clauses and preparation on the part of those traders who will have to operate them, in many cases from 1 April 1989.

  As I made clear in my statement to the House on 21 June, this adverse judgment is based on an interpretation of existing Community law to which the United Kingdom gave its assent in 1977. We are obliged to comply with it. This means applying VAT to a number of goods and services at present excluded. Our aim has been to implement the ruling in a way which, while respecting the terms of the judgment, minimises the burgen of tax and compliance. The Government have in large measure been

  549
  able to meet the legitimate demands of the construction and property industries, by introducing the option to tax rents and devising suitable transitional arrangements, consistently with the obligation to implement the judgment promptly. And we have had particular regard to the potential impact on charities. I regret that they cannot be wholly shielded because many of them have activities which constitute "business" for VAT purposes and therefore come within the ambit of the judgment. But we have done as much as we can to safeguard their position.

  I am including several minor changes from the current provisions for construction and property in zero rate group 8 and exempt group 1 which do not flow directly from the European Court judgment. These have been inserted to rectify weaknesses in the law which have become apparent in recent years, often as a result of litigation. These changes are marked with an asterisk in the explanatory notes to the draft clauses.

  The provisional draft clauses with explanatory notes on their effect are contained in Customs and Excise documents which I am placing in the Library of the House.

  On non-domestic construction, most of the changes that I announced on 21 June are confirmed in the draft legislation but I am glad to say that as well as retaining zero rating for new housing it will also he retained for most new communal residential accommodation such as old people's homes, hospices and boarding accommodation at boarding schools. It will also be retained for new churches and other buildings for non-business use by charities. It has not been possible to retain zero rating for premises used for business, including private hospitals and fee paying schools, which the judgment explicitly ruled were too remote from the final consumer. The change to standard rating for buildings which cease to qualify for zero rating comes into effect from 1 April 1989, although there will be some transitional relief. As I announced last June, this will preserve zero rating for agreements entered into, in writing and for a price, before 21 June 1988. Additionally, it will allow some relief for supplies made before 21 June 1993 in connection with developments that are the subject of a binding legal obligation as a result of an agreement entered into before 21 June 1988 between a developer and a landowner or planning authority.

  The option to tax rents, which comes into effect on 1 August 1989, is being extended to agricultural land. Building land will not be taxed, except in defined cases where this is necessary to ensure fair competition.

  Table 1

  Civil Service non-industrial elected union representativesEstimates of numbers with paid time off for industrial relations duties and trade union activities (as at 31 March 1988)

  Departments

  5 per cent. and less

  6 to 10 per cent.

  11 to 20 per cent.

  21 to 30 per cent.

  31 to 40 per cent.

  41 to 50 per cent.

  51 to 60 per cent.

  61 to 70 per cent.

  71 to 80 per cent.

  81 to 90 per cent.

  91 to 99 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Total

  Full tune equivalent

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  474

  44

  16

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  4

  546

  19

  2. Customs and Excise

  632

  84

  41

  27

  13

  6

  5

  8

  5

  10

  8

  0

  839

  72

  3. Ministry of Defence

  876

  157

  64

  21

  9

  12

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  23

  1,169

  93

  4. Department of Employment Group

  1,491

  276

  114

  39

  12

  7

  5

  5

  6

  1

  0

  15

  1,971

  93

  5. Department of Transport/Transport ExcPSA

  417

  56

  37

  9

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  0

  16

  547

  41

  6. Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration

  85

  13

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  111

  11

  7. Department of Health and Social Security

  1,323

  481

  216

  65

  23

  31

  18

  20

  29

  27

  21

  25

  2,279

  301

  8. Home Office including Prison Department

  806

  155

  154

  37

  16

  7

  5

  1

  0

  6

  7

  12

  1,206

  96

  9. Department of Trade and Indusiry

  449

  31

  26

  4

  5

  6

  1

  2

  2

  0

  3

  6

  535

  28

  550
  I am now able to announce decisions on the other groups affected by the judgment.

  The fuel and power changes will be effective on 1 July 1990. Zero rates will continue for domestic consumers, and for charities for non-business purposes. Domestic use will include not only private dwellings, caravans, houseboats and self catering holiday accommodation but also communal residential homes, hospices, school and student boarding accommodation but not private schools and fee paying hospitals.

  The water and sewerage services changes will be effective on 1 July 1990. All supplies of services of emptying cesspools, septic tanks etc to industrial users for use in connection with the carrying on of a business will be standard-rated. Similarly so will all supplies of water to industry. Industry means any activity described in divisions 1 to 5 of the standard industrial classification. All other supplies will be zero rated.

  News services changes will be effective on 1 April 1989. The zero rating will be repealed, and the standard rate thus applied to all news services. This includes supplies to newspapers and individual members of the public (hut the Court ruling did not extend to newspapers themselves).

  Protective boots and helmets supplied to employers will become standard rated from 1 April 1989.

  The estimated yield from the private sector of the proposals contained in the draft clauses will be some £55 million in 1989–90, rising to about £165 million by 1992–93. This includes some £110 million from application of the Court ruling to non-domestic construction. Without the measures to mitigate the impact, the yield from construction would have been £450 million.

  Civil Service Trade Unions
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest estimates for the numbers of elected representatives of Civil Service trade unions in each of the main Government Departments and of the cost of providing paid time off.

  Mr. Brooke
  The details for 1987–88 are shown in the following tables. Compared with the position as at 31 March 1987, the total amount of paid time off for union business shows a reduction of 75 man years (6·7 per cent.), with a consequential saving (in real terms) of £0·47 million. This reflects, for the sixth successive year, the tighter control and accountability measures introduced by the revised national facilities agreement in 1982.
  551

  Departments

  5 per cent. and less

  6 to 10 per cent.

  11 to 20 per cent.

  21 to 30 per cent.

  31 to 40 per cent.

  41 to 50 per cent.

  51 to 60 per cent.

  61 to 70 per cent.

  71 to 80 per cent.

  81 to 90 per cent.

  91 to 99 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Total

  Full tune equivalent

  10. Inland Revenue

  1,410

  316

  124

  38

  30

  16

  14

  4

  8

  2

  2

  7

  1,971

  118

  11. Lord Chancellor's Department

  81

  12

  25

  5

  6

  4

  1

  4

  6

  1

  1

  8

  154

  15

  12. Department for National Savings

  88

  20

  12

  1

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  13

  140

  23

  13. PSA-including Crown Suppliers

  298

  52

  26

  6

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  393

  22

  14. Scottish Office including Scottish Prisons, Scot. Rec. Office and Gen. Reg. (Scot.)

  231

  35

  13

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  293

  20

  15. Other Government Departments

  889

  93

  60

  26

  13

  16

  4

  1

  4

  1

  2

  19

  1,128

  92

  Total

  9,550

  1,825

  931

  285

  137

  112

  63

  50

  65

  53

  46

  165

  13,282

  1,044

  Table 2

  Costs of non-industrial union elected representatives

  Department

  Total number expressed as whole time equivalent

  Cost in salaries wages and direct benefit ( £ million)

  Costs as percentage of wage bill

  Total number of non-industrial staff at 31 March 1988

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  19

  0·27

  0·186

  9,751

  Customs and Excise

  72

  1·01

  0·281

  26,564

  Ministry of Defence

  93

  1·08

  0·085

  88,626

  Department of Employment Group

  93

  1·26

  0·186

  62,575

  Department of Environment/Transport (exc PSA)

  41

  0·56

  0·198

  20,118

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (inc Overseas Development Administration)

  11

  0·15

  0·110

  9,378

  DHSS

  301

  3·31

  0·310

  101,185

  Home Office (including Prison Department)

  96

  1·28

  0·229

  37,641

  Department of Trade and Industry

  28

  0·43

  0·230

  12,525

  Inland Revenue

  118

  1·58

  0·185

  66,592

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  15

  0·25

  0·250

  10,281

  Department for National Savings

  23

  0·23

  0·325

  7,306

  PSA (including Crown Suppliers)

  22

  0·31

  0·157

  15,665

  Scottish Office (including General Register Office Scotland, Scottish Record Office andScottish Prison Service

  20

  0·24

  0·150

  9,514

  Other Government Departments

  92

  1·12

  0·213

  38,798

  TOTAL

  1,044

  13·08

  0·199

  516,519

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost would be of increasing mortgage income tax relief from its present level of £30,000 to(a) £35,000 and (b) £40,000; and how much would go to those earning over £20,000 per annum.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 February 1989]: The direct revenue cost, at 1988–89 levels, of increases in the ceiling of mortgage interest relief are given in the table. These estimates make no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Ceiling

  Cost

  Cost attributable to tax units with earned income over £20,000 in 1988–89

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  35,000

  230

  100

  40,000

  390

  180

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the mortgage tax relief limit was raised to £30,000; what the additional annual cost to the Exchequer would be if it was raised to £35,000 and £40,000 respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: The ceiling for mortgage interest relief was raised
  552
  to £30,000 in 1983–84. The direct revenue cost, at 1988–89 levels, of increases in the ceiling of mortgage interest relief are given in the table. These estimates make no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Ceiling £

  Cost £ million

  35,000

  230

  40,000

  390

  Inflation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each of the last complete financial years(a) the forecast rate of general inflation as measured by the gross domestic product deflator in the Autumn Statement published immediately prior to each financial year and (b) the actual rate of inflation in each financial year as measured by the gross domestic product deflator and (c) the actual rate of inflation in each financial year as measured by the retail price index.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: The information requested by my right hon. Friend is shown in the table:

  553

  Percentage change on a year earlier

  Gross domestic product at market prices

  Retail price index3

  For the year

  Autumn Statement forecast1

  Outturn2

  1983–84

  5

  4·6

  4·7

  1984–85

  5

  5·0

  5·1

  1985–86

  4½

  5·5

  5·9

  1986–87

  4½

  3·4

  3·2

  1987–88

  3¾

  5·2

  4·0

  1 Forecast in the Autumn Statement published immediately prior to the coming financial year.

  2 Latest outturn data.

  3 Change in the average value of the retail price index on the preceding financial year.

  Company Cars
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his latest estimate of the proportion of the benefit to an individual taxpayer of company car capital, running and maintenace costs which are taxed under present arrangements; and how much additional tax revenue would be received by the Government if that proportion were increased to 100 per cent. of such costs;

  (2) what is the amount of additional tax revenue that would be raised by charging employees' and employers' national insurance contributions on the full benefit obtained by individual taxpayers from company cars.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The benefit of company cars provided to directors and higher paid employees is taxed by reference to a set of scale charges. The results of independent studies are consistent with the Government's view that the value to typical employees of being able to use their company cars privately exceeds the present scale charges. But the value to any particular employee depends on a wide range of factors. It is not possible, therefore, to provide an estimate of the aggregate extent to which the private use of company cars is undertaxed, nor of the additional revenue which would arise if the full value to the employee was used in computing income tax or national insurance contributions.

  Private Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many private schools in Scotland benefit from financial concessions as a result of having charitable status; and if he will estimate the loss of Exchequer revenue as a result of such concessions for the most recent year for which information is available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Comprehensive information in the form requested is not available. Inland Revenue records of bodies in Scotland which are eligible for income tax relief identify 75 schools with charitable status. This includes some special schools for handicapped children or for pupils with behavioural problems.

  Company Privatisation
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the costs of privatisation of companies, both by private sale and public flotation, for each company privatised since 1979, and for each year since 554
  1979, including separate figures for (a) underwriting, selling and broking, (b) commission, (c) bank costs, (d) marketing, (e) fees to advisers, (f) bonus shares, (g) bill vouchers and (h) any other costs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The total costs to the Government of each privatisation since 1979 are in the table. Estimated costs of underwriting, selling, and broking commission, receiving bank costs, marketing, advisers' fees and incentives in respect of all primary share sales from British Telecom onwards are given in the following reports presented to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor General:

  Session 1984–85

  Department of Trade and Industry: Sale of Government Shareholdings in British Telecommunications plc HC 495

  Session 1987–88

  Department of Energy: Sale of Government Shareholding in British Gas plc HC 22

  Department of Transport: Sale of Government Shareholding in British Airways plc HC 37

  Department of Trade and Industry: Sale of Government Shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc HC 243

  Department of Transport: Sale of Government Shareholding in BAA plc HC 312

  Figures given in the reports for customer bill vouchers and bonus shares relate to the maximum value assuming all incentives will be taken up by shareholders. Final figures will depend on the number of eligible shareholders at the end of the qualifying periods. The value of bonus shares distributed for Britoil in 1986 was £3 million.

  For residual share sales, and for primary share sales prior to British Telecom, the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. The Department of Trade and Industry expects to able to report the costs of the British Steel flotation shortly.

  Table A

  Total costs of sale to Her Majesty's Government including VAT, excluding incentives

  Company name

  Year

  £ thousands

  British Aerospace

  1981

  5,600

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  8,900

  Amersham International

  1982

  2,900

  Britoil

  1982

  12,600

  National Freight Corporation

  1982

  300

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  2,600

  British Petroleum

  1983

  22,760

  Cable and Wireless

  1983

  12,500

  Associated British Ports

  1984

  1,400

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  10,700

  Jaguar

  1984

  1n/a

  Sealink

  1984

  100

  Wytch Farm

  1984

  98

  British Telecom

  1984

  183,000

  British Aerospace

  1985

  17,800

  Britoil

  1985

  23,300

  Cable and Wireless

  1985

  21,400

  British Gas

  1986

  2175,000

  British Shipbuilding warship yards

  1986

  55,500

  British Airways

  1987

  33,900

  Rolls Royce

  1987

  341,600

  Plant Breeding Institute

  1987

  4822

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  51,900

  BAA

  1987

  45,200

  Rover Group

  1987

  1,800

  British Petroleum

  1987

  648,299

  1 The sale of Jaguar plc was conducted by BL plc and details of the appointments and the total cost are a matter for the company. Only one firm was appointed to advise the Government; it is not the practice to disclose fees paid to individual firms.

  2 Excluding Stamp Duty.

  3 Expenditure incurred to date, excluding subscription for new shares.

  4 Exluding VAT.

  5 Expenditure incurred after 1 January 1985.

  6 Expenditure incurred to date.

SCOTLAND

  Drinking Water
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those water supplies in Scotland which fail to meet the standards set out in the European Economic Community directives on the quality of drinking water and whether or not these are the subject of derogations; how and when it is proposed for each of these water supplies to meet the standards laid down; and what the latest estimated cost of complying with the standards is in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The EC drinking water directive allows departure from its standards either by delay under article 20 or by derogation under article 9. Scottish public water supplies subject to application for delay and those subject to derogations are set out in the tables. Improvement programmes, with timetables, for supplies subject to delay have been submitted to the European Commission. Most are in progress and a significant number are virtually complete.

  Recent review has indicated further supplies which do not meet the standards. These are not included in the tables pending consideration by Scottish Development Department of appropriate action.

  Up-to-date detailed cost figures for individual supplies are not available, but recent estimates by Scottish water authorities suggested that the overall cost of fully complying with the standards might approach £700 million.

  Authority

  Supply

  Table 1

  Supplies subject to delay

  Borders Region

  Carlops

  Wantonwells

  Ettrickbridge

  Galashiels

  Rawburn

  Roberton

  Central Region

  Gartcarron

  Jellyholm

  Longhill

  Sauchie

  Woodburn

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Carsphairn

  Areeming

  Auchneel

  Barclye

  Euchan

  Killylour

  Lochinvar

  Penwhirn

  New Abbey

  Winterhope

  Landheads

  Palnure

  Loch Roan

  Two unnamed supplies

  Black Esk

  Langholm

  Moffat

  Creetown

  Newton Stewart

  Wanlockhead

  556

  Authority

  Supply

  Millburn

  Glengap

  Kettleton

  Sanquhar

  Lochfoot

  Grampian Region

  Herricks

  Rochomie

  Forres

  Kinloss

  Lossiemouth

  Drummuir, Portgordon

  Aberlour, Dufftown, Tomintoul

  Inverurie

  Strathdon, Strathbogie

  Upper Deeside

  Banff

  Macduff, Gardenstown

  Fraserburgh

  Peterhead

  Cullen

  Highland Region

  Glenurquhart

  Assynt

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  Loch Carron

  Culnakirk

  Wick

  Lairg

  Bonar Bridge

  North Speyside

  South Speyside

  Thurso

  Helmsdale

  Inverness

  Ardnamurchan

  Fort William

  Lochaber

  Corpach/Caol

  Lothian Region

  Edinburgh (part)

  Strathclyde Region

  Ardrishaig

  Carradale

  Clachan

  Furnace

  Inveraray

  Muasdale

  Port Charlotte

  Tarbert

  Tighnabruaich

  Tiree

  Tobermory

  Torra

  Afton

  Amlaird

  Spallander

  Crosbie

  Dhu Loch

  Glendrissaigh

  Greenhead Mount

  Mill Glen

  Penwhapple

  Pundeavon

  Skelmorlie Upper

  Skelmorlie Low

  Dougliehill

  Garshake

  Kaim

  Kelly

  Larkfield

  Maukinhill

  Milngavie

  Muirdykes

  Overton Low

  Picketlaw

  Prospecthill

  South Moorhouse

  557

  Authority

  Supply

  Stanley High

  Whinhill

  Bradan

  Craignure

  Lochdonhead

  Knock Tank

  Overton High

  Elsrickle

  Dolphinton

  Carnwath

  Catacol

  Whiting Bay

  King's Cross

  Pirnmill

  Peden

  Camps

  Daer

  Loch Lomond (bulk supply)

  Camphill

  LockEck

  Corsehouse

  Loch Ascog

  Luss

  Loch Lomond (local)

  Crosbie/Fairlie

  Overton (Leven)

  Loch Sloy

  Tayside Region

  Burnhead

  Lintrathen

  Alyth

  Clash

  Grandtully

  Aberfeldy

  Camserney

  Acharn

  Kenmore

  Kinloch Rannoch

  Table 2

  Supplies subject to derogations

  Borders Region

  Wakefield W Linton

  Yarrowford

  Central Region

  Killin

  Callander

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Carsphairn

  Barclye

  Euchan

  Glengap

  Lochfoot

  Lochinvar

  Penwhirn

  Sandyford

  Sanquhar

  Creetown

  Bardrochwood

  Wanlockhead

  Loch Roan

  Grampian Region

  Glenlatterach

  Invercannie

  Wrack

  Newbigging

  Aberlour

  Highland Region

  Beauly Firth Area

  Broadford

  Fort Augustus

  Glenurquhart

  Mallaig

  Onich

  Clunas

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  Loch Carron

  Culnakirk

  Caen/Ord

  558

  Authority

  Supply

  Kinlochbervie

  Orkney Islands

  Kirkbister

  Wideford

  Boardhouse

  Stromness

  Heldale

  Westray

  Bea

  Shetland Islands

  Unst

  Cullivoe

  Fetlar

  Skerries

  Bressay

  Northmavine

  Walls

  Sandness

  Reawick and Skeld

  Nebister

  Voe and Vidlin

  Fair Isle

  West Burrafirth

  Strathclyde Region

  Ardrishaig

  Auchalochy

  Carradale

  Clachan

  Furnace

  Muasdale

  Tarbert

  Tighnabruaich

  Tiree

  Afton

  Castlehill

  L. Spallander

  Holehouse

  Knockjarder

  Millport

  Muirkirk

  Pundeavon

  Glassford

  Roughrigg

  Asker

  Belmore

  Bowling

  Burncrooks

  Coulport

  Craigielinn

  Garshake

  Kelly

  Larkfield

  Loch Sloy

  Muirdykes

  Stanley High

  Lamlash

  Bradan

  Passford

  Kilmory

  Carrick Castle

  Leanach

  Cairnbaan

  Kilmichael

  Tayvallich

  Saddell

  Tayinloan

  Whitehouse

  Ballygrant

  Portnahaven

  Gigha

  Luing

  Bunessan

  Lochdonhead

  Iona

  Ross of Mull

  Loudonhill

  Catacol

  Lochranza

  559

  Authority

  Supply

  Tullochgorm

  Kilberry

  Claddich

  Arinagour (Coll)

  Nerabolls

  Tayside Region

  Camserney

  Kinlock Rannoch

  Acharn

  Western Isles

  Benbecula

  Berneray

  Castlebay

  Eriskay

  Howmore

  Leverburgh

  Lochboisdale

  Lochmaddy

  North Bay

  Northton

  Rodel

  Scalpay

  Sollas

  Tarbert

  Balallan

  Leurbost

  Tolsta Glen

  Shior Thomas

  Seilibost

  Maaruig

  Ardvourlie

  10 unnamed supplies

  Stornoway (augmentation)

  Cliasmol

  Meavaig

  Lennox Castle Hospital
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the management structure at Lennox Castle hospital in November 1988; how many persons were in each post; and if he will indicate the length of service of each person in the most senior posts;

  (2) when the management structure at Lennox Castle hospital was last reviewed by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The senior management structure at Lennox Castle on 1 November 1988 comprised a sector administrator, a physician superintendent and a director of nursing services. The post holders had been in post for six months, one month and six years respectively.

  This has now been superseded by new arrangements which were the subject of discussion by Greater Glasgow health board on 24 January 1989. The new management structure gives overall responsibility for all services in the mental handicap sector to a single person, the sector manager. He leads a management team of support services manager, nursing services manager and clinical services manager. That team will be supported by a development officer, personnel manager and management accountant. Of these seven posts, five appointments have now been made, including that of sector manager.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the principal findings of the Mental Welfare Commission report on conditions at Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following a visit to four of the wards at Lennox Castle hospital on 9 December, the 560
  commission informed Greater Glasgow health board of a number of points of concern. Details of these concerns are matters between the commission and the health board and have been the subject of discussion between them.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received over the past five years from Greater Glasgow health board asking for substantial additional expenditure to be spent on Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board has included bids for expenditure at Lennox Castle in its annual capital plans since 1986 and made a separate representation in 1986 for additional resources. As a result upgrading of wards and other works have taken place at a cost of £3·8 million including a new 24-bed intensive care unit opened in June 1988. Moreover, I announced on 23 January 1989 my approval to the board's plans to spend £4·56 million on the redevelopment of Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which committee or sub-committee of Greater Glasgow health board has a direct responsibility for oversight of Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Overall responsibility for the planning and quality of service provided in all the hospitals administered by Greater Glasgow health board rests with the board's policy and planning committee. Direct responsibility for oversight of the hospital rests with the management of the mental health unit.

  Nursing
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the total number of appeals following the regrading exercise, the number completed and the number decided in favour of the nurse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to health boards on a date for the completion of(a) informal appeals and (b) formal appeals on nurse regrading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have been asked to complete initial reviews of appeals by the end of February. There is no deadline for completing formal appeal hearings, but boards are expected to deal with appeals quickly as well as fairly.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of local government staff in Scotland for each year since 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Quarterly figures for local authority manpower have been published jointly by the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities since 1976 and are available in the Library.

  Prisons
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently being held in each prison, and in total; and how many prison officers are currently in each prison, and in total.
  561
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table.

  Establishment

  Inmates (at 27 January 1989)

  Prison officers (at 27 January 1989)

  Aberdeen

  144

  98

  Barlinnie

  956

  446

  Barlinnie Special Unit

  6

  14

  Castle Huntly

  111

  50

  Cornton Vale

  145

  166

  Dumfries

  111

  109

  Dungavel

  114

  51

  Edinburgh

  641

  361

  Friarton

  75

  48

  Glenochil

  362

  330

  Greenock

  171

  145

  Inverness

  89

  91

  Longriggend

  214

  147

  Low Moss

  344

  110

  Noranside

  97

  50

  Penninghame

  67

  27

  Perth

  454

  291

  Peterhead

  129

  244

  Polmont

  363

  225

  Shotts

  427

  286

  Total

  5,020

  3,289

  Note The prison officers referred to in the table cover all uniformed discipline and specialist staff.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of jobs lost in manufacturing and in the service section in Greenock and Port Glasgow in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The information set out in the table relates to the number of redundancies involving 10 or more workers confirmed to the Training Agency as occurring in the Greenock travel-to-work-area, which includes Port Glasgow, in each year from 1984 to 1988.

  Confirmed redundancies in the Greenock travel-to-work-area, 1984—88

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1984

  2,466

  22

  1985

  1,593

  92

  1986

  973

  90

  1987

  352

  39

  19881

  72

  3

  1Figures for 1988 are provisional.

  Sand Eels (Conservation)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis his Department will decide on the appropriateness of conservation measures for the Shetland sand eel fishery if it proves difficult both to estimate the maximum sustainable yield and to advise on an appropriate total allowable catch for the Shetland sand eel stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The health of the Shetland sand eel stocks depends to a very large extent on the levels of recruitment of juvenile fish, which fluctuate because of natural factors, as well as the level of the fishery. Below a certain level of stock size recruitment levels are likely to be affected by the abundance of spawning fish and the prime 562
  objective, so far as possible, will be to maintain the spawning stock above the critical level. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will be discussing with industry representatives possible conservation measures.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage of 0 and 1 group sand eels in catches from Shetland waters in each month of each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Percentage of 0- and 1- Group Jana Eels by weight

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  March

  0-group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1-group

  —

  —

  —

  94·8

  11·1

  April

  0-group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1-group

  42·7

  69·1

  27·2

  64·4

  2·1

  May

  0-group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1-group

  28·6

  37·7

  18·6

  65·7

  6·1

  June

  0-group

  17·0

  2·7

  13·3

  1·3

  6·2

  1-group

  34·2

  38·7

  20·8

  61·3

  5·3

  July

  0-group

  50·6

  23·6

  62·4

  27·3

  93·6

  1-group

  29·5

  21·5

  32·4

  49·5

  0·5

  August

  0-group

  75·4

  55·9

  45·8

  40·3

  64·3

  1-group

  13·2

  25·1

  18·8

  32·2

  5·0

  September

  0-group

  87·3

  84·3

  92·1

  78·5

  86·6

  1-group

  9·5

  8·9

  4·6

  9·0

  4·6

  October

  0-group

  1—

  1—

  97·7

  2·6

  1—

  1-group

  1—

  1—

  22·3

  22·8

  1—

  1—No sampling—catches very small.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in 1988 catches of fishing vessels attempting to land sand eels from Shetland waters were found to exceed 25 per cent. by weight of fish of less than 3in long; what was the percentage of small sand eels in any such catches; what was the method of disposal for these catches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of the 42 samples examined during 1988, two contained more than 25 per cent. by weight of sand eels less than 7·5cm; the percentage of small sand eels was 26·5 and 37·9 respectively; and both catches were sent for reduction to meal and oil. Sampling data are not, however, comprehensive. The level of incidence of small sand eels in catches may depend on recruitment levels, the effects of the voluntary restrictions on catches of small sand eels, or both.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the steps taken by his Department to monitor the voluntary measures taken by Shetland fishermen to reduce the catches of the youngest sand eels in Shetland waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Regular samples are provided voluntarily to scientists of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. The number of landings sampled each month since the voluntary restrictions were introduced are as follows:
  563

  1987

  1988

  March

  1

  1

  April

  14

  4

  May

  9

  16

  June

  9

  11

  July

  11

  2

  August

  6

  4

  September

  1

  4

  October

  1

  —

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the level of recruitment of sand eels to(a) the Shetland population, (b) the northern North sea, north of 563òN, and (c) the southern North sea in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Thousand millions of O-group sand eels at 1 July

  Shetland

  Northern North sea north of 56°30'N

  Southern North sea

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (1)

  1984

  21

  29

  47

  148

  1985

  10

  21

  255

  653

  1986

  36

  19

  202

  138

  1987

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  21

  —

  —

  Source:

  (1) International Council for the Exploration of the Seas.

  (2) Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (new
  assessments); figures for 1987 and 1988 are provisional.

  The very low figure for Shetland for 1987 reflects the incidence of the poorest year class since the fishery began in 1974. The 1988 year class is also thought to be below the average over the period 1974–86. Scientific assessment indicates that recruitment is affected primarily by natural factors affecting the first six months of sand eel life, and that the decline in stocks has not been caused primarily by the commercial fishery.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those medical sources from which he sought advice over the desirability of including Alzheimer's disease in the list of exempted conditions for poll tax purposes; what is the medical definiton of the "fluctuating nature" to which he referred in the Official Report, 1 February, column 281; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend receives medical advice from the chief medical officer, Scottish Home and Health Department, and his staff. People with degenerative mental disorders such as Alzheimer's disease have a gradual onset of their condition leading to a progressive decline in all aspects of mental functioning. Fluctuations in the level of mental functioning may occur during the natural progression of the degenerative condition and may also occur if the person develops an additional illness.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest estimates of the cost of collecting the community charge for each one of the regions in Scotland; and what is the present cost of collecting the rates.

  Mr. Lang
  All regional councils in Scotland will have included an estimate of the cost of collecting the 564
  community charge in the budgets which they have now set for 1989–90. Full details of their budgets have not yet been submitted to the Scottish Office.

  The latest estimate of the cost to each regional council of collecting the rates are contained in their budgets for 1988–89 and are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Borders

  0·669

  Central

  1·155

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·743

  Fife

  1·279

  Grampian

  12·146

  Highland

  0·936

  Lothian

  6·258

  Strathclyde

  10·005

  Tayside

  2·767

  1 Excludes lands valuation, for which Grampian did not make a separate estimate.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the latest available breakdown of the hectarage planted, approved for planting and awaiting approval for planting under the woodland grant scheme for each of the Forestry Commission's conservancies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information—covering the period from 15 June 1988, when the woodland grant scheme was first opened to applications, to 31 December 1988—is as follows:

  Hectares

  Conservancy

  Planting1 for which grants have been paid2

  Area approved for planting1

  Area awaiting approval for planting1

  North England

  —

  550

  1,570

  East England

  —

  829

  4,373

  West England

  —

  577

  1,300

  Wales

  —

  505

  905

  North Scotland

  53

  2,828

  9,744

  Mid Scotland

  11

  1,489

  2,635

  South Scotland

  1

  1,561

  3,265

  Total

  65

  8,339

  23,792

  1 Including replanting.

  2 These figures do not include planting that had taken place but on which grants had not been paid by 31 December 1988, since this information is not readily available.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) farmers and (b) farm workers were employed in each county in Scotland in June 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As a result of local government reform, counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975. My noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member last December to provide him with information about the numbers of farmers and farm workers employed in each region in Scotland in June 1988.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the responses received on the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns—Maintaining the Momentum."
  565
  Mr. Lang
  No. I made clear at the meeting with representatives of SLANT (Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns) and those members representing Scottish new towns, held on 1 February 1989, that copies of the responses received would be available in each of the new towns towards the end of February.

  Neilston Primary School
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the case for an extension to Neilston primary school; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have considered carefully the representations made by my hon. Friend and the parents and community representatives following the meeting which he kindly arranged about the need for an extension to Neilston primary school. Strathclyde regional council has recently requested that provision be made for a four-classroom extension in its capital allocation for 1989–90, and I expect this request to be considered sympathetically. Authorities should be informed shortly of their capital allocations for next year.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many accidents involving death or injury have occurred per vehicle mile on the A74 for each year since 1980;

  (2) how many accidents involving death and injury have occurred per vehicle mile on the A96 for each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: The accident rate is expressed as the number of injury (including fatal) accidents per million vehicle kilometers. The figures for the A74 trunk (south) and the A96 trunk in each year since 1982 are as follows:

  A74 trunk (south)

  A96 trunk

  1982

  0·156

  0·517

  1983

  0·135

  0·523

  1984

  0·145

  0·484

  1985

  0·125

  0·442

  1986

  0·144

  0·432

  1987

  0·135

  0·453

  In comparing these figures it should be remembered that the A74 is a dual carriageway and the A96 is an almost entirely single carriageway road. The annual traffic levels are estimates based on limited samples and are subject to a fairly wide margin of error. The A74 trunk (south) is south of the M74. Accident rates are not available for 1980 and 1981 or for other parts of the A74 and A96.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have been (a) killed and (b) injured on the A74 for each year since 1980;

  (2) how many people have been (a) killed and (b) injured on the A96 for each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January]The information requested, along with additional information to clarify this answer and answers to related questions, is as follows.
  566

  A74 trunk (north)

  A74 trunk (south)

  A74 total

  A96 trunk

  A96 total

  (a) Number of fatal casualties

  1980

  —

  4

  8

  19

  21

  1981

  —

  12

  17

  14

  15

  1982

  —

  11

  15

  15

  16

  1983

  —

  11

  13

  11

  12

  1984

  1

  7

  14

  5

  6

  1985

  1

  10

  18

  12

  14

  1986

  —

  18

  23

  15

  15

  1987

  —

  17

  19

  8

  9

  (b) Number of serious and slight casualties

  1980

  26

  184

  312

  334

  388

  1981

  21

  126

  261

  325

  379

  1982

  23

  137

  298

  349

  411

  1983

  30

  130

  271

  339

  380

  1984

  21

  148

  281

  330

  389

  1985

  30

  146

  321

  295

  332

  1986

  38

  188

  305

  320

  372

  1987

  53

  164

  271

  289

  326

  The A74 trunk (north), length 5.3 km, is north of the M74; and the A74 trunk (south), length 93 km, is south of the M74. The A74 and A96 totals include non-trunk sections of road. In comparing the figures for the A74 and A96, it should be remembered that the A74 is a dual carriageway and the A96 is a 166 km, almost entirely single carriageway, road.

  House Building
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were built to be rented in the public sector in each year since 1979 in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]The information set out in the table is for houses completed by local authorities, new towns, Scottish Special Housing Association and Government Departments for the years in question. These figures could contain some houses built for sale.

  Public Sector (Excluding Housing Associations) New houses completed

  Year

  Inverclvde

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1979

  64

  3,377

  8,063

  1980

  8

  2,518

  7,488

  1981

  —

  3,419

  7,066

  1982

  26

  1,426

  3,733

  1983

  —

  1,035

  3,492

  1984

  —

  840

  2,647

  1985

  30

  928

  2,828

  1986

  —

  609

  2,301

  1987

  81

  518

  2,630

  11988

  —

  657

  22,138

  1 January-September.

  2 Returns outstanding from 10 districts.

  NHS Hospitals (Glasgow)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the National Health Service Greater Glasgow hospitals and the latest figures for the waiting lists in each of them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]The latest waiting list figures for all National Health
  567
  Service hospitals in Greater Glasgow are set out in the table. The mean waiting time for in-patients in 1987 was 73·7 days and for day cases was 47·8 days.

  NHS Hospitals in Greater Glasgow HB: Patients waiting at 31 March 19881

  Hospital

  Inpatients

  Day Cases

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  —

  —

  Belvidere Hospital

  61

  —

  Birdston Hospital

  —

  —

  Blawarthill Hospital

  —

  —

  Broomhill and Lanfine Hospital

  —

  —

  Canniesburn Hospital

  1,999

  —

  Childrens Home Hospital

  —

  —

  Cowglen Hospital

  126

  —

  Darnley Hospital

  3

  —

  Drumchapel Hospital

  —

  —

  Duke St. Hospital

  2

  —

  Duntocher Hospital

  —

  —

  Gartloch Hospital

  56

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  1,203

  26

  Gartnaval Royal Hospital

  47

  —

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  —

  —

  Glasgow Eye Infirmary

  —

  —

  Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital

  20

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  4,650

  —

  Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  1,515

  —

  Knightswood Hospital

  10

  —

  Lennox Castle Hospital

  6

  —

  Lenzie Hospital—Beechwood Extension

  —

  —

  Leverndale Hospital

  9

  —

  Lightburn Hospital

  96

  —

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  —

  —

  Parkhead Hospital

  —

  Philipshill Hospital

  534

  —

  Queen Mother's Hospital

  —

  RHSC Drumchapel

  —

  —

  Royal Beatson Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  1,407

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  358

  —

  Ruchill Hospital

  —

  Rutherglen Maternity Hospital

  —

  Southern General Hospital

  1,807

  69

  Southern General Psychiatric Unit

  —

  —

  Stobhill Hospital

  2,124

  —

  Stoneyetts Hospital

  —

  —

  Victoria Infirmary

  1,239

  127

  Waverley Park Hospital

  —

  —

  Woodilee Hospital

  113

  —

  Greater Glasgow Health Board Total

  17,385

  222

  1 The alerted statistical system on which these figures are collected is explained in ISD statistical bulletin 1/88.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission the Scottish universities research and reactor centre to undertake aerial surveys, similar to that just undertaken in West Cumbria, for all areas in Scotland near to nuclear establishments or where there has been radioactive fall out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]Radioactivity in the environment near

  Total fatal accidents

  Number of fatal accidents by number of fatal casualties in each accident

  Total fatal casualties

  1

  2

  3

  4

  1983

  10

  9

  1

  —

  —

  11

  1984

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  5

  1985

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  12

  1986

  12

  11

  —

  —

  1

  15

  1987

  8

  8

  —

  —

  8

  11988

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1 To August.

  568
  nuclear establishments is intensively monitored by the site operators as a condition of their authorisations to discharge radioactivity. The Scottish Development Department checks each operator's results and undertakes additional independent monitoring to confirm them. Aerial surveys would not contribute materially to the normal monitoring process. However, the Scottish Office is interested in the possible use in emergencies of the aerial surveillance system developed and deployed by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre and will be discussing this with the centre.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest available information on levels of radioactivity in(a) fish in lochs (b) hares and rabbits and (c) other animals in south-west Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1989] : Information on the level of radioactivity in fish and animals in Scotland resulting from the Chernobyl accident is published on a regular basis by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. For the south-west of Scotland the latest measured levels for fish range from 15 bq/kg to 737 bq/kg, for hare from 165 bq/kg to 4,530 bq/kg and for rabbits from 20 bq/kg to 155 bq/kg. Monitoring of hare and rabbit was discontinued in 1987 as the reading in these animals, which form a relatively small part of most people's diet, gave no cause for concern. Levels in deer range from 2 bq/kg to 2,740 bq/kg.

  Chemical Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new plans he has to deal with the future disposal of chemical hazardous waste.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]We have recently consulted widely on proposals to strengthen controls on waste disposal in Scotland, and will announce our conclusions shortly. We expect to issue two further consultation papers on aspects of waste disposal within the next few weeks. We are also reviewing the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 and the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 1977.

  A96
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal road accidents have occurred on the A96 trunk road between Aberdeen and Inverness in each of the past five years and in 1989 to date, indicating the number of fatalities in each accident.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]The information requested for the A96 trunk road is as follows:
  569
  Statistics on accidents are available centrally only to August 1988.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his survey on accident blackspots on the A96; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer I February 1989]The Scottish Development Department will provide both Highland and Grampian regional councils with a detailed brief next month in order that they may carry forward studies of the A96. This work will include examination of the route as a whole to determine where accident remedial schemes should be introduced. It is not possible to say precisely when the studies will be completed but they may take a year or so. The hon. Member will, however, wish to know that road safety measures will shortly be completed between Oyne Fork and Pitcaple which was previously identified as the worst accident spot on the route.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what budget allocation he has set aside for improvements to the A96 in each of the next five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]Last December, I met members and officials of Highland and Grampian regional councils to discuss their request for improvements to the A96 trunk road. As a result of that meeting studies of the A96 are being extended to identify, along the entire route, possible accident remedial schemes and schemes to improve overtaking opportunities. When this work, to be carried out by both regional councils as the Secretary of State's agents for the trunk road, is complete I will be able to formulate an overall strategy and consider expenditure provision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 11 August 1988 informing the Agriculture and Food Research Council of his decision to terminate the research work being undertaken into salmonella at Bristol.

  Mr. Ryder
  I did not write to the Agriculture and Food Research Council Institute of Food Research on 11 August 1988, but a member of my staff did and the hon. Member may be aware of the contents of that letter.

  The letter recorded agreement by my Department and the institute to phase out support for four research projects.

  The first is a project on the manipulation of the microbial flora of the gut of young chickens in order to control salmonella in broiler hens. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained the reasons for terminating the funding of this project in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 15 December, Official Report, column 653. The second project relates to bacteria on meat and food-borne illnesses. This was a basic research project, the short-term objectives of which were completed. The longer
  570
  term objectives have been incorporated into a revised programme of microbiological research in the Institute of Food Research.

  The third project related to the development of methods for determining authenticity, adulteration and origin of food and beverages. This was terminated because of the slow progress and the ability of other contractors to carry forward the work. The final project referred to in the letter related to the processing of potato tubers and was terminated in line with the institute's commitment to reduce efforts in commodity-led research and in the light of the fact that the Ministry was pursuing related research at other centres.

  The decisions reached on these four projects need to be viewed in the context of the decision to increase the funding of the institute's programme on food safety from £740,000 this year to £849,000 in the next financial year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the protein processing plants that were found to be contaminated with salmonella in 1987 and 1988 were allowed to continue selling feedstuff's within the time limits imposed upon them for producing a salmonella-free product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Until recently, statutory provisions did not exist to prevent the supply of processed animal protein from premises where salmonella had been detected by testing samples of the product. An amendment order to the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 came into operation on 2 February and provides Ministry inspectors with such powers.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of incidents of salmonella duldin in cattle in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of incidents of salmonella duldin in cattle in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  566

  1980

  498

  1981

  435

  1982

  556

  1983

  586

  1984

  424

  1985

  511

  1986

  463

  1987

  544

  1988

  1502

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his decision to withdraw research funds from the work at the Institute of Food Research on competitive exclusion as a method of controlling salmonella in poultry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Work on competitive exclusion at Bristol, which has been in progress for more than a decade, has reached the point where successful trials have been carried out in commercial production units. Following appraisal by representatives of MAFF and AFRC, it was recognised that the principle of competitive exclusion has been established as a method of control relevant to salmonella in poultry. It was concluded that the technique
  571
  was ready for adoption by industry under appropriate circumstances and with suitable safeguards to prevent the introduction or spread of disease. Major poultry firms are aware of this work at Bristol. It is for industry to decide whether to adopt the technique for commercial application.

  I have now received the report of a joint MAFF, DoH and British Egg Industry Council working group report on salmonella and eggs dealing with research into this area and am considering its recommendations urgently. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  We are already funding an extensive programme of research relevant to control of salmonella in poultry as follows:

  Current Work on Salmonella SPP

  Title

  Risk and Hazard Analysis in Egg Infections

  Thermal Destruction of Salmonella enteritidis Phase Type
  4 in the Domestic Cooking of Food Containing Eggs

  Manipulation of the Microbial Flora of the Gut of Young
  Chicks to Control Salmonellas in Broilers

  Survival and Growth of Salmonellae and Bacillus subtilis in Baking Ingredients

  Salmonella Shedding in Poultry

  Serological Diagnosis of Salmonella enteritidis Infection Plasmid Profile Analysis of Salmonella enteritidis

  Development of a Salmonella enteritidis Vaccine to
  Prevent Salmonella Infections in Chickens

  Salmonella Service: Bacteria Typing, Surveillance and Work Under the Protein Processing Order

  Work being carried out under the Zoonosis Order and in Collaboration with PHLS

  Development of Immunoassays for the Rapid Detection of Food Poisoning Organisms

  Growth Characteristics of Food Poisoning Organisms at Sub-lethal Temperatures

  Microbial Antagonism to Increase the Safety and Stability of Chilled Foods

  Low Sodium Chloride Foods/Microbiological Safety and Technological Characteristics

  Modes of Action and Interaction of Preservatives on Micro-organisms

  Detection of Sub-lethal Injury in Micro-organisms

  Use of Non-radioactive DNA Probes for the Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria in Food

  Enzyme-linked Immunological Biosensors for Detection and Identification of Pathogenic Bacteria in Food

  Bacteria and Hygiene in Abattoirs

  Bacteria on Meat and Food-borne Illness

  Define Factors Controlling Microbial Growth and Develop Predictive Models

  Microbiological Safety of Chilled Foods Including Salads Microbiological Hazards in Domestic and Institutional Handling of Food

  Determination of Food Constituents and Contaminants by ELISA

  Electron Transfer Coupling as a Rapid Method for Assessment of Bacterial Contamination

  Factors Determining Intestinal Colonisation by Salmonella

  Investigating the Basis of Virulance of the Salmonella Genus

  Variation in Virulence of Salmonellas, Host Responses to Infection, Novel Vaccines and Strategies for Use

  Salmonellosis in Cattle—To determine the epidemiology in order that methods to minimise the spread and effects of infection can be formulated and applied

  Heat Induced Thermotolerance in Food Poisoning Organisms

  Survey of Bacteriological Quality of Goats Milk

  Lysozyme Destruction of Gram Negative Organisms in Chicken and Red Meat

  Bacteriological Hazards of Large Meat Roasts in Catering and Long Storage of Chilled Foods in Catering

  Effects of Heat, Cold, Drying, Radiation on Bacteria and their Recovery and Growth

  Food Safety by Predicting Microbial Growth

  572

  The Microbiology of Meat and Fish Packaged for Retail Sale

  Development of Direct Epifluorescent Filter Techniques (DEFT)

  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence there is as to whether deer carry Aujeszky's disease.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Aujeszky's disease affects primarily pigs and rodents but occurs incidentally in most other species. Man, however, is not considered to be susceptible to infection. In deer the disease, if it occurs, results in death soon after infection with no significant transmission to other animals. Aujeszky's disease has been recorded in deer in other countries but available evidence suggests that its occurrence is rare in this species.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the comparative figures for aluminium levels in the various brands of cow and soya baby milk formulae; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I repeat the undertaking given to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) as to publication of the results of the Ministry's survey(Official Report, columns 608–9). It is not my policy, however, to disclose information by brand name.

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to ensure the withdrawal of brands of cow and soya baby milk formulae with high levels of aluminium in the light of recent research by the Medical Research Council and Dr. Mary McGraw of Southmead hospital.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am aware of the research mentioned. In addition, my own Department has recently completed a survey of infant formulae.

  I shall take any necessary action when the results have been assessed by my Department with the Department of Health.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the outside experts consulted by his Department on the effect on babies of food containing high levels of aluminium;

  (2) on what date his Department first received information that some popular brands of baby milk contain high levels of aluminium;

  (3) what urgent steps his Department has taken in order to stop baby milk with high levels of aluminium being sold in shops.

  Mr. Ryder
  There have been a number of reports about aluminium in baby milk, dating back to 1985. As a result of these, my Department carried out a study on the levels of aluminium in infant formulae which has now been completed. The results of this survey have been referred to the Department of Health's independent medical and scientific advisory committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment and I will take their advice into account in deciding whether and what action is needed.

  Fisheries Byelaw Applications
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fisheries byelaw applications that are currently awaiting his Department's approval, indicating in each case when the application for approval was first submitted to him.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  Byelaw-making authority

  Number of byelaws awaiting confirmation

  Date submitted for confirmation

  North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  7

  11 November 1988

  Devon SFC

  1

  8 December 1988

  Kent and Essex SFC

  1

  10 January 1989

  Southern SFC

  2

  20 January 1989

  There are no byelaws awaiting confirmation which have been submitted to us by water authorities pursuant to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

  Letter
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 24 October 1988 to his Department on matters raised by constituency branches of the National Farmers' Union; and why there has been a delay.

  Mr. Ryder
  My hon. Friend raised a number of important points which required careful consideration by officials in different parts of my Department. I regret that this, together with pressures of other work, delayed the reply to my hon. Friend which has now been sent.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice or recommendations he has received from his Veterinary Products committee on the safety implications for(a) animals and (b) humans of bovine somatotropin which have emerged as a result of the operation of the experimental farm trials by Monsanto into the use of bovine somatotropin in cows.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am unable to comment on the progress of individual applications for product licences but, as I explained to the hon. Member in the answer that I gave him on 31 January, field trials are authorised only after the veterinary products committee is satisfied as to the safety of both humans and animals.

  Minced Meat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether his Food Standards Committee is investigating the content and labelling of minced meat; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what powers he has to control the content and labelling of minced meat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The food standards committee (the predecessor of the Food Advisory Committee) recommended the introduction of statutory controls on the 574
  composition and labelling of minced meat. Last year my colleagues decided not to introduce specific controls on the ground that there were already adequate controls afforded by the Food Act 1984 and the Food Labelling Regulations 1984.

  Meat (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers his veterinary staff have to monitor radioactivity levels in meat in slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Powers to monitor levels of radioactivity in meat in slaughterhouses derive from section 4 of part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Eurostat
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has access to Eurostat information.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has access to the publications of Eurostat, a range of its on-line electronic information services and working documents relating to the activities of certain committees.

  Beef Production
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of(a) the beef production of the European Community and (b) intervention buying of beef comes from Great Britain, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total production of beef and veal in 1988 in the European Community is estimated by the European Commission as 7,660,000 tonnes. The provisional figures for United Kingdom production in 1988 is 965,000 tonnes (12·6 per cent.). In 1988 391,000 tonnes of beef were bought into intervention in the Community, of which 39,000 tonnes (9·9 per cent.) were purchased in the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Establishments
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of times his Ministry has reassessed habit surveys of members of the public around each nuclear establishment in each of the last 10 years, with the aim of identifying the most exposed members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The habit surveys around nuclear establishments carried out by my Ministry in each of the past 10 years were as follows:

  1979—Nine Surveys

  Berkeley/Oldbury, Hunterston, Sellafield (Four surveys), Springfields, Winfrith, Whitehaven

  1980—One Survey

  Bradwell

  1981—Four Surveys

  Sellafield, Trawsfynydd, Sizewell, Wylfa

  1982—Four Surveys

  Chapelcross, Sellafield (Three surveys), Springfields

  1983—Three Surveys

  Heysham, Sellafield, Springfields

  1984—Four Surveys

  Hartlepool, Sellafield, Springfields, Torness

  1985—Four Surveys

  Dounreay, Sellafield, Springfields, Winfrith

  575

  1986—Seven Surveys

  Cardiff, Dounreay, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, Sellafield

  (Two surveys), Springfields

  1987—Six Surveys

  Trawsfynydd, Hunterston, Sellafield (Four surveys)

  1988—10 Surveys

  Wylfa, Rosyth, Sellafield (Five surveys), Springfields, Loch

  Dee, Winfrith

  Environmental exposure pathways and their significance are liable to change and the habit survey programme is therefore kept under continual review. Surveys are repeated at intervals, the frequency depending on the level of radiation exposure involved and possible changes in habits.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are to deal with contamination in excess of generalised derived limits as set by the National Radiological Protection Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Ministry has well established plans to deal with the occurrence of radioactive contamination in excess of the generalised derived limits recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board. If restrictions on the harvesting, movement and sale of contaminated livestock and foodstuffs are necessary, they would be imposed using the powers contained in part 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the results of his aerial survey of radioactivity in Cumbria.

  Mr. Ryder
  We expect to receive copies of the final report of this survey from the Scottish universities research and reactor centre in the near future. Publication will then follow immediately.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) farmers and (b) farmworkers were employed in each county in England in June 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that information for June 1988 is not available. I will send these statistics to the hon. Member as soon as they come to hand.

  North Venture Ltd.
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his Department to complete the preliminary examination of the licence application by North Venture Ltd. for the deep sea disposal of certain categories of waste.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The application is being considered urgently and I wish to make a decision as soon as possible.

  Poultry Meat Inspection
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of man years of his staff involved in poultry meat inspection in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
  576
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Meat inspection is the responsibility of local authorities. Officers from my Department visit all slaughter premises to advise on hygiene and welfare standards. The manpower involved for poultry slaughter premises, in the years for which figures are available, was of the order of:

  Man years

  1983–84

  8·5

  1984–85

  8·5

  1985–86

  9·1

  1986–87

  7·7

  1987–88

  7·1

  Information for earlier years was not recorded.

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria that slaughterhouses have to meet for approval for exporting meat to other European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  For the requirements applying to red meat slaughterhouses I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Wednesday 1 February(Official Report, columns 240–41) to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).

  All licensed poultry slaughterhouses must comply with the provisions of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, as amended. The regulations implement EC directive 71/118, as amended, on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultry meat. Plants which engage in intraCommunity trade may not take advantage of certain derogations permitted by the regulations and the directive for plants producing for the domestic market only.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider introducing the appropriate legislation to require purveyors of bottled waters to state on the label the mineral, bacterial and chemical contents of the water.

  Mr. Ryder
  Legislation on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters is harmonised throughout the European Community and our implementing regulations (the Natural Mineral Waters Regulations 1985) require certain chemcial and microbiological criteria to be met. Labels on natural mineral waters are required to bear a statement of the analytical composition giving its characteristic constituents or bear the words "composition in accordance with the results of the officially recognised analysis of…(date of analysis)". I am currently considering the need for specific statutory controls on other bottled waters.

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement about the new farm and conservation grant scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  With the agreement of the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Scotland, I announced on 28 November my intention to introduce a
  577
  new capital grant scheme giving greater priority to the control of pollution and support for conservation. After consultations with the EC Commission orders were laid before Parliament on 2 February which if approved will introduce the farm and conservation grant scheme on 20 February.

  In my earlier statement I said that I had agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a provision of up to £50 million over the next three years on grants for pollution control. This means that we are now able to set a grant rate of 50 per cent. for this type of investment. In the lowlands where, because of the predominance of dairy farms, the potential for pollution is particularly acute, this will be the highest rate of grant ever offered for effluent facilities. We understand that it is also the highest rate in Europe. This substantial increase in the lowland grant rate underlines the Government's commitment to dealing with on-farm pollution and will strengthen the case for heavy penalties against those who continue to pollute.

  The farm and conservation grant scheme also includes new conservation grants for heather, native woodlands and traditional barns. Farmers will receive grants of 50 per cent. in the LFA and 40 per cent. elsewhere for fencing stock out of heather moors and woodlands for a period in order to promote regeneration. In time the result will be better grazing and shelter as well as the restoration of important environmental features. Grants for the repair and reinstatement of agricultural buildings made of materials traditional in the locality, will be available at 35 per cent. provided that the farmer undertakes to keep the buildings in agricultural use.

  At the same time, we are increasing the grant rates for heather burning and bracken control from 15 to 40 per cent. in the lowlands and from 30 to 50 per cent. in the LFA. These new rates will also apply to other familiar conservation grants on hedges, stone walls, shelter belts, stiles and footbridges. All told, these changes give a greater priority to conservation than ever before.
  578
  Support for agricultural improvements under the new scheme will be confined to those investments which keep existing farmland in good condition without increasing surplus production. Grants will not be available for new buildings and roads. Drainage will be aided only where it is necessary to renew existing facilities on previously drained land. Grants for this and for fencing, reseeding and regeneration, lime and fertiliser, energy-saving facilities and flood protection will be provided at 25 per cent. in the LFA and 15 per cent. elsewhere.

  In retaining these grants, we have been particularly conscious of their importance to farmers in hill and upland areas. The Government's commitment to agriculture in these areas is reflected both in the scope of the scheme and in the fact that grant rates in the LFA will continue to be higher than elsewhere for all items except waste handling and traditional buildings.

  In the horticulture sector we intend to reintroduce grants for orchard replanting at up to 35 per cent. Rates of 40 and 35 per cent. will be available for the replacement of heated glasshouses and installation of heating systems from 1 December 1989 when the current rates under the agriculture improvement scheme come to an end. The closing dates for horticultural claims will be 31 March 1994 for orchard replanting and 31 December 1993 for the two other grants.

  As under the agriculture improvement scheme grants for agricultural improvements will be available only under an improvement plan. Grants for other types of investment will also be available without a plan but subject to prior notification in the case of waste facilities and traditional buildings.

  Public expenditure provision for the new scheme is reflected in chapter 4 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 604). The cost is forecast to reach around £55 million a year.

  Leaflets and forms for the new scheme will be available from local Ministry offices on 20 February.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation to visit the United States of America between 10th and 15th February to attend the William and Mary celebrations of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and to visit the Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the United States. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence on Monday 13th, Tuesday 14th and Wednesday 15th February.

Business Start-Ups
2.38 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give the latest available statistics on business start-ups in 1988, and comparable figures for 1987.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in 1987, the latest year for which the most useful figures are available, the estimated number of new registrations for value-added tax was 205,000. The net increase in that year was 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster, perhaps as much as 1,200 per week.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which is most encouraging. Does he not agree that the role of small businesses in creating jobs is most important and that, perhaps due to their dynamic or what other people may consider unstable position, they tend to need more support in terms of a reduction in bureaucratic imposition? Can my noble friend tell the House what the Government intend to do to reduce bureaucracy for smaller companies?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. An important part of our approach to helping businesses has been to make it simpler for them to deal with regulations where they need to be retained. We have reduced the number of starter trial surveys and, more recently, started the one stop shops where small businessmen who by definition wear a large number of hats can make contact with all the major departments with which they need to deal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the best way to help small businesses a substantial and immediate reduction in interest rates?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what is important to small businesses is a stable exchange rate. Often one can only achieve that by temporary hikes in interest rates. Inflation is the key. This is one of the means by which inflation is controlled.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, when the Minister makes a statement of that nature is he referring to businesses that have been registered at Companies House or is he bringing in other figures about which we know nothing at all? Further, is the Minister aware that the exchange rate makes very little difference to small businesses and that it is more important to bring down the bank interest rate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the registrations to which I referred come from Customs and Excise which administers VAT applications and returns. The Government's priority is to ensure that inflation remains under control. I agree that high interest rates can be unhelpful to businesses, but far more damage would be incurred if inflation were to return to past high levels.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although high interest rates deter businesses of any size the reduction in the basic rate of income tax and the rate of corporation tax undertaken by this Government are far more important and have given a tremendous boost to the starting up of small businesses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend whose supplementary question conveyed what I intended to say. I perhaps addressed the point rather badly. My noble friend is absolutely right.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in further support of the Question put by the noble Viscount, would not a great deal of help be given if it were possible to expand the funds which are available for research more in the direction of products which are possibly immediately saleable, even if that meant a slight reduction in funds for rather more indirect research?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I am well aware of the continued interest of noble Lords in the subject of research and in government funding for it. There are schemes encompassing research for which grants are available. This depends, of course, on the specific item of research in question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to tell the House to what extent the new business loan guarantee scheme has had an effect on new start-ups? Will he also tell the House what the effect has been on employment and exactly where new employment has been created as a result of new start-ups?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness the figures under the

1311
loan guarantee scheme. I can say that as part of the inner cities initiative the guarantee was increased in June from 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. in the 16 inner city task force areas.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as distinct from new start-ups, can the Minister inform the House what have been the bankruptcies in the two periods mentioned?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, not as such. It may help the noble Lord if I tell him that under the enterprise allowance scheme, of those who complete 12 months of that scheme 74 per cent. are still trading 18 months after start-up and 65 per cent. are still trading three years after start-up. I understand that those results are broadly the same as for any other small businesses.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that while the increase in startups in small businesses is most encouraging, there is a need for small businesses to export more? Does the Minister not further agree that if necessary the Government should encourage them to do so? It would be a great help to the balance of trade if this were so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why last year the Government introduced improvements to the export guarantee scheme which is of great use to all exporting businesses.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, since the noble Lord has agreed that it is a good idea that small businesses should export, will he not think again about his reply that high interest rates improve the exchange rate and are therefore beneficial? Surely, a high exchange rate is not beneficial to people who are trying to export?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. I thought my answer out fairly carefully. I believe that a stable exchange rate is what is needed in the export field.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord must agree that raising the level of interest rates does not lead to a stable exchange rate; it increases the value of the pound.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as noble Lords will know far better than I there is a complicated interrelationship between the rate of inflation, the exchange rate and the methods used to keep the one stable and the other down. At the moment one of the methods used is high interest rates.

NHS Administration: Representation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the professional bodies of the medical, nursing, midwifery and ancillary staff will be represented at regional and national level in the
1312
administration of the National Health Service in view of changes contemplated in the administration.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it will be for the chairman and non-executive members to decide who to appoint as executive members of each health authority in the light of the local situation. Chief officers will continue to have access to their authority, and of course applications for appointment as a non-executive member will continue to be welcomed from all quarters.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Medical Association, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the Health Visitors' Association and nearly everyone else vital to a successful NHS are somewhat concerned at the deterioration in the Whitley system and direct negotiations? Can the Minister give an assurance that all these professional associations that are vital to the NHS will be taken into full confidence on any changes and their views given the full consideration they deserve?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the best way of answering the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is to quote directly from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 1st November:
"We all know that the costs incurred for staff vary from place to place, as do difficulties in recruitment. We have put in our evidence to the nurses review body the suggestion that we should now move to greater geographical variation and local flexibility, and similar discussions are taking place in the Whitley council about management and administrative staff. I believe that common sense dictates that we should start to reflect local variations in conditions in future pay negotiations for a giant service such as this.". [Official Report, Commons, 1 /11/88; col. 806.]
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that these matters involving the great bodies within the NHS are not simply about rates of pay or remuneration, but also relate to conditions, training and recruitment of future staff? Does the Minister not agree that those are vital issues and that these bodies have a great part to play in any reorganisation of the NHS?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I agree that conditions and in particular the recruitment of staff are vital to the NHS. As already appreciated, I believe, we are intending to move much more towards negotiation at local level.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether the appointments to these boards will be people from different categories of professions or lay people? Can he assure me that various professions such as the dentists will not fall between two stools, failing to be allocated a professional place and at the same time being ruled out as lay members? Can the Minister further elaborate on the means of nomination that he has mentioned? The noble Earl said that nominations as non-executive directors will be welcomed from all sources. Does he mean that members of the public will be able to apply? What about members of

1313
community health councils? Can the noble Earl elaborate on what he meant by all sources?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards places on a health authority, we expect the district general managers and the directors of finance to fill two places. It will be for the discretion of the individual health authority how it fills the remaining three executive places.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that whatever changes are made the cooperation and the involvement of local authorities will be absolutely essential in this new set-up? How does the Minister explain the Government's intention not to invite local authorities to be represented on these bodies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, health authorities have a key role to play in the provision of health care. The Government believe that it is essential that they fulfil their duties in the most effective way. The changes proposed in the White Paper will ensure that the smaller and more action-orientated membership of authorities will have a crisper decision-making process leading to more effective management which is more responsive to the needs of the consumer. The result would he a better, more flexible service and even higher standards of care. Finally, I point out to the noble Lord that community health councils on which local authorities remain strongly represented will continue to monitor consumer interests.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can I bring my noble friend back to my question which he did not answer? I asked him to elaborate on his phrase that nominations for the non-executive directorships could come from all sources—presumably including local authorities. I wish the noble Earl to answer the question as to what arc the "all sources" or at least a few of the sources to which he referred.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer to that question may best be brought out in a forthcoming debate to be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, on 22nd February in which all aspects of the National Health Service review will be looked at.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the changes in the administration of the National Health Service, of which there have been a good many in the past few years, have destabilised the staff as a whole and have made them suspicious and resentful of further change? Can he assure the House that this will be taken into consideration and that steps will be taken to ensure that staff are adequately consulted so that the resentment can be removed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when change is on the cards there is always concern and there is always suspicion. The whole point of the White Paper is that flexibility should abound.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in regard to the noble Earl's reply on local authority representation, has
1314
there been any direct consultation with the local authority associations; and if not, why not?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should not like to mislead the House on this point. It is not a question I can answer directly but I shall ensure that the noble Lord has a proper and correct answer in writing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the professional associations covering the National Health Service, which have given magnificent service over the past 40 years and have made a great success of it, are firmly of the opinion that the principles on which the NHS was created are the best and the most efficient way of providing a comprehensive health service for this nation?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, and our future purpose is to return the National Health Service genuinely to the community that it serves.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, does the Minister agree that what matters is not who is represented in this debate but how we can pick the very best people available and enable them greatly to improve the present management of the health service?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right. It is very much skill and experience at a local level that are needed. The combination of those two factors will be decisive in electing people to those bodies.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister respond more precisely to the questions raised on these Benches? We are talking about consultation with the present staff of the NHS and about changes in the administration of the NHS. That was the burden of the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Molloy and myself.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot add to the answer which I have already given to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if the noble Earl accepts that we want only the best people to serve, why are most chairmen of the regional health authorities members of the Conservative Party? Are they always the best people?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords.

Northern Ireland Development Expenditure
2.53 p.m.
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the planned expenditure on economic development for Northern Ireland in 1989–90, and what is the allocation for industrial development and the local enterprise unit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, a sum of £376 million has been allocated to the Department of Economic Development in 1989–90 as the department primarily responsible for assisting and supporting economic development in Northern Ireland. Of this sum, £127 million is for the Industrial Development Board and almost £32 million has been provided to the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has not this fine financial achievement by the Government brought confidence to the people of Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this investment has not merely brought confidence to the people of Northern Ireland but has been reflected in the confidence expressed in the Province and its people by two major companies' significant investment this year£Daewoo Electronics of Korea and Montupet of France, which between them have placed investment of more than £100 million in the Province and have announced that they will be investing in two factories.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, although the overall increase of about 6 per cent. is to be welcomed, can the Minister confirm that this amounts to only 1 per cent. in real terms? Will he take on board the fact that in Northern Ireland unemployment has fallen in the latter period by less than 5 per cent. whereas nationally it has fallen by almost 30 per cent.? As Northern Ireland fares badly in the reduction in unemployment, can the Minister tell the House how he intends to redress that balance? Will he also bear in mind that of the department's global budget less than 7 per cent. is spent on industry while more than 30 per cent. is spent on social security? We do not wish the latter figure to be affected, but can he say how he intends to increase the less than 7 per cent. spent on industry?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on his first question. His second question is more than a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. As for the figures given by the noble Lord of 7 per cent. and 30 per cent., I cannot confirm them as I stand here but I think that the two examples I gave are notable successes in the industrial regeneration of Northern Ireland.

Ford, Dagenham: Employment Prospects
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect on employment in Dagenham Ford's decision to build Sierras in Belgium is likely to have, and what steps they are taking to deal with it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Ford has predicted that over the next five years 500 jobs at Dagenham will be lost by natural wastage as a result of the
1316
phasing out of Sierra production there. No special steps are being taken by the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Sierra is the second best selling car in the Ford range, and that 43 per cent. of Sierras are sold in this country? If the Sierra is built in Belgium, there are bound to be balance of payments problems. Will this not also have an effect on employment? Is he further aware that there will be a spin-off regarding component manufacturers in that the figure of 500 jobs to which he referred may be very much larger?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. However, I must point out that the Dagenham plant will now be making the new Fiesta range of cars which Ford believes will be extremely successful and will become a best seller. Generally speaking, I must point out that Ford has to decide how to run the company, and it must not be for the Government to tell it how to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, how far does this regrettable decision of Ford result from the actions of the Transport and General Workers' Union in blocking the building of a Ford factory at Dundee a little time ago?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no information on that point; but I am sure that my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what does Belgium have that Dagenham does not have?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, it must be for Ford to decide where to build its cars. It has been building cars in the European Community for many years, and it has often switched model production from one area to another. Perhaps I may also point out that Ford is about to invest £750 million in a new engine plant at Bridgend in South Wales.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord has no information about the point made by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, how can he say that he is sure that his noble friend is quite right?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I meant that I was sure that my noble friend thought that he was quite right.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is right far more often than the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and that therefore the law of averages was wholly on his side?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not right that one should look at the matter in the broader context? Was not the very good news which was announced last week that the Toyota motor company is now to establish a large factory in this country and all that remains to be done is to decide where, an indication of how attractive Britain has become to the international motor industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Moreover, we seek to continue to manage the British economy in a way so as to encourage more investment.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can tell the House what the aggregate effect on employment is of all the plans of the Ford Motor Company, including the expansion of the engine plant at Bridgend.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have details regarding only the Dagenham plant. There, as I said, 500 jobs will be lost by natural wastage over the next five years. At Bridgend a total of 2,500 jobs will be created and preserved when that factory is working at full steam.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Fiesta, which Fords claim will replace the lost Sierra, will continue to be sourced from Valencia and Cologne, and therefore the volume of jobs likely to be provided will probably not be so great?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that if the Dagenham plant is successful in producing Fiestas at the best possible price, then we should be able to look forward to an increased production at that plant rather than at Valencia.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us realise that with the coming of 1992, and the single European market, we shall see a great deal of investment from this country into other countries, and also investment from other countries into this country—and that that is how it should be?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes; the noble Baroness is right. We are attracting an enormous amount of investment from overseas purely because of 1992 and the opening up of the single European market.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Children Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during the adjournment the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989, the Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989 and the Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989 will be taken.

National Maritime Museum Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Parental responsibility for children]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("and the judgments in In Re Thoth, [1926] Ch.D. 476, are abrogated for all purposes relevant to this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment refers to a case which I mentioned in Committee during the debate on the Motion that Clause 1 should stand part. I had previously drawn it to the attention of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. The anxiety was that the judgments in the case mentioned might derogate from the sense of the word "paramount"—that the interests of the child should be paramount in all proceedings relating to the child—as it is ordinarily understood and in the sense that I was convinced your Lordships intended.
I should say that when I subsequently raised the matter in Committee my noble and learned friend said that it was a somewhat remarkable decision. However, since then a case has arisen in which the decision was discussed on an appeal to your Lordships' House. It was not overruled, it was not approved, but it was discussed. It was a highly involved case, with a report running to over 60 pages.
In those circumstances my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was good enough to see me this morning and we both felt that, subject to the approval of your Lordships, it was an unsuitable issue to be debated without prior discussion before your Lordships in legislative session. Again subject to your Lordships' approval it was also felt that it would he preferable if I did not press the amendment to the Question but that I should ask leave to withdraw it in order to give my noble and learned friend and myself the opportunity to discuss the point of law involved.
Should I succeed in convincing my noble and learned friend that some such formula as that proposed is needed to get rid completely of any mischief caused by that case, I shall move an amendment on Third Reading which can be taken quite shortly. On the other hand, my noble and learned friend may convince me that there is no further occasion to trouble your Lordships with the matter. Naturally, I suppose that my noble and learned friend would welcome the advice, assistance

1319
and presence of any noble Lords who might wish to discuss the issue in law. But in the meantime I can do no more than formally beg leave to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships will wish to differ in any way from the manner in which the amendment has been presented so far by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He was kind enough to have an informal word with me about the amendment and suggested, very properly, that those of us who are concerned with the matter should read the judgments referred to. I have taken the trouble to do so, but I shall not weary your Lordships any more in that regard save to say that in the judgment of the court in that very matter the rule stated by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in In re O'Hara was quoted. It is only one sentence which perhaps I may read to the House before I sit down. It seems to me to be a rule which may well find acceptance so far as concerns the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It states:
"Where a parent is of blameless life, and is able and willing to provide for the child's material and moral necessities, … the Court is, in my opinion judicially bound to act on what is equally a law of nature and of society, and to hold (in the words of Lord Esher) that 'the best place for a child is with its parent' ".
I propose to say no more but to wait until Third Reading to see whether any possible objection can be made to such a worthy dictum (as I see it) by Lord Esher.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, this is a fairly technical matter. We may be able to resolve it by a more private discussion than is possible here, so I welcome his kindness in giving us an opportunity for further discussion. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Acquisition of parental responsibility by father]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and the attention of both parties has been drawn to the power of the court under subsection (4) below to bring to an end such an order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which sought to ensure that each party to the parental responsibility agreement had been advised to take legal advice. I withdrew the amendment after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave the assurance that the prescribed form of agreement could, inter alia, contain a warning about the legal significance of the form; that it was meant to have legal consequences and that, if anyone was in doubt, they should seek legal advice before signing.
The amendment deals with a separate but related point. It seeks to ensure that unmarried mothers are aware, at the time of signing the parental responsibility agreement giving rights to the father of
1320
their child or children, that. if it should prove desirable at some later date, they could apply to the court to have the agreement nullified. The point at which they sign may be the only opportunity to ensure that both parties are aware of their rights in that respect. It would provide some reassurance to the mother to know that. if the father's behaviour should cease to merit full parental responsibility, there exists a remedy.
In addition, the father may be encouraged to take his responsibilities more seriously if he is aware that full parental responsibility could be taken away from him upon application by another person having parental responsibility for the child, or with the leave of the court, or by the child himself.
The aim of the amendment could be achieved, as in the case of the earlier amendment, by the inclusion of the information relating to the rights of the parties applying for the agreement to be brought to an end upon the prescribed form itself. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to give such an assurance. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, my noble friends and I should like to support the amendment. It is important because the point at which the relevant parties sign the agreement may provide the only opportunity to ensure that both parties are aware of their rights in that respect. I understand that the noble and learned Lord feels that he may embody what is required in some relevant order. We may perhaps await his decision upon that matter before coming to a conclusion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the earlier amendment. Obviously an important aspect of the legal advice would be that it is focused on the amendment. There is nothing in the amendment to say who is to impart the information and no duty is imposed upon anyone to do so, As has been said, when responding to the earlier amendment in Committee I said that, if it were thought desirable, the form which the Lord Chancellor would prescribe could contain a warning about the legal significance of the agreement and that anyone in doubt should seek legal advice. The form could also make it clear that the agreement was revocable by the courts if that were thought desirable.
When designing forms, there is a limit to what can be put in. If we were to give legal advice on all aspects of the form on the form itself it would become complicated. Therefore I had a look to see what has been done by those who have experience of these matters. A precedent for such warnings can be found in the form upon which a parent agrees to an adoption, a form which I am sure everyone agrees is an important form. At its head, in capital letters, is printed:
"If you are in any doubt about your legal rights you should obtain legal advice before signing this form".
If your Lordships felt that something similar would help to meet this point, I shall ensure that such a warning appears on any form prescribed under the clause. To give effect to the amendment as it stands would not be wise. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Banks, may feel able to withdraw it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I understand his point about the fact that there must be a limit to the amount that is put on the form. One could add bits ad infinitum. He has accepted that this is an important point and indicated how it might be shown on the form. I very much hope that that will be done. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority support Jar children and, families.

. (1) Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to indentify the extent to which there are children in need within their area.

(2) Every local authority shall take reasonable steps, through the provisions of services under Part III of this Act, to prevent children within their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 69. In Committee, after listening to the debates on Amendments Nos. 58 and 60 (cols. 1290 to 1296 of 20th December) I came to the conclusion that Amendments Nos. 138 to 143, which removed several paragraphs from Schedule 2 into the main part of the Bill, were too sweeping.
It seemed to me upon reflection that we needed to take out of the relevant paragraphs of Schedule 2 the essential parts which I believe need to be part of the general principles contained in Part I. Hence, I am taking two of them, which I shall explain in a minute, and putting them after Clause 4 so that they are contained firmly in Part I.
That action will safeguard them, and make them be seen to be safeguarded, from possible alterations under Clause 15(4). After carefully studying paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Schedule 2, which I have been advised by the NSPCC could usefully go en bloc into Part I, I decided that the essential—I emphasise essential—principles were contained in the first sub-paragraph of paragraphs 1 and 4 of Schedule 2. Those are the provisions which I seek to cut out in Amendments Nos. 65 and 69.
Paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 are more in the nature of consequential action so as to give effect to those general principles. In addition I felt that, in the light of experience, those latter paragraphs could be amended to good purpose by regulation, whereas no one would wish to amend the other two paragraphs. I want to put those paragraphs into Part I because they are fundamental. The fact that they may not be amended because no one in their right senses would not want to do so does not mean to say that they are not of considerable substance and should not be among the general principles of the Bill. Further, sub-paragraph (I) of paragraphs 1 and 4 of Schedule 2 could be taken without replacement from those paragraphs without destroying their sense. I have sought to take those two sub-paragraphs and create a new clause after Clause 4.
I wrote to the NSPCC and received its agreement. I also sent a copy of my letter to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He replied and said that he
1322
was not convinced that it would be appropriate to place those two sub-paragraphs in Clause 15. I did not intend to do that. As it was Christmas time, my noble and learned friend may have read my letter a little quickly and perhaps did not see the full message. He went on to say that he would be happy to listen to what I had to say, and 1 have now said it. 1 hope that the principle of the amendment will be acceptable to the House and to my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support these amendments. As has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, they are to ensure two very important duties for the local authorities: first, to identify, and, secondly, to take steps to prevent, children suffering neglect or abuse. These are in the primary legislation and are not to be subject to alteration by the Secretary of State. Awareness of the problems of child abuse is very high arid a matter of major public concern. The vast majority of people want to see local authorities doing all they can to prevent child abuse.
At Committee stage the fact that duties under this Act could be repealed by the Secretary of State was called a constitutional outrage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took notice of those words.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wish to support the amendments, partly for the reasons already stated but also because it seems to me that they are in accordance with the principle of the drafting of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is in effect laying a duty on local authorities at the outset of Part I of the Bill in rather the same way as Clause 15 at the outset of Part Ill lays a general duty on every local authority to provide services for children in need. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might consider that the amendment is in line with the admirable drafting practice used in Clause 15 at the beginning of Part III.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendments. In my experience much can be avoided if only the facts are found out before the trouble begins, before the assaults or the sexual attacks are made. That often does not happen and we only know after the worst has occurred. If we could organise local authority care and support for the children and families in that way, we would save tremendous problems and trouble and be very successful.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I support the view that it is desirable that since local authorities have an important role in the Bill in regard to the protection and care of children their duties should be clearly stated, as they are in the amendment. The provision there is that:
"Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area".
It does not seem an unreasonable requirement that they should take reasonable steps to achieve that purpose.

1323
In regard to the second part of the amendment, the extent of concern about the abuse of children is very great and marked. It is right that there should be that concern. Some appalling cases have come before the courts, showing how watchful we must all be, particularly the local authorities, which may have a special responsibility for children within their area. Accordingly, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think it right to accept the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I too support the amendments. It seems to me important to have the duty mentioned early in the Bill that:
"Every local authority shall take reasonable steps, through the provision of services under Part III of this Act, to prevent children within their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse".
That provision is central to the whole Bill and it is very important to have it stated early in the Bill and not in the schedule that local authorities have the duty to provide services. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say that schedules carry weight. Even so I think that for this to be inserted earlier in the Bill would be a positive step. I very much wish to support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the amendment has a valuable spin-off. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to Clause 15(4), which allows the Minister to amend the schedule as enacted by Parliament. My noble friend Lady Kinloss reminded your Lordships that that was described in Committee as a constitutional outrage. I can well understand the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, seeking to remove from the draft of such a provision powers and duties which he considers of fundamental importance. There is an amendment down later to leave out Clause 15(4). I do not know how far the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will get on this amendment but he always has a fallback position by voting in due course in favour of leaving out Clause 15(4).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke about this matter to some extent in Committee, as did other noble Lords who have spoken today. I do not in any way minimise the importance of these duties, which are described in the amendment in the same words as are used in the Bill. So to the extent to which the words have been commended, I take them as being commended in the Bill as stated.
The only question is where these duties should be in the Bill. Part III of the Bill deals with the matter; Part I does not deal with the duties of the local authority. When I answered my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who made a reference to Clause 15, I assumed that if these words were to go into the main part of the Bill they should properly find a place in Clause 15 or its neighbourhood. Part III deals with the duties of local authorities and these words are of that character. So in order to have a consistent structure in the Bill one would wish to have them there.
However that is not the main issue. The main issue is whether these provisions need to or should go into
1324
the principal part of the Bill, the main provisions, or should stay where we have suggested they should be, namely in the schedule. The scheme of Part III of the Bill provides in the main Clause 15 for a general duty on local authorities, with the provisions which support it and the specific duties in the schedule. In other words, everything in the schedule is an amplification of what is in Clause 15. I should have thought that that was a proper balance, with Clause 15 as the principal clause to which these are elaborations and subsidiary.
Schedule 2 sets out a non-exhaustive list of powers and duties which fulfil the general duty. It is important to see those functions as part of the whole picture of local authority services. What we have tried to do is to say that Clause 15 describes the whole range in general terms and Schedule 2 elaborates on that with a non-exhaustive list which does not fully exhaust the scope of the duties under Clause 15 but details them.
I agree with the importance of these provisions. That is why they are in the legislation. But I consider that they are better placed where we have placed them. Prevention of child abuse is an essential part of the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. But it is by no means the whole of that duty. The whole of that duty involves what is put upon local authorities by Clause 15. Taking some part of it, however important, and putting it, as it were, alongside the general duty is, I believe, apt to cause confusion rather than clarity.
Identification of children in need is an important part of the procedure for identifying the children to whom the general duty of Clause 15 should apply. I do not want to anticipate what will be raised in connection with Clause 15(4). My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred to that. That obviously has an impact on these provisions. If this amendment were accepted, these particular provisions would be taken outside the range of Clause 15(4), if it stays in the Bill. Perhaps we can discuss that later.
There are a number of ways in which the operation of Clause 15(4) can be altered. It could be restricted in scope in the main legislation, or it could be subject to different procedure than that which applies to it at present. I am willing to listen to what is said about that. But I believe that it does not accord with the very clear way in which the Bill is drafted to set alongside the general duty of Clause 15 a duty which, on any view of it, is only part of that general duty. It is much better to have the general duty described and then the parts of it all put together, as we have done.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think again about this matter. I, and I am sure other noble Lords, appreciate that his argument is most certainly one which has its origin in tidiness of mind. Does he not think that the heart of the Bill, and possibly the main reason for the Bill, is the subject matter of this very amendment? It is public concern about local authority care of children. Part I of the Bill is headed "General Principles". Clause 1 is headed "Welfare of the

1325
child". Clause 2 is headed "Parental responsibility for children".
Bearing in mind that Part I will be seen by the public as the whole basis of the policy of the Bill, would it not be appropriate for the public to see at the very commencement that local authorities are asked and have a mandatory duty to, in the words of the amendment,
"take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area …take reasonablesteps…to prevent children …suffering neglect, or physical or sexual abuse'"?
There is nothing between us in this argument so far as I can see. It is purely a question of whether the logic of placement, which is undoubtedly with the noble and learned Lord, is a sufficient answer to the heart of the amendment, which is that at the very commencement of this Bill a local authority's duty should be laid down absolutely clearly. It is in that hope that 1 rise to ask the noble and learned Lord to think again about this and let the heart rule the head.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if one is looking for clarity, it is wise to have the head fairly generally in charge. That is what we have sought to do. If the noble Lord's argument were to be adopted, it would be important to state the general duty. It would be very odd to place little bits, however important, of the general duty into Part I and then have the general duty itself stated in Clause 15, where it has to lie.
We want a system which people can understand. One of the difficulties of legislation is that if one legislates for particular situations, the provisions for those particular situations may be very good. But the statute book as a whole becomes confused and therefore confusing. It is important that we should deal with all the issues which have been raised. Those issues concern the heart. The heart, as it were, considers what the issues are. But when it comes to setting them out in a clear way and in a way that people can read and understand, the logical relationships of the various parts are important. If that is not followed, the legislation becomes confusing.
Having given this the best consideration that I can, I conclude that what the draftsman has done carefully here in putting local authorities' duties—they do not constitute the whole of child care; it would be wrong to think that they did—into Part III and putting everything ancillary to that into Part Ill and its supporting schedules is correct. However, that does not decide whether a particular provision should appear in the schedule or in the main part. That is a separate point. I am now speaking only in further amplification of what I said earlier, in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as an ex-chief officer and a director of social services, I absolutely agree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. City councillors, I am afraid, will not read the whole Bill. They will just consult it to find out what the duty of local authorities is. If this provision remains in its suggested place, a number of them will not see it because they will only look up the relevant part of the Bill. That may be a bad argument, but it is a realistic one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it may be a realistic argument, but I am not convinced by it. My experience of social services departments is that their duties are much wider these days than perhaps they were formerly. That applies to their gazing at legislation and other matters.
The unfortunate part about the arguments we have just heard is the reference to Clause 15. I do not believe that Clause 15 is a part of this argument. I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who spoke in support of me. However, the key to the point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who got it absolutely right. I am not concerned about the reference to Clause 15, but I am concerned to get the provision into Part I.
My noble friend said that if the provision were put into Part I it may not be read by local authorities. They should in any case know it by heart. That is not the point. I shall further develop the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He discussed the clause headings. Clause 1 is headed "Welfare of the child". Clause 2 is headed "Parental responsibility for children". Clause 3 is headed "Meaning of `parental responsibility' ". Clause 4 is headed:
"Acquisition of parental responsibility by father".
Clause 5 is headed "Appointment of guardians". Clause 6 is headed "Welfare reports".
I want to add a further heading in that group. The best place for it is after Clause 4. I should like to add the title: "Local authority support for children and families". I believe it is fundamental that it should be seen as part of the general principles that local authority support for children and families is a key factor of the Bill. The fact that there is a later part of the Bill which deals with local authorities is to my mind quite irrelevant when one is inserting into the Bill the most important elements.
First of all one must insert provisions relating to children themselves. Clause 1 should concern the welfare of the child. One then puts in a further provision relating to parents. Not to have in the clauses composing Part I any mention of local authorities at all, with only a tiny little clause striking at the heart of what local authorities have to do, is unbalancing the Bill. The local authority contribution to the whole exercise is vitally important. It is not so much unbalancing to put the provision in the Bill, it is unbalancing for there to be no mention of the local authority in the fundamental principles set out at the beginning of the Bill.
I implore my noble and learned friend to look at the matter, without bothering about Clause 15. I should say in passing that I think that subsection (4)—which I am sorry to learn some eminent noble Lords want to remove—has an important purpose in relation to many other parts of Schedule 2. But it does not have a purpose in relation to the subparagraphs which I have picked out to provide the fundamental reference to the local authority in the general principles of the Bill.
I am rather torn. I do not like to lead the House to a Division without being sure what will happen because I do not want to lose the provision altogether. That is what tends to happen. However. I am strongly tempted to do just that although I hate

1327
to do so against the wish of my noble and learned friend, for whom I have such great respect. However, I see no other way of making the point that Clause 15 has nothing to do with the case. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is the only noble Lord who has got it plumb right.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that this is the only time since I came to the House of Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said such kind words. I thank him.
I should like to plead with him not to divide the House on this issue. Unfortunately there will be many noble Lords who have not listened to this discussion who will walk into the Chamber and vote. The result will be expressed as the vote of the House. I believe that the heart of the House—and I have used that metaphor before—is with the noble Lord. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider what has been said, as he always does. There is always time at Third Reading.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend not going to respond at all? Can he not give me some encouragement? Notwithstanding the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should like it to be accepted that the provision has a place in this part of the Bill. I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would say that he would think about the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always anxious to do what I can to assist my noble friend to avoid temptation. I shall certainly consider what he has said. However, I have to make it very plain that I do not think it at all likely that I shall come forward with anything on the lines that he has proposed. If reference ought to be made in Part I to local authorities' place in the scheme—and I should have to consider very carefully whether that is the case—I should want to do so by means of a more general provision, leading into Part III. Something of that kind may be possible. If such consideration on my part assists my noble friend, I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his closing remarks. I hope that that is what he will do. The exact wording is unimportant, providing it has the right effect, of course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Appointment of guardians]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves the next amendment, perhaps it may be convenient if I draw the attention of the House to the Marshalled List. In the fly sheet of amendments for 30th January my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had a number of amendments to Clause 5, on page 4, preceding the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,is
1328
about to move. They seemed to me to be quite innocuous drafting amendments and uncontroversial. I wondered whether they had been left off the Marshalled List by mistake or whether my noble and learned friend had withdrawn them for some reason. If necessary they can always be moved at Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not clear what my noble and learned friend is referring to. As far as I know the Marshalled List is in order. I have no reason to suppose that it is not. Since my noble and learned friend has raised the matter I shall inquire into it. Perhaps in the meantime the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, can proceed on the basis that the Marshalled List is in order.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) Where a child has a parent outside the United Kingdom any appointment of a guardian under this section shall be "additional" and not "exclusive".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to deal with a pathetic situation with which all civilised countries are increasingly confronted, not least our own. That is the admission into the country of refugee children whose parents for one reason or another have to remain abroad. The amendment has its origin in the fact that the British Refugee Council has asked some noble Lords to support the amendment, which it regards as most important.
This century has seen a number of refugee children seeking to enter countries such as ours. Ours has a very fine tradition, not only in previous centuries but also in this century when children whose parents were unable to escape from Nazi Europe were rescued from the holocaust. In modern times to my certain knowledge the Home Office has lent a very sympathetic ear to the cries for help from children, and their parents, from South East Asia and in very recent times from Iran.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, where a guardian is appointed for any child who is admitted to the country as a refugee, the appointment of an additional guardian will not be limited to those cases in which the parent unfortunately dies abroad but will also be considered while the parent is living. It would be quite wrong for an exclusive guardian to be appointed for a child with its parents abroad, in defeat of the blood tie. By its very term, an exclusive guardian excludes the natural parent. That is why a provision is sought in the Bill to ensure that where a refugee child has a parent living outside the United Kingdom any guardian appointed under the provision would be an additional guardian and not an exclusive one. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, until the noble Lord explained the amendment I had some difficulty in understanding what was intended. There may well be circumstances in which more than one guardian should he appointed. I take it from what the noble Lord has said that he is anxious to ensure that the guardian appointed under Clause 5 will not take over from the parent. I think that that is the effect of the guardian appointment anyway. I had rather assumed

1329
that he wanted to operate, as it were, on an existing appointment of a guardian and provide that the result of a new appointment would not be to revoke the old appointment. So the matter is perhaps not very easy. I do not believe that the appointment of a guardian will supersede, as it were, the parents' rights, and if that is what the amendment deals with I very much doubt whether it is necessary, but perhaps we can look at this somewhat further. At the moment, I cannot see that the problem that the noble Lord has addressed is one which this particular amendment is required to deal with.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, 1 am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord to whom 1 owe an apology. I ought to explain to him that, as is known to some people who have been approached by the British Refugee Council, this amendment and the council's concern came very late and that is why I had no opportunity even to explain the amendment to the noble and learned Lord's department, as I would normally have tried to do.
The purpose for which I sought the amendment is precisely as the noble and learned Lord now sees: it is to see that there is no exclusive guardian appointed in respect of any such child, but only, as I understand it, an additional guardian to the father or the other parent who is abroad. The noble and learned Lord has said that he would be kind enough to see whether this is a provision which should or should not be in the Bill, and whether it is covered by any other provisions of the Bill or our general law. In those circumstances, I am most grateful to him and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [ Welfare reports]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("an officer of the authority") and insert ("—

(i) an officer of the authority; or

(ii) such other person (other than a probation officer) as the authority considers appropriate,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in response to points that were made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee. The amendment is intended to clarify that the local authority need not use one of its officers to report to the court but may arrange for any other person or body that the authority considers appropriate, other than a probation officer, to do so on its behalf. The court itself has a right to appoint whom it wishes, but this is an attempt to meet the point that was made by the noble Lord. It also takes account of the comment in that connection that was made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, that the local authority should be in charge of the arrangements so far as this responsibility is concerned, and we have sought to ensure that. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for this amendment. That completely meets what I sought to put before the Committee in Amendment No. 20. I put down
1330
Amendment No. 6 in case he did not respond with alacrity. Under the circumstances, Amendment No. 5 completely takes care of the situation and I shall not move Amendment No. 6 when we come to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 6, perhaps I should deal with the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Questions were raised about the drafting of Clause 5. Amendments were put down in the Lord Chancellor's name, but they were withdrawn because some further doubts were raised about the matter. That explains why what my noble and learned friend saw earlier is not on the Marshalled List as printed. We are not putting forward these amendments. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for drawing this matter to our attention; but I think that it need not trouble us further at this stage.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Power of court to make section 7 orders]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
("(1) In any family proceedings, the court must investigate the need to make a section 7 order.
(2) The court may make an order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to place a duty upon the court to investigate the need for a Section 7 order in all family proceedings. Under Clause 9 of the Bill as written, the court would need to consider the need for a Section 7 order only if
"a question arises with respect to the welfare of any child".
The problem is that neither the court nor the parents themselves are always in a position to predict when such an issue might arise and this could have serious implications later if no order exits. This has particular relevance in two important areas: those of homelessness and abduction. I shall take them in that order and address first the question of homelessness and rehousing.
Divorce or separation frequently result in homelessness among families. Under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act, local authorities have a duty to house those considered to be in priority need. That is the qualification. Families with children are among those considered to be in priority need. However, it is common practice for the local authorities to require a custody order or at least some proof that an application for custody has been made before accepting a family as in priority need. Many parents are not aware of this and may not therefore apply for the order to be made, as they can do under Clause 9(1)(a) of the Bill as drafted. Although under Clause 9 the court has the power to make an order even if an application has not been made, there is a general assumption in Clause 1(4) that no order will be made unless the court considers that making an order would be better than not making one at all. Thus where the need for an order is not immediately apparent, the courts are likely to be inclined not to make an order. The general

1331
presumption is against making a custody order. The family could subsequently apply for an order, but this would entail further delay possibly resulting in prolonged homelessness for the family.
Likewise, in divorce, where agreement cannot be reached between the parties on the disposal of the matrimonial home and the court has to make an order, custody of the children is an important factor in assisting the court to reach a decision. If there is no order and the court is unclear about with whom the children are to reside, this could prejudice the chances of a court ordering the transfer of the home to the parent with the children. Thus the absence of a residence order will significantly increase the uncertainty faced by families with children at the point of relationship breakdown and is likely to lead to increased homelessness among these families.
That is the point which relates to the question of homelessness; but I now want to turn to the no less, and as some people would perhaps consider, even more important question of abduction. The advisers at the National Council For One Parent Families receive many inquiries from lone parents anxious that their partner or spouse may abduct the child. Although it is an offence for a parent or any other person connected with a child to take or send a child under the age of 16 out of the United Kingdom without the consent of each parent, guardian or person with custody, it is not always easy to prevent an abduction. The police must be satisfied that an offence has been attempted or be shown evidence of a court order. If there is a court order granting custody to one parent, it is much easier to implement port-stop procedures. In that respect, special representation has been made to me by the Organisation for Abducted Children which points out that when a child is removed from this country without the consent of both parents or guardians, the procedure for returning them is often long and laborious. That process can be speeded up if the wronged parent can demonstrate to a foreign court, and often to a foreign police force, that he or she has a British custody or access order.
Under the Lord Chancellor's current interpretations of the Hague and European conventions, a child who has not been returned within a year can expect to remain in the country to which he or she has been abducted, and parents who retrieve their children within that time are considered lucky. Application for a custody order after abduction has taken place will only prolong and complicate the retrieval process.
It is also much easier for an abductor to resort to the defences available under the Child Abduction Act 1984 where there is no custody order. For example, one defence for the abductor under the Act is for him to claim that the other person whose consent is required has unreasonably refused consent. However, if the child in question is the subject of a custody order made by a court in the United Kingdom, that defence clearly cannot apply. In some ways the position of a child abducted within the United Kingdom is even more worrying, because in the absence of a court order proceedings will have to be initiated which are of little use if the whereabouts
1332
of the child are unknown. If, on the other hand, there is a custody order, it is simply a matter of enforcing the existing order. If there is nothing to stop one parent removing a child within the United Kingdom, this may result in an increased incidence in child abduction and create greater insecurity for both the parent and the child.
This has been covered to some extent in Committee when an amendment was tabled which would have placed a duty on the court to make an order in any family proceedings in which an issue arises in respect of the welfare of a child. The noble and learned Lord objected to that amendment on these grounds at col. 1226 of Hansard on 19th December last year, when he stated that,
"The Government would wish to discourage parties from going to court…and to encourage parents who separate to make responsible arrangements between themselves without necessarily involving a court order".
He also made reference to a report from the Law Commission in which it is argued, that,
"Where a child has a good relationship with both parents the law should seek to disturb them as little as possible.".,
However, in another recent report the Law Commission recommended that,
"The interest of the law in the protection of children should be asserted and safeguarded by imposing upon the court a duty to investigate"—
that is the wording in the amendment—
"and consider whether it is necessary to exercise any of its powers in order to safeguard or promote the welfare of the children".
That is precisely what the proposed amendment aims to achieve. Although I would be the first to agree that parents should be encouraged to reach amicable agreements between themselves and that the law should seek to promote good relations between children and both their parents, in our view, the primary objective of the law should be to safeguard the interests of the children. This is in keeping with the general principle laid out in Clause 1 of the Bill. This affirms that,
"When a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child … the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration".
Clearly any increased threat of either homelessness or abduction would undermine rather than safeguard the welfare of the child.
I believe that I have spoken at sufficient length to set out the reasons behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly in support of this amendment in so far as it concerns the question of child abduction. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said about the willingness of the police in this country, and the courts in other countries, to act more speedily if there is a piece of paper conveying custody rights of some sort or another upon the party who is seeking to enforce those rights. But I was particularly shocked to hear him suggest that there may be some unwritten rule that the Lord Chancellor's Department somehow gives up if a child has not been retrieved after a year. I have never heard that said before. I certainly hope that there is no such unwritten rule. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take the opportunity to deny that suggestion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I should deal with that matter first. I have spent some time trying to persuade authorities in other countries to speed up the processes for bringing children back from a parent, in a case where a child has been taken or abducted, in order to make sure that the system works properly. I have pointed out—and this may be the origin of the matter—that if a child has stayed, say, a year in a new environment, the child may have put down roots in that environment, made friends and so on in such a way that the court would regard it in the best interests of the child to stay where he was. Therefore it is of great importance if one is trying to take a child back to get on with the matter quickly before the rooting has taken place. That may be the origin of the suggestion that there is such a rule. I certainly do not think of it as a rule; I think of it as a very strong encouragement to get on with the matter, because where a country has a rule that the paramount consideration is to be the welfare of the child, one has to take account of these factors.
On this amendment, I can see that there may be some cases in which it is desirable to have a Section 7 order. However, I believe that these cases can be identified. I do not believe that it is right to put a duty on the court to do something in every possible case just because there is a minority of cases in which it would be desirable for the court to do something. Therefore my first answer to this general amendment is that it would result in unwarranted intrusions and disruption of family life.
Take, for example, applications to vary maintenance orders. In many cases they are made some years after a divorce or separation, during which time the children will often have settled down to living happily with one parent. In such cases it would be wholly unjustified to subject the family to an investigation. Doing so would risk opening up old wounds and destabilising the family, thus putting the children's welfare at risk.
Secondly, and equally worrying, the amendment might discourage parents seeking a court order or help when it was needed. Foremost in my mind are domestic violence cases. It would be greatly to the detriment of children if, when faced with a violent partner, a mother was discouraged from seeking an order to protect both her and the children because of the prospect of then having her care for the children fully investigated.
Finally, there is the question of targeting resources. It could not be in the interests of children generally if the resources of the courts, and more particularly welfare officers, were taken up by investigating the needs of children in every family proceeding whether or not there was any reason to do so. That could result only in diverting resources from cases where the need was real.
The Bill enables courts in all family proceedings to make Section 7 orders of their own motion where a need appears. Therefore the court is likely to be able to distinguish between cases such as that to which the noble Lord has referred and others. It has the power in such cases where it thinks it necessary of its own motion, without waiting for any application from the parties, to make an order where the need for one appears. Further, in divorce cases, where the whole of
1334
a family's life and structure is being rearranged, Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended by paragraph 21 of Schedule 8 to the Bill, requires the court to consider exercising its powers under the Bill. That is therefore an appropriate provision for a divorce situation. In an extreme case the court may withhold the decree absolute if it needs to give further consideration to the arrangements for the children and there are exceptional circumstances making it in the child's interests. That, in the Government's view, is sufficient. To go further would, as I have explained, be likely to harm the interests of children generally.
Accordingly, while I quite see that there may be some cases where a Section 7 order would be helpful, to make it a general obligation would, If think, be wrong. The court has power to identify these special cases and to act accordingly. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of that explanation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. On the question of the European conventions, of course I accept what he has said. I take the point that a court might well regard it in the best interests of the child to remain on foreign soil after a certain time. However, he also said that this is a strong ground to encourage people to get on with the matter quickly. That takes me back to my initial difficulty. In the absence of an order, it may be extremely difficult to do so. Therefore while I fully accept what he says about this position on this matter, I am not sure that it entirely helps the problem that I am addressing.
I would regard the main argument of the noble and learned Lord—that it is in the power of the courts already to identify such cases without placing a general requirement on them to issue orders in all cases—as entirely sufficient if it were certain that they would be able to identify cases in which abduction was likely to take place. I am particularly addressing the question of abduction because, on balance, of the two problems, this is the more important. After all, it is irrevocable if someone has been removed from this country and action cannot be taken in time.
I am not entirely clear from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. I fully understand that the court is currently enabled to make a Section 7 order if it considers that it is necessary to do so in any case. I find it hard to understand how a case can be identified in advance in which an abduction is likely to take place. I am wondering whether the noble and learned Lord can give me any comfort on that point or suggest any way in which the identification of potential abductions could be more thoroughly covered, possibly in some different formula to the one that I am proposing.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think it is easy to devise a formula for that purpose; but I believe that the court will be able to distinguish cases to some extent by the risk of abduction. It is difficult to try to give examples because they are apt to be taken out of context. However, I would expect a court to be fairly astute in watching that aspect. No one can be sure in advance because to be successful

1335
an abduction has to be in the nature of a surprise. In that sense the noble Lord's amendment does not help either unless a Section 7 order is to be made in every case. Usually the abductor will not be parading his proposal in advance and therefore on investigation it would not be easy to tell either.
I believe that the court is sensitive to cases where the risk of abduction is likely to be high and would certainly give special consideration to those. The alternative appears to be a thorough investigation in every case having the consequences which I mentioned and with very doubtful results because, as I have said, an abductor will normally expect to keep his proposals as close to his chest as he can until he carries them out.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said. 1 was also expecting some concrete examples in which the vigilance of the court has been eluded, which did not reach me in time. Therefore the most sensible thing for me to do is to read the evidence when I receive it and possibly come back on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) Rules of court shall provide for procedures to enable a child to make an application to join or initiate proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my respectful submission, this is an extremely. important amendment. It goes almost to the heart of the Bill in the sense that it makes it abundantly clear that rules of court should provide for procedures enabling a child to make any application either to join or to initiate proceedings. It is bringing the child right up against the powers that can make orders affecting his own life and the way in which the child should continue to exist.
I hope your Lordships will permit me to indicate what happens elsewhere in other jurisdictions. In many ways we are in advance of other jurisdictions in regard to children and their welfare. In some ways we are behind. Other jurisdictions have different ways of allowing children to have their voice in their own destinies. In Ontaria, Canada, the Office of the Official Guardian investigates the arrangements for all children whenever a decree of divorce is sought and there are children of the marriage. In New Zealand the court must appoint a lawyer to represent the interests of children in all proceedings for custody, access and guardianship. In the United States, a number of states—including Washington, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming—have legislation actually making the child a party to proceedings concerning his custody. In Holland, Spain and Denmark children from the age of 12 have to be listened to and have their views on their custody and access taken into account.
Those are examples of what happens elsewhere. When one is dealing with legislation which affects the whole destiny of children we should be very careful to see that the rules of court provide procedures to enable a child to make an application to join or initiate proceedings where that child is vitally affected. We may not have the opportunity again for many years.
It is a fact that in a certain measure the Bill deals with this matter; but in my submission, and in the view of the Children's Legal Centre, the Bill does not go far enough. For example, we know that a Section 7 order is a contact order, a prohibited steps order, a residence order or a specific issue order. In relation to Section 7 orders the Bill enables children to apply to the court for leave to make an application. That is covered under Clause 9(2). But Clause 9(7) limits that to children who have sufficient understanding to make the proposed application. Clause 69(1) specifies that,
"Rules of court may make provision as to the persons entitled to participate in proceedings under this Act, whether as parties to the proceedings or by being given the opportunity to make representations to the court hearing the proceedings."
That does not go far enough, because what we really want is for the child to be able to initiate and join any family proceeding which may affect her or his welfare. The Bill and the rules should provide for effective procedures so that children can be informed of their entitlement to apply to the court whether in family or related proceedings. I immediately remember, as some of your Lordships may, that when we moved an amendment on somewhat similar lines at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a reply which we wanted to consider very carefully. He said then that the aim of our amendment was likely to be met by rules to be made under Clause 69 combined with the prominence given by the Bill in Clause 1 to the child's wishes and feelings.
I quoted Clause 70 before, and your Lordships may remember that that referred to "persons". Although we may know as a matter of law that "persons" includes children there is no clear guidance there that children are also involved.
I also quoted from Clause 9, which deals purely with a Section 7 order. It is in connection with other issues, such as custody and access orders, that we believe that the views of children and young people should be taken into account. I say that Clause 69 is merely permissive and not mandatory.
I should like to emphasise what was said in Committee by my noble friend Lady David. I quote from col. 1233 of Hansard of 19th December 1988. She stated:
"Although there is already provision for children to be made parties in a number of family proceedings, this provision is little known and little used".
In dealing with this legislation we wish the voice of the child to be heard. That does not mean to say that his voice will be agreed to by the court as being best for his welfare. However, the voice of the child should be heard and that is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to require rules of court to provide a procedure by which a child may apply to be joined as a party to proceedings or apply to start proceedings. There is already power to provide a procedure to enable a child to exercise his rights under Clause 9 to start proceedings by applying for an order. Further, in so far as he will be entitled to be a party to proceedings under Clause 9, again there is already power to provide for the procedure to be followed. I can assure the House, in so far as any assurance is needed, that we shall make whatever procedural arrangements are necessary to allow the child to exercise those rights.
As regards the child's substantive right to apply for a Section 7 order, it is already conferred by Clause 9, subject to the leave of the court. Leave is expressly adverted to in subsection (7) and, as this amendment does nothing to alter the leave requirement, I assume that that is thought satisfactory. But, in that event, nothing more is needed in the Bill to give the child a right to apply for a Section 7 order, which includes access and consent orders.
As regards a right to be joined as a party to proceedings relating to Section 7 orders, the superior courts already have power to join a child, and the powers under Clause 69 will be exercised to allow the court to join a child as a party to such proceedings in magistrates' courts. Any lingering suspicion that this will not be done where the child is of sufficient understanding to participate is misplaced. The guarantee against it lies in the fact that a child of sufficient understanding may apply for an order. Therefore, it is obvious that it would be a duplication of proceedings not to allow him to join in proceedings already raised in which that could be done.
The net effect is that what the noble Lord seeks to achieve in the amendment has already been achieved in the Bill. Therefore, all that is added is an extra provision which adds nothing to the powers already conferred under the Bill. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question before he sits down. Is a duty laid upon any person, the local authority or the court, to acquaint the child with his rights in that respect? If not, how is a child to know of his rights?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the court has a duty to ascertain the wishes of the child in accordance with the provisions of the main clause (No. 1). The child's position will then be obvious. Clause 1(2) requires the court to have regard in particular to:
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)".
In addition, the provisions in Clause 9 make clear the fact that a child can apply to be joined or to initiate proceedings himself. One way in which a child will come to know of his rights if proceedings are already in operation, will be as the court investigates his wishes.
As regards the initiation of proceedings when no proceedings are taking place, it is more difficult to see
1338
that any specific person could have a duty in that respect. It must depend on the circumstances of the child. It is not easy to see how one can impose an effective duty which would apply in the case of every child and every possible circumstance in order to achieve that. In such circumstances we must rely on as clear a system as we can devise and those advising the child will have an opportunity of directing his attention to his rights.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble a nd learned Lord has given almost the same answer as he gave last time. It is not satisfactory because Clause 69 is unlikely to have the same effect as the proposed amendment. The amendment is more likely to enable children to participate in family proceedings. It deals particularly with children rather than persons and emphasises the frequently overlooked question of the child's status. It is intended to draw the child's status to the attention of the court and would appear in the section of the Bill dealing with Section 7 orders. It is in respect of such orders—currently, custody and access orders—that the Children's Legal Centre most frequently hears from children and young people that their wishes and feelings have not been taken into account. The wording of Clause 69 is merely permissive and therefore I ask the noble and learned Lord to think again about the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I accept the criticism—if it is a criticism—that the answer which I have given today is much the same as the answer I gave before. It is the answer. Clause 9(7) is the most important provision indicating the basis on which leave to apply for a Section 7 order will be granted. It is the main area of the noble Baroness's concern and the child's position is in the forefront of that provision.
Clause 69 was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I have tended to put the main weight of my argument upon Clause 9, particularly subsection (7). It is an area of interest arid the fact that we pass from it today does not mean that it will not be considered as the Bill continues its passage both in this House and in another place.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there was no criticism of the noble and learned Lord that he had adhered in sheer consistency to the reply which he gave at the Committee stage. It is not a criticism of the noble and learned Lord but it could be a criticism of the argument now before the House. I endeavoured when moving the amendment to deal with the noble and learned Lord's Committee stage arguments, and to say why they were not satisfactory and therefore why this amendment is necessary.
The amendment is necessary because, first, it makes it mandatory and not permissive that the rules of court should provide a procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked: how is the child to know? One wants the procedural rules to make it apparent how a child should know. It is perfectly true that the noble and learned Lord did not rely upon Clause 69; it was I who referred to Clause 69. I think that he may have referred to the clause at Commit tee stage.

1339
Within it one merely finds the legally inclusive term, "person". To the public it does not necessarily indicate that a child is included.
It is perfectly correct that under Clause 9(7) the court has to be satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make any proposed application. I am trying to make it apparent that the child can apply for leave and how the child can apply, and the rules of court must so provide. The noble and learned Lord is always very forthcoming when he talks in terms of what one has in mind that the rules of court should provide. With the noble and learned Lord's jurisdiction over those matters one is perfectly content except to say that any essential provision should be enshrined in a Bill and not—and I say this with the deepest possible respect—in an indication of the noble and learned Lord's mind as to how rules should subsequently provide.
So, because one feels that one owes a duty to children whose destiny is being pronounced by procedures laid down in the Bill, I feel that we have to obtain the decision of the House on the rules of court providing what is specified in the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask a question for clarification? The amendment reads:
"Rules of court shall provide for procedures to enable a child to make an application".
An application to whom? Is this to be an application direct to the court? Or is the application to be made through the social services department and then to the court? They are two different procedures. Sadly, some social services departments are so short staffed that any child wanting to make his application through the social services will find the social services department closed. I should therefore like to know whether the application can go direct to the court, in which case I think the child will find it very difficult to know what the rules are.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the wording of the amendment certainly does not provide that the child has to go through any social services department whatever. It would be by way of a direct application. It would happen, one imagines, after legal advice had been received and after somebody from whom that legal advice was sought had looked at the rules of court which we are trying to make mandatory. It would be perfectly clear to that adviser what the child's rights were and the procedure that ought to be adopted. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wonder, with the leave of the House, whether I could make it absolutely plain that what I am saying is that the structure of the Bill is such that rules of court will have to be made. I cannot foresee any situation in which the right to apply to grant leave could be frustrated and Clause 9(7) makes it clear that the child has a right to apply for leave. Accordingly, I am saying that the procedure for that purpose is a necessary consequence of what we have in the Bill at the moment. But I am not, of course, able to add anything further.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and crying for the patience of the House and for leave to rise for a third time, may I remind the noble and learned Lord, with deep respect, that the provision in Clause 9(7) is a negative provision, not a positive one. It does not say that a child shall be able to apply. But the court of course cannot grant the application if, by any chance, it finds that the child is lacking in understanding. It is a perfectly negative provision, and in view of what I have said I owe it to the noble and learned Lord and to the House to read what is only one sentence:
"Where the person applying for leave to make an application for a section 7 order is the child concerned. the court may only grant leave if it is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application for the section 7 order".
That is not very helpful. It is a negative provision. I am trying to see that there are positive rules of court which enable a child to know when the application can be made and how it can be made, with proper legal advice being given.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amherst, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone. L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caradon, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Ponsonhy of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Galpern, L.

Porritt, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Seebohm, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

1341

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Aldington, L.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Long, V.

Allerton, L.

Lyell, L.

Alport, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Arran, E.

Margadale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

L. Marley, L.

Auckland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Morris, L.

Beloff, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Munster, E.

Birdwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bolton, L.

Nelson, E.

Borthwick, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Orkney, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Butterworth, L.

Pender, L.

Caithness, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Portland, D.

Coleraine, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rodney, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rootes, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Derwent, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elibank, L.

Selborne, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Slim, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strange, B.

Fisher, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Windlesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 40, at end insert ("Provided that the grandparents of the child may apply for a contact order notwithstanding that the requisite consents have not been obtained for the making of the application.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a greatly modified version of an amendment which I moved at Committee stage. It concerns the ability of grandparents to seek access orders or, in the language of this Bill, contact orders. At present, generally speaking, grandparents have the right to apply for access to a child irrespective of the consent of the parents. The Bill seems to debar such applications as of right. It is not clear that grandparents will be
1342
covered by the rules which are to be made under Clause 9(6), and if they are not grandparents will only be entitled to apply, unless they obtain the leave of the court, if they fall within the categories set out in Clause 9(5) of the Bill. Therefore, in practice, under this Bill the grandparents will need the consent of the parents to apply.
The problem is that a grandparent will only be in the position of wanting to apply for access precisely because one or other of the parents, arid possibly both, objects to the grandparents having access. That self-same objection by the parent or parents means that the grandparents cannot apply to the court for contact or access without leave of the court. In these circumstances I would suggest that leave is an unnecessary hurdle in the case of grandparents. Grandparents ought to be able to apply for access in the face of parental objection, and it is by means of this amendment that I seek to deal with that position. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the present position, as I understand it, is that a grandparent can apply as of right for an access order under Section 14A of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 when a custody or access order is in force under Section 9(1) of that Act or when the grandparent's child has himself died leaving children. Those rights are rather restrictive and arbitrary in the Government's view. Accordingly, the Bill will allow grandparents to apply at any time and in any circumstances for a contact order only provided that they obtain the court's leave by demonstrating that they have a good reason. In addition, of course, a grandparent can apply if he or she has lived with the child for three or more years or has the consent of those with parental responsibility.
I recognise that there is often a close bond of concern between a grandparent and a grandchild—and I speak with particular feeling on this point—and in such cases leave, if needed, will no doubt be granted. Indeed, in many cases it will be a formality; but we would be naive if we did not accept that not all interest shown by a grandparent in a child's life is necessarily benign, even if well intentioned. Arguably, at least until we have experience of the wider rights of, application, the law should provide some protection to children and their parents against unwarranted applications by grandparents when they occur.
As the House will know, on this issue, as on others under the Bill, we are entering unknown territory to some extent—in other words, territory that has not been charted—and so we have taken power to react flexibly to experience as it is gained. Thus subsection (6) enables subordinate legislation to add to the categories of persons who may apply for orders as of right under the Bill. If it is shown by experience that grandparents are generally granted leave, so that the protection is shown to be an unnecessary impediment, we can remedy the situation. However, the reverse would not be true. There is no power in the Bill, by subordinate legislation, to cut down the number of those who may apply as of right. If unfettered rights to apply under the Bill led to problems we would be powerless to remedy them. If

1343
experience showed that grandparents coming into cases as of right caused increased problems, expense, delay and so on we could not under this Bill, if it passes into law as it is, do anything about it.
Therefore, while recognising that your Lordships may have particular expertise in this field, I would suggest that the court's grant of leave is a very useful and flexible way of dealing with this matter; that is, allowing the court to look in a very preliminary way at the circumstances and then to decide whether they were circumstances in which the grandparent should be allowed to participate fully in the application. I believe this is a reasonable position for us to adopt, and I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able, although I appreciate he has modified the amendment considerably, to leave the position as it is and withdraw this amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I had thought that all your Lordships were too young to declare an interest as grandparents! The noble and learned Lord quite rightly said that the present provisions to some extent are restrictive and arbitrary. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to replace those provisions with other provisions which in a different way are unduly restrictive and arbitrary.
I suggest that in the great majority of cases the court's leave will tend to place in the way of grandparents an unnecessary hurdle in what are already difficult and probably highly charged circumstances. I do not believe that there will be a flood of applications. I should hope that if the leave requirement is to be adhered to as a requirement under the law when this Bill comes into force, administrative arrangements will be made to ensure that there is not unnecessary duplication of proceedings and that the leave application and the substantive application can in appropriate cases be heard together.
I accepted in Committee, and I accept now, that this is a balancing arrangement. I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord said about the rule-making power in the sense that once a door is opened it cannot be closed again. For that reason I accept his arguments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, leave out lines 8 to 11.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if paragraph (d) in Clause 9(8) remains part of the Bill there is a danger that relatives will never succeed on an application for leave to apply for a residence order when a child is being looked after by a local authority.
The present position is that when a child is in care, the local authority has total discretion to decide where that child should live. In recent years the Family Rights Group has advised and represented many grandparents and some other relatives such as uncles and aunts who wish to offer a home to their young relatives in care. If the local authority wishes
1344
instead to place the child with strangers for adoption, as is frequently the case, grandparents and relatives have no legal remedy. They are not able to apply to discharge the care order on a child.
They can apply to be parties to adoption and freeing for adoption proceedings but they are very often unsuccessful in this application because there are no orders a court can make in their favour in those proceedings. They cannot use the wardship jurisdiction because of the series of decisions made by the House of Lords—most notably A. v Liverpool City Council (decided in 1981) and re W (decided in 1985)—which made it clear that the wardship jurisdiction could not be used to challenge the exercise of a local authority's discretion.
Referring to the changes introduced in this Bill, it is clear from the face of the Bill and from the discussions in the consultative period leading up to it that it is intended that greater powers should be given to the courts to give directions to a local authority in only two important areas. These areas are contact orders and residence orders.
It is clearly intended that relatives should be able to apply for a residence order even if their young relative is in care and even if the local authority disagrees. If this paragraph remains, the danger is that the courts may interpret this reference to the local authority's plans as meaning that they cannot interfere with those plans. If that happens, relatives will never get to be on the application for leave to the substantive hearing.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Meston, proposed an amendment to remove the requirement for relatives to seek leave before applying for a residence order. The Lord Chancellor's response to that was that, if it became apparent that grandparents or siblings should have a right to apply without leave for orders, then that could be achieved in the future by rules of court. That exchange was reported at cols. 1226 and 1228 of Hansard for 19th December 1988.
This amendment seeks only to remove the additional hurdles imposed for relatives when applying for leave to apply for residence orders in relation to children being looked after by a local authority. The local authority's plans and the parents' wishes are clearly relevant to the substantive hearing but unnecessary for the application for leave. The issues the court must consider on an application for leave—subsection (8) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—are quite sufficient to ensure that frivolous and vexacious applications are not allowed through.
Paragraph (d) is unnecessary and may very well put relatives of children in care back in the same unfortunate position they are in at the moment, having no legal remedy when a local authority refuses to agree to their providing a home for their young relatives in care. As the whole tenor of the Bill is, I thought, to seek to get children back home with their parents, that may be a hurdle which can easily be removed from the Bill without doing any harm to the symmetry or delight of the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, the amendment would remove

1345
paragraph (d) from Clause 9(8), which provides that, where a court is considering whether to grant leave for the making of an application for a Section 7 order by someone other than the child, it shall have particular regard to where the child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority's plans for the child's future and to the wishes and feelings of the parents.
Apart from local authority foster parents under Clause 8(3) who require the local authority's consent, there are no restrictions on who may apply to the court for leave to make an application for a Section 7 order. As the noble Baroness said, the purpose of subsection (8) is to require that leave to make the application is not given lightly. The court must ensure that leave is not given where it would not be in the child's interest to allow the case to be brought—for example, because it was frivolous or mischievous or the application would have a disrupting effect on the child's situation.
In considering what should go into these provisions we took account of advice in the Law Commission's report, including the requirement at paragraph (d). Children being looked after by a local authority are principally children being provided with accommodation under voluntary arrangements under Clause 17 and children in the care of the local authority by virtue of a care order. The Law Commission considered that it was important to maintain the confidence of parents in voluntary arrangements and that they should not feel more at risk of losing their children (under a residence order made in favour of someone else) by accepting the services of a local authority than they would by making private arrangements.
The Law Commission also said in the report that it was important that local authorities should feel confident in their responsibility to plan the best possible future for children in both voluntary accommodation arrangements and compulsory care, which may very well include a careful scheme for rehabilitation with the parents. The Law Commission concluded that this problem could be met by including in criteria for granting leave that which is provided for in subsection (8)(d)(i)—the authority's plans for the child. The Law Commission was considering applications by the local authority foster parents with respect to the child they are looking after, but we feel that these comments apply equally to applications from persons other than those who by virtue of their relationship with the child or in the other circumstances specified in the Bill would have an unfettered right to apply.
For those reasons we think it reasonable to require the court when considering leave applications in cases of this kind to have regard not only to authority's plans for the child but also to the wishes and feelings of the child's parents. The court does not of course have to be bound by such plans or views and may well conclude when the applicant is a grandparent or other relative that there is no risk to the child's welfare in allowing the application for leave. I should certainly not expect there to be automatic refusal of leave just because the authority had made plans for the child or the parents objected. The aim would be to sort the cases which should not go forward in the
1346
child's interests from those which should. I submit that that is a relevant consideration to be taken into account in making that decision.
This is intended to be a balanced approach which recognises that the merits of applications from persons without a clear legal interest in the child will differ and that there could be positive disadvantages for the child in allowing some to proceed. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is a wise approach and that the amendment should not be pressed.
We have, as it were, put the court in charge of this matter by directing attention to criteria which appear to be important. I particularly stress the importance of seeking to promote voluntary arrangements. We do not wish parents to feel that putting the child under a voluntary arrangement with the local authority puts the child at more risk than if it had made private arrangements. This is an important matter, and I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am partially satisfied. It seems that a group such as the Family Rights Group, which has a great deal of experience in dealing with parents, children and courts, knows a good deal of what it is speaking about on this subject. It must have had a very strong reason for wishing this amendment to go forward with paragraph (d) being deleted. Obviously no one would mind about.(d)(ii), because that is all right. It is (d)(i), which states -the authority's plans", which seems to be the stumbling block.
In the light of the explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given, I wish to consult further on the matter. I withdraw the amendment now and retain the right to come forward at the next stage of the Bill if I am so advised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [General principles and supplementary provisions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert ("and
(c) in drawing up a timetable, have regard to circumstances where parents are living abroad.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the theme of refugee children and children who have parents abroad without their being refugee children. Clause 10 of the Bill very sensibly makes arrangements for a fairly quick timetable. It quotes the general principle with which all your Lordships would agree; namely, that any delay in determining a question of making a Section 7 order or any other question with respect to such an order is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child concerned.
Subsection (2) of that clause provides:
"the court shall (in the light of any rules made by virtue of subsection (3)—
(a) draw up a timetable …";
and subsection (3) provides:
Rules of court may—
(a) specify periods within which specified steps must be taken …".

1347
The sole purpose of this amendment, with the eye on the refugee child or the child with the parent abroad, is to see to it that in drawing up a timetable due regard is had to circumstances where parents are living abroad in order that they may find and liaise with the child's parents, who may be far away or, in some tragic circumstances, whose whereabouts may not be known.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when drawing up a timetable the court will have to be realistic and will have to take account of all the circumstances, otherwise it will simply not be adhered to. Many things may affect the matter; for example, whether medical or welfare reports have to be obtained, when parties are available and so on. Plainly, if parents are facing difficulties because they are abroad that too would be taken into account. But so could the fact that they are hospitalised or are on a walking trip in Wales, or are uncontactable for some other reason. Perhaps, rather than living abroad, they are simply on a holiday. It really cannot make sense to tack on to the timetable power one of the very many matters which in particular cases may be relevant. Doing so is not only illogical unless a pretty near definitive list is provided but may also suggest that the factor mentioned is somehow more significant than others, and thus be misleading.
There is also available a technical criticism of the amendment, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with that. The circumstance that the parents are living abroad is obviously one to be taken into account, but there are so many others that I believe we can leave it to the court to be sensible in drawing up a timetable. I hope the noble Lord feels that confidence in the court can extend thus far.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that was a very persuasive reply to the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is not to see that the court behaves sensibly. Clause 10(3) states:
"Rules of court may—
"(a) specify periods within which specified steps must be taken …".
Therefore, the court may be bound by the rules of court so drawn up. The advantage of the exchange between myself and the noble and learned Lord is that this matter will not now be forgotten when the rules of court are drawn up. If no other purpose is served by this amendment I shall be content. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [change of child's name or removal from jurisdiction]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 42, leave out from ("either") to ("or") in line 43 and insert—

(i) the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child, and

(ii) the written consent of the child who has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision and who wishes to give his consent,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this clause provides, as regards a residence order, that,
"Where a residence order is in force with respect to child, no person may—

(a) cause the child to be known by a new surname; or

(b) remove him from the United Kingdom"—

both important steps as regards the child—
"without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court."
There is no provision for requiring the consent of the child in the terms that I have read out. It is a curious and extraordinary omission. In the case of a child in care that requirement is a necessity. One sees from the provisions of paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2, at page 81:
"A local authority may, with the approval of the court, arrange for, or assist in arranging for, any child in their care to live abroad."
Then, when we come to sub-paragraph (3):
"The court shall not give its approval under sub-paragraph (I) unless it is satisfied that—
(a) living abroad would be in the child's best interests;
(b) suitable arrangements have been, or will be, made for his reception",
and,
"(c) the child has consented to living in that country".
That is a clear provision for the protection of the child and for requiring his consent.
As one sees at sub-paragraph (4):
"Where the court is satisfied that the child does not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold his consent, it may disregard subparagraph (3)(c)",
which is the sub-paragraph I have just read out.
For some reason there is now no such requirement as regards the provisions affecting the child who is placed in residence. The requirement that the child should have sufficient understanding is clear and necessary, and that is not sought to be avoided. It is curious that in the provision for a residence order there is no requirement that the child's consent should be given if those two important matters that are provided for are to be put into effect.
At the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that an older child who objects to being known by a new surname or being taken abroad can under Clause 9(7) apply for a prohibited steps or specific issue order to prevent it. That still leaves the child with the onus and responsibility of making the application. It would require an exceptionally self-confident and competent child to initiate such an application in the circumstances that we are envisaging in this matter; namely, where the decision as regards the child's change of name or removal abroad is being made by those with parental responsibility for the child and there is not necesssarily any court supervision of the decision.
In our submission it is unacceptable that major decisions such as those at issue here should be made without the consent of a competent child. Your Lordships' House in its 1985 judgment in the Gillick case, the Cleveland Inquiry report and the Law Commission's review of child law all acknowledged the importance of the child's participation in decisions such as that which we are now considering. It is wholly out of accord with recent changes in both

1349
law and policy to make provision in the Bill for significant decisions to be taken about certain children without their consent, regardless of whether they are of competent understanding to decide those matters for themselves. I hope that in those circumstances the noble and learned Lord will achieve consistency and justice by accepting the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord has said about the importance of the child's wishes and the importance of respecting and requiring adherence to the child's wishes when the child is in a position to make an informed decision, but I have never heard of a case in which a child's name has been changed in the face of objection from that child. Even if the child expresses mixed feelings as to whether or not his or her name should be changed the court will not change the name and will err on the side of caution—and quite rightly so. The usual position in these cases is that the child's wishes provide the general impetus for an application to change his name. The child will come home asking why he is not called the same at school as his half-brothers or step-brothers, and that prompts an application to the court. I wonder whether in practice the written consent of the child in cases involving a change of name adds anything of substance to what happens.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and only so that we can clarify one matter, has he appreciated that the wording of Clause 12 is alternative? In other words, the leave of the court does not have to be obtained if those who have parental responsibility for the child consent to a change of name. Therefore, the court may never be consulted on this matter and the wishes of the child may never be taken into account.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I accept that point. I was looking at the matter purely from a forensic point of view. When it is before the court the wishes of the child are the determining factor in that case.
Baroness David: My Lords, I find it anomalous that Clause 12 does not allow a child the right to consent to a move abroad when he or she is subject to a residence order while the Bill grants this right to a child who is the subject of a care order. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can give the reasons for that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take the last question first. The reason for the distinction between Clause 12 and Schedule 2 is that children covered by Schedule 2 are in care and may not apply for an order under Clause 7, prohibiting removal. Under Clause 12 the child can apply for a prohibited steps order.
The amendment as drafted has a rather doubtful effect. If a child does not wish to give his consent to a change of surname or to his removal abroad, his consent is not required under the amendment. This is a technical point. The amendment says that the consent required is,
1350
"the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child".
It does not refer to the written consent of the child.
Lord Mishcon: It does.
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords, it does not. It says,
"the written consent of the child who has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision and who wishes to give his consent".
Therefore it refers not to "the child" but to "the child … who wishes to give his consent".
Noble Lords: No!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the child is free to agree, perhaps, but certainly not to disagree. The question is whether his consent is required. The amendment does not refer to the written consent of the child in every case. It refers to,
"the written consent of the child who has sufficient understanding"—
it does not stop there—
to make an informed decision and who wishes to give his consent".
That is part of the amendment, and must make a difference. It is not otiose. It is there for a purpose: and what can its purpose be?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord goes any further, if he looks at the amendment with a little more care, if I may respectfully say so, he will see that it says that the child cannot be taken out of the jurisdiction nor can the child's name be changed unless there is
"the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child, and … the written consent of the child".
If it stopped there the noble and learned Lord, with great justification, would have asked how we would know that the child had sufficient understanding to make an informed decision. The wording goes on:
"the written consent of the child who has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision and who wishes to give his consent".
It may well be the case that one need not add the words,
"and who wishes to give his consent",
but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not rest his argument in reply upon words that he regards as otiose. They may be otiose, but the meaning is transparently clear. One cannot change the name of a child who is in residence and one cannot let a child go abroad unless, if the child is able through understanding to make an informed decision, that child has given his consent. I know that the noble and learned Lord will accept the intention of the amendment in the way that I have just indicated.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's intention in moving the amendment was not to produce the result which I have just described. However, if one reads the words carefully, as I think I have done, there is at least a considerable danger that they have that consequence.
I said in Committee, and I repeat it now,, that since the Gillick case it is recognised that older children's rights to self-determination are important. The Bill

1351
strikes the right balance in our view, not by giving the child the right to decide these issues as such, and thus putting the burden of the decision on him, but by ensuring that in court proceedings his views are fully taken into account and by enabling him, with the court's leave, to seek an order himself. Hence, in an extreme case an older child who objects to being known by a new surname or to being taken abroad can, with leave, apply for a prohibited steps or specific issue order to prevent it.
It is important not to put the child in the invidious position of being left to choose. That would be the case here assuming that the noble and learned Lord's amendment had the effect, subject to the supplementary explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave, which it is intended to have. I feel that in substance it has not met the point which I sought to make in Committee. It is true of course that in such a situation everyone with parental responsibility for the child will be required to consent. But the difficulty is putting the child in the situation where his consent determines whether the others will consent. It is a difficult issue and I do not know whether it is possible to give an absolutely right answer. For the reasons which I have given, we feel so far that this is a matter which should not be conditioned entirely upon the child consenting.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the contrast between the provisions for the child in the care of a local authority who has to consent to any change in residence and the provision contained in Clause 12 as it now stands is stark. Clause 12 makes no requirement for the consent of the child at all. It states:
"Where a residence order is in force with respect to a child, no person may—

(a) cause the child to be known by a new surname; or

(b) remove him from the United Kingdom;

without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court".
There is a total omission of the prime necessity of having the child's consent. If I may say so, the amendment spells that out repeatedly. It does so very well and clearly. It provides for,
"(i) the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility, and
(ii) the written consent of the child"—
and here it goes a little further and states—
"who has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision"—
as is the case of the child in care. Then, so as to underline the fact that it must be a decision of the child and that it is the consent of the child which is given, it adds by way of precaution the words—
"and who wishes to give his consent".
Therefore he must consent and he must indicate that he wishes to do so. Those additional words are by way of a reasonable extension of the requirement; they are not a contradiction or a limitation in any sense of the term. Indeed, for once I am almost driven to impatience on the matter. It is a clear issue and in the light of its importance and clarity I must seek the opinion of the House.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

L. John-Mackie, L

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Caradon, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, B.

Dunrossil, V.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Porritt, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seear, B.

Greenway, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shannon, E.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Alexander of Weedom, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Denham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Derwent, L.

Arran, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Atholl, D.

Dundee, E.

Auckland, L.

Elibank, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Elliott of Harwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fisher, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkers, B.

Butterworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Campell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Carnock, E.

Havers, L.

Cathchart, E.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colyton, L.

Hives, L.

Canstantine of Stanmore, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hooper, B.

1353

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renwick, L.

Killearn, L.

Rodney, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Romney, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Rootes, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

Margadale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Terrington, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Windlesham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Young, B.

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

5.33 p.m
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 45, after ("month") insert (in any twelve consecutive months.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to the identical amendment, Amendment No. 89.
The amendment arises out of a point raised in Committee about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to write to me. At present the law provides that a child who is subject to a custody order may be removed from England and Wales only with the consent of the other parent or leave of the court. There is a great deal to be said for the present law with the exception, perhaps, that consent is technically needed to take a child to Scotland.
I can understand that the Bill seeks to extend the present law to the United Kingdom as a whole. The amendment is concerned with a modification introduced by the Bill. Clause 12(2) provides an automatic right of removal of the child, or children, for a period of up to one month. It was mentioned in Committee that there is no limit to the number of monthly periods in a year for which the child might be removed from the United Kingdom. That creates a potential for abuse. Clearly the right given by Clause 12(2) is a right which must not, in all common sense, be exercised too frequently. The child should not be allowed to suffer unnecessary disruption merely for the convenience of one or other of his or her parents.
I propose a modification of the right given by the Bill to limit the automatic entitlement to remove the child for a period of up to a month to a right which can be exercised once every 12 months only. That, of course, does not rule out the possibility of further removals from the jurisdiction of the British courts during the same period. The parent concerned can take the child if he or she obtains the consent of the other parent for a further period of absence or if the
1354
court gives permission when the other parent has refused consent on unreasonable grounds.
The risk of abuse which is latent, at any rate under this part of the Bill, is that of the freedom to take the child out of the country. It is a risk which will be aggravated—that is the topic which I seek to cover—by the absence of any provision in the Bill for notification to the other parent of the intended removal of the child.
If there is a risk of abuse, it may well be said, "Oh well, the other parent can go to the court before or after". Going to court after the child has been removed is too late. It will be too late especially if that other parent does not have the right to be notified. I suggest that the Bill goes a little too far. There should be a measure of control on the face of the Bill to provide that a child may be removed as a matter of right for a period of less than one month but that that right should be exercised, at least normally, only once every 12 months. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said in Committee that I would consider whether there should be a limit on the overall time during which a child may be kept abroad during a given period. That I have done, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no need for such a limitation.
The Bill provides for great flexibility. Not only may the court make orders about residence of, and contact with, a child; it can also make orders about any specific issue, such as periods to be spent abroad and can prohibit any steps being taken in respect of a child. In addition Clause 10(8) provides that any order under Clause 7 may contain directions, conditions and any incidental, supplemental or consequential amendments that the court thinks fit. Accordingly, if a party thinks that the right to take the child abroad for a period of less than a month is likely to be abused, he may ask the court al the outset, or later, to curtail or limit it. I accept entirely that if there is abuse, that is too late; but nothing can effectively prevent that position once a person is outside the jurisdiction. The flexibility allows the person who fears that such a power may be abused to raise the issue with the court and ask the court to do what is right in the circumstances.
The Law Commission, which I have consulted on this matter, considers that subsection (2) provides a sensible and simple rule which in the vast majority of cases will clarify the position and work well. The Government accept that view and, accordingly, would not want to see the general rule that it provides complicated.
Even if your Lordships were minded to impose some limit, it would not be reasonable, as the amendment provides, that a single period abroad—no matter for how short a time—should use up the whole allowance. That would be the effect of the amendment. It would be unacceptable if, for example, a day trip to Boulogne prevented further trips aboad for a whole year without consent. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter. Trouble often

1355
arises after the order has been made and someone has been taken abroad. The necessity to take steps in advance is almost underlined by this way of handling the matter, that it must be considered. The court has very wide and flexible powers to do what it can to prevent abuse. I do not believe that merely putting a limit, as this amendment seeks to do, would cope with all forms of abuse. I do not think that the noble Lord claims that for the amendment. What we have proposed in the Bill is, I believe, a good way of dealing with the matter. No way is perfect but this is the best that can be devised when we take account of all the possible cases with which the court may be concerned.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may add one word to what has been said. It would be a pity to tie up people with parental responsibility for children with too much red tape, particularly when nowadays many families take two holidays per year—a bucket-and-spade holiday in the summer and a skiing holiday in the winter, or something similar. One could end up with a lot of unnecessary administrative work.
Lord Meston: My Lords, in response to the last point, I should say that the requirement is not to tie people up with red tape. The Bill already provides a considerable loosening of the present requirements. As things stand, even if one wants to go for a day trip to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands one needs not only to inform the other party but to get his or her consent. I recognise the common sense of the basic general entitlement to take children abroad if there is no possible objection.
However, the amendment would impose some limit on the entitlement in that it provides a numerical or periodical limitation on the number of times on which a child may be removed or at least removed without consent. The problem of frequent removals is not addressed in the Bill. As we have all agreed, and as I think the noble and learned Lord agreed, the problem arises after the event. There is a risk of giving a little too much flexibility. In my submission to your Lordships there ought to be certain ground rules for when parents separate and divorce and the child is with one or other of the parents. There ought to be a basic understanding, preferably an understanding which the law has the right to dictate, if necessary, as to how often the child can be taken abroad.
I accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord that the amendment ought to deal with aggregate periods amounting to one month rather than any one period. He gave the instance of a day trip across the Channel which forfeited the right for the rest of the year. I accept that and therefore there is a drafting defect in that part of the amendment. I feel most strongly however about the next amendment. For those two reasons, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line, 46, at end insert ("Provided notice and such other relevant information is given to other persons with parental responsibility for the child as the court may direct or rules of court may prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment touches on the same topic and I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 90. It is a modified and I hope much less cumbersome version of an amendment I moved at Committee stage. The intention is to provide on the face of the Bill some mechanism whereby if a parent with a residence order intends to take a child abroad, he or she should at least be required to inform the other parent. The notification by one parent of the other ought to be the law.
At the lowest level, notification of the other parent ought to be a matter of good manners and good sense. But I put it higher. There should be a duty in the great majority of cases to notify the other parent—that is to say the parent who does not normally have the child living with him or her—as part of the joint responsibilities of separated and divorced parents.
In moving the amendment I recognise, as one must, that parents do not always behave responsibly. I gave instances at the Committee stage. In a case in which I was involved, a parent insisted on taking a child to Sri Lanka, notwithstanding warnings from the Foreign Office that nobody should travel to Sri Lanka, particularly that part of the country to which she wanted to go, unless it was absolutely necessary. Had the Bill been in force in law at the time and had the father concerned not been notified, that child would now be in Sri Lanka. There would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Likewise, I gave the example of the parent who decides that for reasons of his or her own convenience he or she wishes to take the child abroad, notwithstanding that it will clash with the run up to some very important exams. Those are examples which one comes across in practice. When I suggest to your Lordships that there ought to be a duty to notify the other parent, I do so because there is a corresponding right for the other parent to know at least in general terms where his or her child is and where his or her child is going. That enables the other parent to reassure himself or herself as to where the child is going, whether it is a safe area, where the child will be staying, who else will be there and that the child will be back in time for important exams or some other important event or back in time for the next arranged period of access.
There is another aspect, although I emphasise the basic right—and I suggest that it is a basic right—of the other parent to know where his or her child is at least in general terms. That area is child abduction. We have passed much valuable legislation in relation to child abduction. We have already agreed among ourselves this afternoon that no amount of legislation and regulation will prevent child abduction taking place if the person intending to abduct is determined enough. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that the provision in Clause 12(2) opens the door somewhat. If there was, as I suggest there should be, at least a requirement to give notice to the other

1357
parent and the child is then taken away without notification of the other parent, the parent taking the child away cannot pretend that he or she has taken the child away lawfully.
If there is no requirement of notice then of course the abductor can buy time. At least until the expiry of one month, there will be no certainty that the child has been taken unlawfully. As the Bill stands, there is no certainty when, in time, the unlawful abduction commences. It is very important that there should be certainty. The police have to prosecute if necessary in cases of attempted abduction, and, more important, foreign countries and the courts of foreign countries have to know whether the child has been removed unlawfully and when that unlawful state of affairs commenced. This is an area which needs certainty.
However, I come back to where I began, in a sense. The main requirement, the main purpose of the amendment, is to give the other party what I suggest the other party is entitled to—that is notification in the great majority of cases. It rules out or at least limits the ability for the capricious and irresponsible removal of the child from the country. Believe me, parents do behave irresponsibly, and very often, particularly if this Bill passes unamended, the ability of the parent left behind to protest or do something by way of access to the courts will be an ability which can only be exercised too late.
One has to think of the situation where parents often separate amicably enough, go to court amicably enough and do not see the need to ask the court to impose any regulation or requirement that there should be notification to the other parent if one or other of them wants to take the child abroad. The mother may, for example, meet another man; her attitude changes. The other man may say that he does not care whether the child has important exams to sit the following week. He has decided that they are all going on holiday. The child will go too.
When such a situation occurs, the other parent will not even have an opportunity to learn about it, let alone protest. Your Lordships may well think that parents have a basic right to know where their minor children are. It is in thinking of children, not only of parents, that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the drafting of this amendment seems not entirely satisfactory. 1 hope however that my noble and learned friend will look favourably upon the main thrust of the proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has given a number of examples. The fundamental point is that the parent who does not have a residence order is entitled to know what is happening to the child.
The argument against, of course, is that this may invite a rush to the court. On the whole, that seems by far the lesser argument. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, both in Committee and today, 1 hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will consider the amendment favourably.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment, like its predecessor, addresses what I regard as an extremely important matter. I do not in any way under-estimate the position. However, I wonder
1358
whether the argument properly takes us to a general requirement for notification.
I think what I said in Committee and what I am about to say is probably true. I have had a further opportunity to think about this and it seems to be right. If notice is required of removals abroad, then a similar restriction should apply to movements within the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned the example of a mother who has remarried and who takes her child away at the time of an important examination. Consequently, the child does not have the opportunity to sit and pass the examination. I see that that should not happen; but in order to miss an important examination the child does not necessarily have to be taken abroad. It was not clear to me why that particular aspect should be singled out in the example.
There is, of course, a general concern on the part of a parent to know where his child is. That appears to me to apply equally to movements or holidays in the United Kingdom as to those outside. We know, of course, that sometimes children disappear within the United Kingdom to addresses unknown in order to make it difficult for the other parent to follow up his desire to pursue the wellbeing of the child. If there is an underlying fear that a holiday will be used as a means to abduct a child, notice will not help. The noble Lord has already mentioned that. The abductor presumably will not trouble to give notice as the success of the abduction depends on surprise. I said in Committee, and I say again, that flexible arrangements adapted to individual cases are the best answer. I believe that in particular cases the court can do something in exercising the powers it has to deal with the matter.
The attempt to control everything by the same method does not appear to me particularly appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out—I believe this is true—that parents may separate perfectly amicably, but then something may happen to disrupt the arrangements and cause one or other of them to wish to conceal things about the child from their former partner. The Bill, of course, provides plenty of machinery for dealing with that, once it comes to the notice of the other parent.
I agree entirely that this is a very important problem. However, I believe that the best way to handle it is by the court using the very wide flexible powers that have been given. No doubt practice will develop in relation to particular kinds of case. As regards the drafting, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will keep in mind what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said. I make my point on the basis of principle because this is a very important matter.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it is indeed an important matter and an important problem. I shall, of course, look at the drafting. For that reason alone I shall think in terms of coming back on Third Reading. I am grateful for the support I have received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I repeat that the Bill is a considerable relaxation on what happens now. I seek to have put on the face of the Bill—rather than allow this to grow up as a matter of practice when the Bill becomes law—a

1359
simple requirement for notification. Of course one can make the point that there is no distinction between taking a child abroad and taking a child from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Indeed, I remember conducting a case where the whole issue concerned whether the mother could take her child to Corby new town. One had the impression by the end of the case that Corby new town was something akin to outer Mongolia.
This is a matter of principle. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, brought us back to it. It is a matter of the basic entitlement to know where one's child is. If a child is to be taken abroad, the other parent can be assured, for example, that the child has had the necessary innoculations.
Conversely, if a mother can take a child abroad without telling the other parent or indeed without telling anybody, and an earthquake or some other disaster occurs, nobody is in a position to alert the authorities that that particular couple are in the area or may be there. The intention of the amendment which, as I say, is a considerable modification of what I moved in Committee, is simply to give a power. It is a permissive power only. Having said that, and appreciating that there may be drafting matters to come back on, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. I am however very tempted to come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Financial Provision for Children]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 69, line 43, leave out ("above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. These three amendments are drafting changes which in no way alter the effect of paragraphs 3 (2) and 14 (2) of Schedule 1. Their aim is simply to achieve consistency in drafting style. I hope that your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 75, line 39, leave out ("above").
Page 75, line 40, leave out ("above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Clause 15 [Provision of services for children in need, their families and others]:
6 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 18:
Page II, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out one of the most
1360
astonishing provisions in this remarkable Bill, which is good in parts but outrageous in others. Clause 15(4) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order modify or repeal any provision of Part I of Schedule 2 or add any further duty or power to those for the time being mentioned there".
Schedule 2 is a crucial part of the Bill. It makes provision for a local authority support for children and families. It is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. But the Bill seeks a power for the Secretary of State by order to modify any of it he wishes, to repeal any of it he wishes or to add to it any power or duty.
When one looks at what is contained in the schedule one sees, for example, that Part I deals with the provision of services by local authorities for families. Within Part I paragraph 1 concerns the identification of children in need. It begins:
"Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area".
The paragraph also provides that information is to be published by the local authority about the services it provides under Clauses 15 to 17. Paragraph 2 provides a duty in relation to the maintenance of a register of disabled children and paragraph 3 provides for the assessment of children's needs. Paragraph 4 deals with matters which the public, the newspapers and the rest of us have been gravely concerned about—the prevention of neglect and abuse. Paragraph 5 relates to provision for diisabled children, paragraph 6 to provisions to reduce the need for care proceedings and paragraph 7 to provision for children living with their families. Part I also deals with family centres and the maintenance of the family home.
All of that is cast in doubt by Clause 15(4), which provides that the Secretary of State can repeal any of those provisions by order. The provisions for Parliament to cope with that situation are, to say the least, rather rough. It cannot amend the order. The position was described graphically by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as a constitutional outrage. That is a view which, accustomed as I am more to moderation than extravagance of language, in these circumstances I find entirely justified.
We have covered the ground before, but that provision cannot remain on the statute book. I greatly hope that, having had an opportunity to give the matter thought in the meantime, we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that subsection (4) will be removed lock, stock and barrel. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, last year we celebrated the bicentenary of the Glorious Revolution. This year we celebrate the bicentenary of its consummation. One is bound to ask why it was regarded as a glorious revolution at the time and ever after. It was assuredly not because of a rather unattractive foreigner who introduced flogging as a penal measure in the British Army was invited to supplant the legitimate King of the country. Nor today should we regard James II's attempts at toleration of Roman Catholics and dissenters as outrageous.

1361
What was outrageous was that he sought to do so by order. He sought to modify and repeal measures that were laid down by Parliament. He sought the dispensing power which is the subject matter of subsection (4). He was not the first to have done so. Only decades earlier Oliver Cromwell had purged the House of Commons and then dismissed the Rump with contemptuous words. He told them to take away "that bauble", referring to the symbol of the authority of the Houses of Parliament, a similar mace to that which lies behind my noble and learned friend.
Even earlier Henry VIII, by the Statute of Proclamations, was given the right—having demanded it in his diseased and despotic old age—to govern by proclamation. That lasted only for the last eight years of his life and was then immediately repealed. But it is significant that when this kind of clause started to reappear in statutes in the 'twenties it was called a "Henry VIII clause".
When we discussed this matter in Committee my noble and learned friend made two defences. The first was that it could not be considered as an arrogation of the powers of Parliament because it was Parliament which was vouchsafing the powers. That was so with Henry VIII. Indeed, it was so with Hitler and the Reichstag. Hitler was brought to power constitutionally by a majority in the Reichstag and it was the Reichstag which gave him the power to govern by decree and in turn registered the decrees.
The second argument of my noble and learned friend was that the provision was necessary to give flexibility: circumstances might change in which Part I of Schedule 2 might require modification, repeal or even supplementation. That was the argument that was put forward in favour of the Henry VIII clauses during the 1920s. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, asked my noble and learned friend what precedents there were for such a measure. My noble and learned friend did not vouchsafe a direct answer to that question.
I had said that there were precedents, having in mind the Henry VIII clauses, and I specifically mentioned the Donoughmore Report. My noble and learned friend said that I would not have referred to precedents unless they existed. It struck me as an altogether uncharacteristic recklessness on his part to trust to the recollection of a man of my age giving an off-the-cuff remembrance. But I thought that it would be useful to check the Donoughmore Report on the Henry VIII clauses. In fact, the committee found that there were nine and that eight of those were purely transitory. They had quite a severe time limit, about 12 months. The only remaining one was a Henry VIII power given to county councils and that could be exercised only on the first election of a parish council or on the creation of a new parish council. In other words, they were completely transitory and transitional provisions, whereas this is quite open-ended. There is no limit in time any more than in power to what the Secretary of State can do by way of rewriting a statute passed by Parliament.
I do not need to emphasise the importance of the schedule. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has just referred to its provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, regarded the provisions of such importance that he desired to transfer two of
1362
them to Part I of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made a similar attempt in Committee in relation to another provision. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack quite rightly said that that need not be done, that this Bill has a structure and that there is a relationship between the main provisions and the schedules. He said that the schedules are just as important, just as much an expression of parliamentary opinion, just as binding on the citizen as any other part of the statute.
The Donoughmore Committee, having found that the provisions that it had to review were transitional and transitory, nevertheless said in its conclusions on page 61 of the report:
"we are clear in our opinion first that the adoption or such a clause"—
a Henry VIII clause like this—
"ought on each occasion when it is, on the initiative of the Minister in charge of the Bill, proposed to Parliament to be justified by him up to the hilt".
I am bound to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who has conducted this Bill so superbly, did not even mention this provision on Second Reading. He justified it only when the matter was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
The report continues:
"secondly its use should be avoided unless demonstrably essential".
I say with confidence that neither of those conditions has been made good in the case of this Bill. If we pass this measure it will be used as a precedent in other measures.
I have one other point to add: the regulations referred to are governed now, I think, in Clause 75, and the procedure is by way of negative resolution. By practice that does not come before your Lordships' House. It is left to the other place for a Private Member to pray against a negative resolution and very rarely is it brought to debate, owing to lack of parliamentary time and a 40-day time limit. If it were by affirmative resolution, that would at least have the advantage that the Minister has to explain to Parliament what he is doing, but it cannot be amended; at most, it can be criticised.
Where then are the vaunted revising powers of your Lordships' Chamber? They are done away with by this clause. If we countenance this clause, we are not entitled to call ourselves a revising Chamber. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is a trifle daunting to follow two noble and learned Lords and to be succeeded by another, the Lord. Chancellor. Nonetheless I shall try to hold my head high in such exalted company.
There is no need for me to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his historical excursus or in his account of the Donoughmore Report because he has done it so well and comprehensively. I should like to make one or two observations about this schedule, which hangs on the clause, partly stemming from my experience as a member of the Renton Committee on the

1363
preparation of legislation. I had the honour to sit on that committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
In that committee we certainly recommended that detail should be relegated to schedules. We did not want to clutter up the clauses of the Bill with detail. It has been customary for many years and we wished to give a spin, so to speak, to that ball, so that it should be continued and if necessary used more freely.
However, none of us ever thought that the main principles of a Bill should be relegated to schedules, yet that is what this schedule does. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, cited some of those main principles which I cannot believe any government would want to repeal, let alone to modify. Amendment No. 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, states:
"Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area".
No one would wish to repeal or modify either that or the other amendment that the noble Lord wished to raise in relation to Part I. That amendment states that local authorities have a duty to:
"take reasonable steps to prevent children within their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse".
How on earth could the Government wish to take powers to repeal or modify that?
Let me take yet another example; there are so many. I believe that the whole of paragraph 5 regarding provision for disabled children could not conceivably be repealed. 1 agree that the paragraph might be added to. I should have thought that repeal was out of the question. Therefore no provision should be made in Clause 15(4) to repeal that provision.
Paragraph 6 of the schedule is vitally important. Let me cite the huge advance in thinking which paragraph 6(b) represents. Every local authority shall take steps designed,
"to encourage children within their area not to commit criminal offences".
That is a most important step forward. It is of such importance that it should be embodied in the clause and not in the schedule. It should not be subject to Clause 15(4), which would allow it either to be amended or repealed by statutory instrument subject only to negative procedures. The same argument applies to paragraph 8 and so on.
I should therefore make a distinction of the proper function of a schedule, which is to contain detail, hanging on the main principles of the clause, and I should remove from this schedule the great statements of principle and embody them in Clause 15. That would be one solution. There is a certain amount of detail which could be left in the schedule. No doubt it would be quite proper to apply Clause 15 to matters of detail in the schedule such as the definition of "family centre". One might wish to change that definition from time to time.
There are other points of detail. I can see a use for Part I of Schedule 2. But the main provisions should not be subject to this draconian provision in Clause
1364
15(4). To my mind the most suitable solution to this problem is to lift the main provisions out of the schedule and put them into Clause 15. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, used the expression lock, stock and barrel. I agree with almost everything he said, but not quite that. My solution is to divide the schedule into two parts; the first to be restored or put back into the main part of the Bill into a clause, and the second part to remain as a schedule subject to modification or even repeal if the Government so wished.
I should also like to take issue over a very minor matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, addressed. If I heard him aright, he said that negative instruments were subject only to proceeedings in the House of Commons. That was perhaps not quite right. It is equally open to the House of Lords in the case of non-financial delegated legislation to pray against orders in this House, although a convention prevails by which we do not press those Prayers to a Division. Therefore that procedure is available in this House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive my having pointed that out as a matter of detail.
This is an extreme example of something that is taking place generally in the statute book. Only the other day in Committee on the Companies Bill powerful arguments were addressed in the Chamber against such a clause in that Bill. It was not nearly so important a matter as this case. Nor was the provision for repeal and modification nearly so widespread. The power was not so great as it is in this case. However, there were powerful arguments for modifying it in the Companies Bill. But this is the most far-reaching provision of this kind that I can remember. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider perhaps recasting the Bill on the lines that I have suggested.
Lord Jay: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can help those of us who are not lawyers in this House by citing any specific precedent for a sweeping provision of this kind—other than the special cases quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—being included in legislation in recent years.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as I said when moving Amendment No. 3, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lords who have moved this amendment. However, I think that they have gone unnecessarily far. I can think of many places where there might be a need as time goes on to add to Part I of Schedule 2 to improve matters. It might be found necessary in paragraph 2 to restrict access to the register in particular ways. In paragraph 3 there might be a need to add to the references that are given therein. It might be necessary at times to add to the provisions in paragraph 5. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was indicating that, but he has put his name to an amendment which sweeps away the whole of subsection (4). I should have understood it more if it had swept away only the first half of subsection (4) and allowed the addition of various provisions. I should have thought that that was sensible.

1365
However, having studied this very carefully, I selected paragraph 1(1) and paragraph 4 in which to put the crucial matters into the introductory part of the Bill. I do not wish to go over that ground again. There is not much harm in making the remainder of Part I of Schedule 2 subject to Clause 15(4) as it stands now. As my noble and learned friend has said on an earlier occasion, no sensible government will sweep away sensible provisions, but it is quite useful that this part of the schedule should be flexible in order to make additions. The amendment that we have before us goes too far, and unnecessarily so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of different matters to be taken into account here. First, perhaps I may start with the point that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has just made. I can well see that some discrimination might be required in relation to the schedule in respect of which Clause 15(4) operates. Noble Lords will see that we have already done that. Clause 15(4) is dealing with the provisions of Part I of Schedule 2. There is nothing particularly sacrosanct about that. I am certainly willing to consider whether any particular provision of Part I should be regarded as sacrosanct. However, it is worth seeing how this position has developed.
The general provision in Clause 15 imposing a general duty of a very wide and embracing kind on the local authority is mainly derived from Section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980. The detailed provisions that we now have in Part I of Schedule 2 are intended to elucidate these general duties and to give detailed powers and duties by which they could be successfully implemented.
As my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, we anticipate that, being based on current practice, these will be subject to improvement. This is an area of quite rapid change and I believe rapid improvement. It is surely right that the detailed regulation of the performance by local authorities of this very important duty should be able to take advantage of these improvements.
The purpose of this clause, part of which the amendment seeks to delete, is to enable that to be done. It was pointed out at Committee stage (I believe it is true) that there are advantages in having details of this kind in the schedule in that they thereby acquire an authority which it is important for those who operate these provisions to have regard for and bear in mind. Therefore it is better to have them in the schedule rather than merely doing it by regulation.
My second point is that, as has been said, regulations made under this power are subject to being prayed against in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships have experience of such matters. Indeed, regulations made by various Ministers have been the subject of such discussion here since I have been in the House over the past 10 years. In some situations it is appropriate that a power of this kind should be subject to affirmative resolution. In other words, the statutory instrument operating the power would not have effect unless it had affirmative resolution of both Houses. There is a later amendment, I believe, in the name of the noble and learned Lord to alter the method in some cases. I may be wrong, but I do not think it applies in relation to
1366
Clause 15(4). But I am willing to consider whether the clause should be subject to affirmative resolution.
Concerning the more general argument that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale developed, I can see that matters of this kind must be considered carefully. I believe I am right in saying that I referred to this power, although I think not at Second Reading, when I was describing the proposals in the schedule in answer to the first amendment, which was designed to put them into the main part of the Bill.
I believe that powers of this kind, subject to control by both Houses of Parliament in the way I have described, have a constitutional place in our legislation. It is for Parliament to consider on any occasion whether these powers should be granted and, if so, subject to what procedure, and also to consider, as a revising Chamber, the extent of the power. In my view there is no derogation of this House's responsibility as a revising Chamber in passing a subsection of this kind, provided that it can—
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? How does he manage to run the role of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber with a complete inability to amend any statutory instrument, whether it is brought in by negative of affirmative resolution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I am saying at the moment is that this House as a revising Chamber—indeed it is to this House that the Bill was brought; it has not yet been to the other place—is exercising its legislative power in dealing with a Bill that has come before it first. I am saying that what has been referred to as the revising power of the House is to be exercised in relation to the grant of the power. I see no derogation in this House granting the power, subject to such conditions and limitations as it thinks proper. It seems to me that that is a perfectly proper exercise of the revising power of this Chamber. The mere fact that, having considered a matter, it is left to be dealt with by statutory instrument does not in any way derogate from the revising power of the House. I accept that the scope for revision is not so great in a statutory instrument as it is for an ordinary Bill. I accept that, but the power to carry out this operation by statutory instrument is what Parliament is presently considering. I cannot see that merely tallow a power to be exercised by statutory instrument is a derogation from the revising duty and responsibility of the House.
The explanation for the requirement in this case I have already given. I have explained why we think it is right to have a clause of this kind here. It is difficult to give precise precedents because the reasons we have in mind are not precisely mirrored in any previous case, but I have a list of some statutes in which fairly wide powers of amendment are contained. These are illustrations. The first is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Under Section 15 of that Act the Secretary of State may modify in relation to any specified class of case any of the provisions of Sections 2 to 9 of the Act, these being

1367
the general duties of employers and employees. The second example is the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which by Section 80 confers wide powers to amend provisions of the Act by subordinate legislation; and the third is the Race Relations Act 1976 by Section 73. The dates of some of these have a certain significance in the argument that we are developing.
I give these examples particularly in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked me. The matter must be considered in each case as one of principle and whether your Lordships feel that the clause is utterly wrong in principle in having regard to the circumstances of how the power is operated. If that cannot be sustained—in my submission it certainlycannot—the question then is whether the power is properly defined with sufficient precision and then whether the method for safeguarding the exercise of the power is appropriate, namely whether it ought to be an affirmative or negative resolution.
I am prepared to consider these matters, but as a matter of principle I submit that this is an appropriate power which should be granted and therefore I ask your Lordships not to support the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, with leave of the House can my noble and learned friend help me about one word which he and my noble friend Lord Mottistone used in this connection and which is not as far as I can make out in subsection (4). He used the word "improvement". That is not contained in the three lines that the House is considering. They read:
"by order, modify or repeal".
Perhaps my English is incorrect or perhaps I am insufficiently educated, but I believe that the word "improvement" is very different from the phrase "modify or repeal". If my noble and learned friend could help me it would be of enormous benefit.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with leave, the explanation is that I gave that as the basis on which a power of this kind is sought, that there would be room for improvement in the method by which that improvement would be carried out. In the language of the schedule it would be to "modify or repeal" parts and also to,
"add any further duty or power to those for the time being mentioned there".
The Secretary of State, by the subsection, is given power to modify or repeal any provision and to add any further duty or power to those for the time being mentioned there. The whole purpose of Part I of Schedule 2 is specified in Clause 15(2). Its principal purpose is to facilitate the discharge of their general duty under this section. Every local authority shall have the specific duties and powers set out in Part I of Schedule 2.
I used the word "improve" to indicate that as time passes the practices may change in such a way as to require changes to the schedule. I hope that any changes which will be made—and this will be the purpose of them—will effect improvements which changes in practice bring about. That is the reason why the proposal is made, and the terms of the proposal follow from that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, Clause 15(4) provides:
"The Secretary of State may by order modify or repeat any provision of Part I of Schedule 2".
Part I contains the heart (I shall not say "soul", although the Bill has soul because it is concerned with children) and the guts of the Bill. The subsection provides that the Secretary of State can, by order, repeal any part he wishes. There is no limitation to it and no qualification: he can repeal any of it. That is an intolerable burden to place upon this House in seeking support for it.
In my submission the precedents which the noble and learned Lord has given contain the words "modify" and "amend". I did not hear a single mention of the word "repeal" in what was recited.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is the heart and importance of the matter. No doubt it is the presence of that word which led my noble and learned friend to call what is proposed "a constitutional outrage". I see no benefit in adding to the adjectival attack, but that is the heart of the objection. When the order is issued to repeal whichever part the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may seek to repeal that order is not capable of amendment by either House. For those reasons I hope that the House will agree to take this provision out.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down I should like to make clear the fact that I am prepared to consider with my colleagues the removal of the word "repeal". I can see the effect of that in particular, and the noble and learned Lord has now focused on it especially. 1 shall be happy to consider removing that word if it is objectionable. However, I wish to preserve an ability to take account of improvements as they occur without the necessity for further primary legislation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord willing to undertake to eliminate the word "repeal" between now and the Third Reading of the Bill? If so, that will certainly affect my view as to whether we should now call for a Division on this important matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, I believe that in the circumstances I ought to undertake to do that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of thatundertaking—and when the noble and learned Lord gives an undertaking he abides by it—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page I I, line 28, at end insert—
("(5A) It shall be the duty of every local authority to take steps to ensure that the group of persons registered to provide day care or foster care for children in their area shall reflect the racial groups comprising the population of their area, and the term "racial group" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Race Relations Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 83, 88, 113, 115, 117 and 122. They relate to the strengthening of Clause 18(5)(c), which is an important provision in the Bill.
Clause 18(5)(c) makes specific reference to the need for racial origin to be taken into account by local authorities in respect of children in their care. It is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Government on taking it. The amendments which I am proposing are designed to strengthen the application of the provision and to ensure that it is effectively implemented.
There is a strong body of opinion among those in the childcare professions that the placement of a child with foster carers of the same racial origin—known as "same race placements"—is conducive to the development of the child's confidence and sense of identity. It is only by taking adequate steps to ensure that the pool of foster carers reflects the ethnic composition of their area that local authorities can properly carry out their duties specified in Clause 18(5)(c). All the amendments are designed to strengthen the operation of that provision and to enable it to be implemented satisfactorily. I believe that without them the clause cannot be properly implemented. It is for that reason that I propose them and explain briefly what they achieve.
Amendment No. 19 is moderately worded. It asks only that local authorities shall:
"take steps to ensure that the group of persons registered to provide day care or foster care for children in their area shall reflect the racial groups comprising the population of their area".
The phrase "take steps" is gentle, but it may not always be possible for that to be done. However, at least it places the duty on local authorities to take those steps. The phrase "racial group" is carefully defined because the meaning is assigned to it in the Race Relations Act 1976.
The word "reflect" may not be as precise as it ought to be but it is difficult to be precise in this as in many other areas. I should be happy if a word other than "reflect" was substituted, but at the moment it is the best word I can think of. Perhaps one could use words such as those used in the House of Commons when those responsible for selecting Members of Standing Committees have the duty to "have regard to" the composition of the House. Much the same consideration lies behind the amendment, and I ask for it to be considered sympathetically by the Government.
The consequential amendments relate to different parts of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 83 and 88 relate to the courts' and the local authorities' duties in making and carrying out care and supervision orders. Amendments Nos. 113 and 115 again concern the local authorities' duties in finding suitable accommodation in community homes and the person or organisation carrying out the duties in respect of accommodation in community homes. Amendments Nos. 117 and 122 are much the same but are concerned with accommodation in registered children's homes and accommodation for privately fostered children.
I think I have said enough to show that these amendments, numerous and widespread as they are throughout the Bill, are really designed to make it easier for the authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill which has been so wisely introduced by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I should like to congratulate the Government on Clause 18(5)(c) which reads:
"In making any such decision"—
that is, what to do with the child—
"a local authority shall give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background".
That is excellent and I am delighted to see it.
We want to give a little more point so that when local authorities are considering foster carers they try to have among the group ready to take children some from the ethnic minorities, thus making it easier to match the child to the foster parent. This is not of course necessarily appropriate; I am certainly not one who believes that black children should go to black foster parents. You can have very good white foster parents for black children. However, in some areas, where there are a great number of coloured people, it is a very good idea to have as big a mix as possible among the foster parents.
Some local authorities are adopting measures of this kind; but others are taking no action at all and need that little push that would be provided if this amendment became part of the Bill. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will feel that this very moderate amendment could be accepted.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the very moderate terms in which this amendment has been moved, and the very moderate terms in which it is phrased, make one hesitate before sounding a word of caution. But anyone who has read anything about the topic of trans-racial fostering and trans-racial adoption will have realised that it is an extremely sensitive and controversial area. Perhaps we ought to think carefully before providing for any regulation in primary legislation.
It is important to get the best possible foster parents for the individual child and to get those foster parents as soon as possible. In a multiracial society it may be thought that white children should not be deprived of the opportunity of being looked after by black foster parents if such parents are ready, willing and able to look after those children. Likewise, black children should not be deprived of loving white foster parents because the love and care which foster parents can provide transcends any question of race.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said, the conventional wisdom now is that it is generally desirable to place children with foster parents of their own ethnic group. That is not always easy. Social workers do not always get it right even when they try to do so. I remember the uproar in one case when a black Sudanese Muslim child was placed with a thoroughly admirable Pentecostal West Indian lady and the natural parents of the child protested. Some racial mixes are almost impossible to

1371
achieve in terms of foster parents. I recall also the case of a father who was half white English and half black Jamaican, with a mother who was half Italian and half Filipino. The resulting child was almost impossible to place with a suitable foster parent in ethnic terms. Amid such striving to place the child, there can be considerable delay and the child drifts in care.
One has to be very careful to avoid a dogmatic position in these cases. Having said that, if current thinking is that children should be placed with foster parents of the same ethnic group, and if the intention is to ensure the provision of a suitable pool of such foster parents, then this amendment will avoid the delay of which I speak. To that extent I wish to support the amendment.
I am not sure about the consequential amendments. They might be thought to be giving some support to a dogmatic insistence upon placing a child with a particular category of foster parents. Of course the Bill is right to have provided what it does in Clause 18(5)(c), but one should perhaps ponder whether, having provided as the Bill does in Clause 18(5)(c) for a local authority to give consideration to racial origin among other things, the matters to which the rest of these amendments are directed could not be left to the administrative good sense of the social workers concerned.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know the last thing in the world that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would want is that there should be any misunderstanding as to the wording of this amendment and its intention. There is not one word in this amendment—I know he will appreciate this, but other Members of the House having listened to his speech, may be under some misunderstanding—that says that black children shall only go with black foster parents or that white children shall only go with white foster parents. All that this amendment says is that in the grouping of persons who are registered for this purpose there shall be care taken to reflect the racial groups comprising the population of that area. In other words there will be, one hopes, black foster parents available and white foster parents available.
As the noble Lord so rightly said, it would be left to the administrative good sense and the social welfare experience of those involved to see who is placed with whom; the only consideration will be the best interests of the child.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I accept that, as I hope I indicated. This is a very moderate amendment. It does not lend support to any form of dogma about these matters and one should recognise that. Nevertheless we should be careful about being seen to lend too much weight to those who are more dogmatic than the mover and supporters of this amendment.
If this amendment is enacted and if it works it will be marvellous, because it will avoid delay. If there is an insistence upon, or a general belief in, the desirability of placing a child with a particular type of foster parent and that foster parent is not available, the result will be delay. That is bad for the child. I
1372
accept that the amendment seeks to redress the problem.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We want the best available services for all children, be they indigenous or be they of the ethnic minority. That is what we ought to follow. I would go further and say that of course one wants to encourage the ethnic groups to feel that they are part of the community. However, I think we ought to go a little futher back than this: if we do not develop training—here the phrase "day care" is mentioned—for the ethnic groups and if they re not encouraged to come forward for training, we shall not get the best service for children of the racial community.
I give one example. I know one local authority which ran very good nursery schools and day care for children under five but unfortunately the staff were all of the indigenous population and the local authority asked them all to leave. In their place they put in people of the ethnic minorities, none of whom was trained. I think we ought to be careful, and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on a word of caution. I believe that the amendment is right, but we have to try to train those who have not had training in order that they may do the job as well as everybody else in the indigenous population.
7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should like to support the point made by the noble Baroness. I am connected with the National Foster Care Association and I have been a foster parent. I have seen in practice a lot of the problems that come up in multiracial placing. Training comes out time and time again. Various situations could have been resolved had the people been trained in advance. I am sorry to take up the time of the House on this point, but I think it must be evaluated and emphasised.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I very much understand and sympathise with the thought behind these various amendments: to secure that due weight is given to the needs of children from ethnic minority groups and to enable them to develop with a proper awareness of their racial and cultural backgrounds. However, I cannot accept the amendments proposed just as they stand, and it may be helpful if I spend a little time seeking to explain my reasons. I shall therefore find it necessary not only to refer to the main one but to the later ones as well.
First of all, Amendment No. 19 would impose a duty on every local authority,
"to take steps to ensure that groups of persons registered to provide day care or foster care for children in their area shall reflect the racial groups comprising the population in their area".
The difficulty is that local authorities are not required by the Bill to register foster parents, although they would evidently need to keep a list of those approved by them, and regulations will deal with that.
It is not clear whether the reference is to local authority foster parents or to private foster parents, to local authority provided day care or to private registered day care, because all these could have importance in this regard. Neither is it clear—and the

1373
noble Lord in moving the amendment mentioned this—exactly what is meant by,
"shall reflect racial groups, comprising the population".
If that were to be a duty imposed by law we would need to have a more precise wording. So far as private facilities are concerned, it would be a new duty on local authorities to concern themselves with the make-up of what is available, and it is not clear how they would discharge this duty.
My second objection to this amendment is that it is not necessary. This is because the Bill already requires local authorities to have regard to the racial characteristics of the children in their area in planning their level of services. Clause 15(1) imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs.
This means that where the area includes a particular racial grouping the local authority will have to have regard to the racial or cultural characteristics of that grouping in order to discharge their duty. This would mean that in recruiting their own foster parents, for example, a local authority might need to advertise for applicants from the ethnic minorities so that the needs of children from certain racial groupings are met. This is not new and already takes place under present legislation. Local authorities have less control over private arrangements made by parents directly with foster parents or child minders. I think it would be inappropriate for the local authority to intervene in this situation, but as far as public services are concerned Clause 15(1) will place an obligation on local authorities to take reasonable steps to correct any racial imbalance in terms of what is available to meet the needs of children in care, because that is already implied in what is proposed in the clause itself.
I should like to move on now from Clause 15, which is about the local authority's duty to provide a service for the area as a whole, to Clause 18, which has already been referred to and which is concerned with the authority's duty towards the individual children it is looking after. Amendment No. 40 would insert an additional word into Clause 18(5). Instead of the present duty of local authorities to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background, they would be required to consider the child's language. I do not think this is necessary. The present wording is broad enough to cover the child's linguistic needs deriving from his racial origin and cultural background. I do not see that to specify "language" would add to the present duty. I hope that your Lordships will agree with this on consideration.
Amendment No. 83 would modify the second limb of the grounds for a care order in Clause 26. Thus the harm, or likelihood of harm, which must be established should be attributable to "the standard of care" given to the child if the order were not made being below that which it would be reasonable to expect the parents of a similar child to give,
"taking into account racial origin and culture".
1374
I would not wish to modify the grounds for a care order in that way.
The existing reference to the "standard of care" expected for "a similar child" is deliberately all-embracing. It would certainly include a child's needs relating to his racial origin and cultural background. If the racial and cultural needs of the child were identified as suggested, it would suggest that other aspects of a child's welfare should be listed, such as any disability or special educational needs. Such a list could never hope to be exhaustive and may cause other aspects of a child's needs to be given too little weight. Moreover, it would beg the question of the importance of racial or disability matters in other parts of the Bill where welfare is an issue. The policy of Clause 26(2) is to refer to all aspects of the child's character and his needs. We would not want to detract from the all-embracing character of that reference and 1 hope that your Lordships will on consideration find this a reasonable approach.
Amendment No. 88 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 28, which deals with the effect of a care order. This would require the local authority to cause full account to be taken in the child's upbringing of his racial origin, culture and language as if the order had not been made. I think it would be highly unusual to place a statutory requirement on the local authority to act on a hypothesis, which is what this amendment would do. In any case, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because what appears to be the intention behind it is fully covered in Clause 18, which deals with the duties of local authorities in relation to all children they are looking after.
As your Lordships know, children who are the subject of a care order are "looked after" in the terms of the Bill. Clause 18(5)(c) in particular requires local authorities, in making any decision with respect to the child, to give,
"due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background".
I explained earlier that I did not think it was necessary to include a reference to "language" as the term "cultural background" embraced that concept. Therefore I believe this matter is covered very well in Clause 18(5) and I do not think it is necessary to go beyond that in the way proposed.
Amendment No. 113 would add an additional requirement to Clause 43, which deals with the provision of community homes by local authorities. When making arrangements, local authorities are required to have regard to the availability of accommodation which is,
"suitable for different descriptions of children".
This amendment would add,
"having regard, among other factors, to their racial origin, culture and language".
Here the relevant point is that the duty of local authorities in Clause 18 will apply to children being looked after by the local authority, including those in community homes. Apart from that, this particular clause is concerned with the provision of buildings rather than with the placement of individual children, so that factors such as racial origin, culture and language are not obviously relevant in this context.

1375
Amendment No. 115 proposes changes to the duties of voluntary organisations providing accommodation for a child. Clause 50(1) presently places a duty on the organisation to safeguard and promote the child's welfare. The amendment would add,
"having regard, among other factors, to their racial origin, culture and language".
The words already used,
"to safeguard and promote his welfare"
encompass all the considerations that the voluntary organisation would need to give to the child in relation to his racial or cultural background or characteristics. In any case Clause 50(3)(c) goes on to specify that in making any decision about the child, the organisation should give due consideration to,
"the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background".
This duty is analogous to the local authority duty in Clause 18 which applies to children they are looking after and which is framed in identical terms.
The same arguments apply in relation to the equivalent proposal in Amendment No. 117 to change Clause 54. This would amend the duty of the person carrying on a registered children's home to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. For the same reasons I believe that the word "welfare" in that context includes the proposed considerations.
Amendment No. 122, the final one in the group, makes a similar proposal in relation to the duty of local authorities in relation to children who are privately fostered. Clause 57 places a duty on local authorities to satisfy themselves that the welfare of children is being "satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted" and the amendment would add,
"having regard, among other factors, to their racial origin, culture and language".
To discharge a duty to "promote welfare" does, I believe, satisfactorily include the need to consider racial and cultural characteristics of the child.
However, another particular objection to including the suggested phrase in this clause and highlighting particular features is that it refers to private arrangements for children to be fostered. Although we think the local authority has a role in checking that the arrangements are satisfactory for the child concerned, there are limits to the extent to which we can expect or would want a public authority to intervene further in private arrangements often made by parents for the care of their child.
I hope I have made clear that while I accept what is sought to be aimed at, the actual form in which the amendments have been proposed may not be entirely satisfactory. I believe that the Bill already deals with the matter in a satisfactory way and that the proposed amendments are either unnecessary, for the reasons I have explained, or in some parts inappropriate. I trust therefore, the noble Lord feels that I have sought to answer in some detail and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this thoughtful debate. I am glad to have raised this issue and to have
1376
elicited the response that we have heard. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for taking such care in giving his reasons for rejecting all the amendments on the ground, mostly, that they are unnecessary and that the Bill as drafted does what the amendments seek to do but without their assistance.
The debate has been valuable. I have no doubt that the Commission for Racial Equality will read it with care and, I hope, with profit. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment so that the commission and others interested in this most important area can have second thoughts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl can give some information as to when consideration will be resumed.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, at 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st December 1988 be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations, which have already been considered in another place, are laid under powers in Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They amend and consolidate the 1983 planning fees regulations. Those 1983 regulations were amended, with the approval of this House and another place, both in 1985 and in 1987. It is now time to consolidate the 1985 and 1987 amendments of the 1983 regulations, and these 1989 regulations are intended to do that.
The main change introduced in these 1989 regulations is to provide for a general increase in the level of fees for planning applications. We have also taken the opportunity to make some very minor changes to the fees scheme itself in the light of our further experience of its operation and to make some clarifications of the text of the regulations.
Since 1981, when they were first introduced, fees for planning applications have been intended to represent a contribution by the applicant to the costs which the local planning authority will incur in handling his application and reaching a decision. Applicants are charged according to the nature of the development proposed and its size where that is relevant.
In the course of the debates on the 1985 and 1987 amending regulations, the Government's stated

1377
objective was that fees for planning applications should move to a level where they recover about 50 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs but that rather than make a substantial once for all increase we intended to proceed towards that objective by stages.
The 1987 amending regulations provided for increases of 14 per cent. from 25th February 1987 and then of 10 per cent. from 1st July 1987, some four months later. Allowing for these increases, we estimate that in each of the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 fees will have recovered around 44 per cent. of local authorities' costs of handling planning applications.
The regulations now before the House provide for an across-the-board increase in fees of 15 per cent. If approved by this House the new fees scale will come into operation early in March. The new fees' effect in the financial year 1988–89 will be limited, but they should increase the recovery rate for 1989–90 to over 47 per cent. If Parliament were to approve a further 15 per cent. increase for 1990–91, that should take the recovery rate up to 49 per cent., close to the 50 per cent. cost recovery objective.
Under the present proposals the basic units of fees will rise from £66 to £76 and from £33 to £38. An application to build dwelling houses, for example, will be charged at £76 per dwelling house in the case of a full application or an application for the approval of details. In the case of an outline application it will be charged £76 per 0.1 hectare of site area.
The Government believe that those who make use of the development control system by submitting applications for planning permission should continue to make a contribution towards its cost. That is a part of the Government's wider philosophy that those who use a service provided by the public sector should pay towards its cost.
We believe there can be no doubt that, even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in the regulations before the House, fees for planning applications will in general continue to be modest—in some instances, they will be virtually negligible—in relation to the overall cost of the development which is the subject of the application. I commend the 1989 regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st December 1988 be approved, [5th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. His speech in explanation of what the regulations intend was long and compared with what was said in another place almost a marathon. However, the Minister went to a great deal of trouble to explain what the regulations will do.
I have no intention or wish to speak against the order, but I wish to make some brief comments. I believe that all your Lordships know that from the time when planning is applied for and the first planning brief has been submitted to the actual
1378
commencement of the contract can be a very expensive period if there are any delays. Figures show that over the past few years there has been a tendency for the planning procedures to be a little less productive or less speedy than the people making the applications are entitled to expect. They are now being charged for these applications, and that is not arguable; I believe that to be correct. In this order they are being asked to pay more. One accepts that that is probably inevitable and that the charges will increase.
I have some further figures for the second quarter of 1988. It is interesting that the percentage of planning decisions taken within the statutory eight weeks' period was 56 per cent. in the second quarter of 1988 compared with 61 per cent. for the same period in 1987. It was 65 per cent. for the same period in 1986. I suggest that these statistics confirm the complaints of Members that the service received from planning authorities has slowed up. There is a difference between 56 per cent. and 65 per cent.; and it can be very expensive to the people making planning applications. The point I am trying to make is that whatever organisation one speaks about whether it is the developers or the builders in the private sector, the BEC in the local authority public works department or a member of the Federation of Master Builders, it costs them money to be kept waiting and twiddling their thumbs while planning applications are dealt with. In supporting the increased charges I hope that it will accord with an increase in activity and that the acceptance and passing of planning applications can be speeded up. There is no question but that they should be.
I have one brief point to put to the Minister, and it may be that he will be unable to answer it today. In those circumstances perhaps he can write to me about it. Are urban development corporations concerned at all with this order that is going through? I do not ask the noble Earl to answer that question now. It may be that they are completely outside the effects of this particular order, but if they are perhaps the noble Earl can send me a note explaining the position.
I have made the comments that I believe necessary. In the general terms of the increase we support the order but we should like to see the necessary speed-up in the acceptance of planning applications.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his broad acceptance of the order that lies before your Lordships' House tonight. I take the point that time can be expensive, particularly when one has very expensive building projects in mind. The noble Lord brought up the point that there is this so-called stop-start situation of putting up a freeze every couple of years, and asked whether these matters could be dealt with more quickly. We have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord's point. It is a question of being hamstrung by the legislation. The 1980 Act requires that the planning application fees must be effected by resolution of each House of Parliament. The Government believe that it should be possible to achieve alteration to the fees by a less protracted route than that of taking up the time of your Lordships' House and of another place every year or two.

1379
I can assure the noble Lord that the need for this procedure and also the comparative complexity of the fees scale are matters that we shall consider sympathetically as soon as there is a legislative opportunity. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, correctly, the other point was whether or not building corporations are concerned at this order going through.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was referring to urban development corporations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. To the best of my knowledge that is not the case. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that should I not be correct in this instance I will, as he suggests, write to him. As to the fees scheme itself we are always concerned to identify any further justifiable improvements that might be made to it. We certainly would prefer to avoid making it more complex. As I have said, we have in mind looking at ways of simplifying it. I hope that sensible ideas to improve the fees scheme will continue to come to us from all of those with an interest in the planning system.
Perhaps I may say a word of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, as regards urban development corporations. I understand that in England they are development control authorities and will levy the charges as any other local planning authority. No local authority, including UDCs, has made comments against charges.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd December 1988 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend may I say that the provisions we are to discuss tonight apply equally to Scotland, England and Wales, and that I speak also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dundee. The orders before your Lordships, the Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989 and the Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, have the effect of repealing Section 57(7) of the Adoption Act 1976 and Section 51(8) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Without the repeal of these sections there will be no provision for further approval of allowance schemes to adopters after 14th February. No allowances will then be payable except those agreed before that date. The provision we are considering his its origin in a recommendation in 1972 of the departmental committee on the adoption of children—the Houghton Committee. In its report the committee addressed the then revolutionary case for paying allowances to adopters in certain circumstances: circumstances in which adoption had been identified as the best future for a child and a suitable family had been found, but where there was a financial obstacle to the adoption.
The proposal was taken up in Section 32 of the 1975 Children Act—now consolidated as Section 57 of the 1976 Adoption Act and Section 51 of the 1978 Adoption (Scotland) Act. During the passage of the Bill a number of reservations and cautions were voiced about the wisdom of the measure—natural and thoughtful reservations—to which I shall turn in a moment. Accordingly, the Houghton Committee's recommendation of an experimental period was taken on board. Adoption agencies were given the opportunity to seek the approval of the Secretaries of State to schemes for payment of allowances for a period of seven years from implementation of the provision. The provision would come to an end automatically after seven years unless both Houses agreed to its continuation; and the Secretaries of State were required to publish before that date a report on the operation of the schemes.
The provision duly came into force in England, Wales and Scotland in February 1982. Adoption agencies began to put together and submit for approval schemes drawn up according to guidelines issued by the department. Now, after seven years, there is universal coverage in Scotland and in Wales, where all local authorities have a scheme. In England 98 authorities and two voluntary societies have approved schemes, with a further six local authority schemes going through the approval process.
Research projects were put in hand to investigate and report on the operation of these schemes: in Scotland by the social administration department of Edinburgh University and in England and Wales by the National Children's Bureau. We were, of course, particularly looking to the reports first, to find out whether allowances had succeeded in their objective of enabling agencies to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise be adopted, however much they might need an adoptive family; and secondly to shed light on the concerns which were in the minds of some in your Lordships' House and in another place when the experiment was originally agreed. There is no doubt about the answer to the first question.
We now know from the research reports that in Scotland, up to the end of 1986, more than 500 children were placed with allowances. In England and Wales, there were nearly 1,000 such placements by the end of 1986, and the National Children's Bureau estimates that this figure has probably now passed the 2,000 mark. In all the countries, the majority of adopters were foster parents. In Scotland nearly one-quarter and in England and Wales nearly one-half of the children had special needs in the sense of physical, mental or emotional handicaps or behavioural difficulties—some children were severely handicapped with multiple handicaps; in Scotland nearly one-half and in England and Wales nearly one-third of children were placed with one or more brothers and sisters.
These findings can be read as heartening endorsement of allowance schemes. But do the reports offer us reassurance on those points which caused anxiety in 1975? There was a school of thought that the payment of special allowances to adopters would undermine the principle of adoption which puts adoptive parents in the same position as other parents: would it not be sufficient, indeed

1381
better, for people who could not afford to adopt to be foster parents instead? Could allowances be restricted to cases where they were genuinely needed? Might they create an invidious distinction so that all adopters would expect and demand allowances? Might adopters even seek to adopt for the wrong reasons if allowances were available?
The findings in England and Wales and in Scotland on these points are resoundingly unanimous. Far from clamouring for allowances, adopters were diffident about their need for the money and would have preferred to be able to do without it; many would have striven to adopt without an allowance. It was left to social workers to explain to the researchers the very real need for allowances in these families and in relation to these children whose care so often calls for higher than usual expense; and the hardship that would have been incurred by children and family if adoptions had been allowed to go forward without financial support. Nonetheless, the adopters made no secret of their thankfulness for the allowances and above all their thankfulness that they had been enabled to adopt.
On the point as to whether children would be equally well served by foster placements, I can do no better than quote from the Scottish report:
"The children themselves … felt that adoption made a big difference to their sense of belonging, security, permanence and outside recognition, even when they already felt very much part of the family".
The reports demonstrate that people adopting with allowances were people in modest circumstances, with many on low incomes. The allowances themselves were not extravagent. Nor has adoption with allowances become the norm. The majority of adopters are still able to adopt without an allowance. All schemes have criteria for allowances so that allowances are restricted to circumstances of special need.
All this does not mean that adoption is something which agencies must strive for in any circumstances and at any price; far from it. There will always be cases where fostering is the better option for the child where a child has links with his own family, for example, and wishes to remain part of that family. Since 1985 foster parents and others caring for children have had the option of custodianship, which offers the security of a custody order without severing a child's legal relationships with his own family. Authorities have powers to pay allowances to custodians, and there are equivalent provisions in the Children Bill. Above all, authorities have duties to help families to stay together so that substitute families are not needed. The Children Bill provides for improved services to help children and families.
We can now be satisfied that where children cannot be cared for by their own families adoption allowances have their place, and a place of proven value, in the range of options open to agencies seeking to provide the happiest, most secure and best future for such children. I ask for your Lordships' agreement to these orders which will allow agencies to continue to make use of this option.
I should like to add a further point in relation to the framework within which agencies pay allowances. I understand from my noble friend that in Scotland
1382
adoption allowance schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and have worked smoothly. It is not intended, therefore, that there should be any change in the arrangements for schemes set out in Section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act. In England and Wales the position is different. The diversity of schemes led to much discussion between the department and local authorities and at times there have been long intervals between application and approval. Many authorities are now finding, with the benefit of experience, that they wish to make changes in their schemes, and such changes require further approval by the Secretary of State. The number and variety of schemes have provided rich feedback during the experimental period. But we see a need now to look for a less cumbersome and potentially frustrating system requiring less intervention from the central departments.
Accordingly, we shall be introducing as an amendment to the Children Bill a regulation-making power; so that agencies will be able to determine and pay allowances within the framework of regulations instead of within the framework of an approved scheme. It is our intention that regulations should draw on the experience of schemes and, like schemes, give agencies sufficient flexibility to respond to a diversity of circumstances. Until a regulation-making power is available and regulations made, the effect of the order will ensure that schemes continue in operation. And those few authorities which are still considering whether to put in a scheme can do so.
I apologise that it has taken some minutes to explain the orders, but in the light of what has happened in the past we felt it would be useful information for your Lordships to have. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd December 1988 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Minister's explanation in respect of adoption allowances in England and Wales and in Scotland. The Minister apologised to t he House for explaining the orders in such detail. We on this side welcome the length of his explanation a nd the detail with which it was furnished, because this is an important measure.
Earlier today I read Adoption Allowances in England and Wales, The Early Years, a report to the Department of Health and to the Welsh Office. I have not read the Scottish report but I gather that its findings are similar. It is an excellent report and refers to the doubts expressed at the time of the introduction of the scheme and to the legitimate fear that adoption allowances might lead to some form of baby farming or exploitation of children. It makes clear that such exploitation does not appear to have happened, and this was confirmed by the Minister in his explanation. There have been safeguards and they have worked. The children who have been adopted are often those who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to be adopted. I refer to children with disabilities and children with special needs. They have been adopted and allowances have been provided for them.

1383
I am glad to welcome both orders. I note that the Minister has said that the framework for England and Wales may need to be changed because it is felt to be cumbersome. However, that does not arise under these orders. We wait to see what amendments are tabled to the Children Bill so that those may be discussed later by the House. In the meantime, I welcome both orders and commend them to the House.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise as president of the National Children's Bureau, which was commissioned by the then Department of Health and Social Security to carry out research into the working of the adoption allowances scheme in England and Wales. At the time when the adoption allowances were announced it was a revolution because never before had allowances been paid to adopters. As the noble Baroness has said, the children who have been greatly helped and who might otherwise not have been helped have been the disadvantaged children.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question. According to the research which was carried out, details of which I have with me, by the end of 1986 over 80 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales had submitted schemes. However, I think that he quoted a figure of about 90 per cent. I imagine that perhaps more people have submitted schemes which have not yet been accepted. I should like to know which local authorities have not registered for the scheme and what efforts have been made to help them to submit such schemes. 1 do not expect an answer at present, but perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to write to me on this matter.
Secondly, from the point of view of voluntary adoption agencies, many of which place handicapped children for adoption—and very successfully—can my noble friend say whether thay have such schemes? According to the papers which I have with me, very few voluntary agencies have schemes. Further, are such agencies being encouraged to do so?
I happen to know the research worker involved in this work. He is one of our very good research workers. Indeed, they are all good, but he is especially good. I must say that I think he has vindicated this very good scheme in his research. I certainly support the 1989 orders.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like first to say how grateful I am for the broad acceptance which has been given to the orders. Indeed, I can put it even stronger than that and say how grateful I am for the generous spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has accepted the report on the allowances and for her expressed wish that the scheme should be continued.
Perhaps I may try to help my noble friend Lady Faithfull as regards which local authorities have or have not adopted the schemes. I can clarify two matters. First, since the National Children's Bureau sent in the main part of its report in 1986, many more schemes have been approved and the number of allowances agreed has more than doubled. There is now a universal coverage in Wales and Scotland and
1384
98 English authorities have a scheme; six others will be approved within the next few months. As I understand it, the few remaining authorities are considering whether to put in a scheme. In its 1988 update report the bureau found that the use of adoption allowances was gaining in momentum.
As regards whether I am able to name the local authorities which have not adopted such a scheme, I am afraid that at present I am unable to do so. However, as my noble friend kindly agreed, I shall write to her as soon as I possibly can. Secondly, I can also tell my noble friend that children placed by voluntary adoption societies in circumstances in which an adoption allowance may be needed are usually in the care of a local authority. Some voluntary societies without adoption allowance schemes are nevertheless placing children on behalf of local authorities which agree to pay an allowance to the adopters.
Conversely, two voluntary societies in England and Wales have schemes and again allowances paid under those schemes are funded by the local authorities responsible for children placed on their behalf. I think that it is right that there should be this scope for co-operation in a variety of ways between statutory and voluntary agencies: this is in keeping with the spirit of the statutory adoption scheme.
I am most grateful for your Lordships' acceptance of the measures. I think that we can be in no doubt as to the value of establishing on a permanent basis the provision for adoption allowances.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Join Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.45 to 8.15 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 15.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert—
("(8A) No person shall be liable to make any repayment of assistance or of its value at any time when he is in receipt of income support or family credit under the Social Security Act I 986.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 63. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I undertook to consider whether provisions equivalent to paragraphs 19(2) and 19(4) of Schedule 2 should be applied in respect of the repayment of assistance given to children in need, or their families, under Clause 15(6).
Paragraph 19(2) provides in respect of contributions towards the maintenance of children looked after by local authorities that an authority may only recover contributions from a contributor if they consider it reasonable to do so. The Government are still considering whether that principle should be incorporated into Clause 15. Paragraph 19(4) of Schedule 2 is a provision which should rightly apply in respect of the repayment of assistance. That provides that a person shall not be liable to make such payments when in receipt of income support or family credit. That is a clear and unequivocal provision which would not require the wholesale reassessment of the means of those concerned. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in connection with his amendment in Committee.
Clause 15 will therefore provide that assistance may be subject to conditions of repayment, in whole or in part; the local authority must have regard to a person's means before imposing such a condition. In any event, the person will not he liable to make repayments while in receipt of the specified benefits.
The scheme makes it entirely clear that repayments will not be required which are beyond the parents' means. In considering that point, it became clear that there were certain other places in the Bill where the effects of paragraph 19(4) could also be appropriately employed. Clause 20(7) provides for assistance to be subject to the same provisions concerning repayments as in Clause 15(7) and (8). The second of the group of amendments accordingly extends the new exemption to those young persons.
Similarly, in Clause 24(1) local authorities are empowered to make such charges for services provided under Clauses 15 and 16 (except advice, guidance and counselling) as they consider reasonable. Subsection (2) prevents them from charging more than the person can reasonably be expected to pay whenever his means are insufficient for him to meet the full charge. There is much to be said for exempting persons from paying such charges while in receipt of income support or family credit for the reasons I have already given, and so we propose to amend Clause 24 accordingly.
The net effect of the group of amendments is to provide that wherever the local authority has a power to impose a charge or require repayments under the Bill, persons who are in receipt of income support or family credit should not have to pay. I hope that that will be considered an appropriate response to the concerns expressed on a previous occasion by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendments and what they seek to achieve
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we wish also to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for these amendments. They appear to us to be very helpful. However, we might wish to consult young people who have recently left care in order to make sure that the amendments fully cover the mischief which was identified in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) If one or both parents of a child have a disability, this fact alone shall not be sufficient reason to assume that the child is in need.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment in these terms was moved at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and then withdrawn. The noble Baroness, who is not able to be present today, has asked me to say that she supports my amendment and hopes, as a number of us do, that the Government will feel able to accept it.
The amendment deals with a sensitive topic, a situation where one or both parents a re disabled. It seeks to ensure that this fact alone should not be sufficient reason to assume that a child is in need. It is intended to make the situation entirely clear through the legislation, thereby ensuring that social workers and others understand the Government's intentions quite clearly and do not bring undue or discriminatory pressure to bear where one or both parents are disabled.
RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—is aware of a number of cases where disabled people are afraid to have children in case the children are removed from them. I think we all agree that people with disabilities having many other problems to deal with, should not have the burden I have described added to them.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested in Committee that the matter should be dealt with through guidance notes with the Bill. We feel that that runs the risk of being unsatisfactory. Will the guidance be available when the Bill becomes law? If so, the guidance may have a high profile when the Bill is new but could over time run the risk of being honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Will the guidance have any form of statutory authority?
At the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out entirely correctly that the Bill is child-centred: it is not parent-centred. It is fair to point out that Clause 15(1) makes clear that it is a general duty of the local authority to promote the upbringing of children in need in the family circle; as the Bill says, "by their families". There is a genuine concern about the matter among the disability organisations. If accepted, the amendment would go a long way towards allaying their fears.
To sum up, the amendment has two objectives: to provide protection for disabled parents against the inappropriate intervention of child care agencies; and to give assurance to people with disabilities that their right to be parents will be respected. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment. It would be a great reassurance to disabled parents to know that the Bill contained this provision. I am delighted to find the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, attached to the amendments. She has raised the important point that the children of disabled people may be a heavy burden in many ways on the social services. They need a great deal of support. I hope that the major reassurance provided by the amendment can be incorporated in the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the amendment would safeguard a number of disabled people who are well able to provide a good home. However, I regret to have to say that there is sometimes a climate of opinion in an area that disabled people cannot give a good home. The amendment would go a long way towards providing disabled people with the reassurance they need.
It is understandable that some disabled people should admit themselves that they cannot give the children a good home. Nevertheless it is most worrying that when disabled people are able to provide a good home they should be prevented from doing so. The amendment will go a long way to help both them and their children.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. RADAR thinks that although the number of disabled people directly affected by the amendment is likely to be fairly small, the issue is a major anxiety for some people with disabilities. I am sure that the matter would be dealt with in regulations but I suggest that it should be included in the Bill.
Many disabled parents have raised children quite successfully and there have been no difficulties. In other cases, it has been appropriate and necessary for statutory agencies to be involved. The amendment proposed would not alter this in any way. RADAR is aware of disabled people who are afraid to have children in case the children are then removed from them. Their fears are almost certainly without foundation, but it is difficult to allay them because it is known that disabled people have had their children removed from them, in some cases inappropriately.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in agreeing with the sentiment of the amendment at Committee stage, said that he would be prepared to deal with the matter in guidance. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, guidance tends to have a higher profile when the Bill is new but is consulted less in subsequent years. The objective of the amendment is to give assurance to disabled people that their rights to be parents will be respected. Many people have fears which may be without foundation but which would be allayed if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, there is only one additional point I wish to make in support of the amendment. Since the amendment or a similar one was discussed in Committee, we have heard from the
1388
Association of Directors of Social Services that it supports the amendment. If it is the association's judgment that the amendment would be helpful in practice, that is a very strong argument for inserting the requirement in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in Committee, in response to the amendment already referred to, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I pointed out that there was no question of a child being taken to be in need just because the parent or parents were disabled. I think that when one looks at the statutory provisions that is clear.
The circumstances of the parents and even parental disability will only be relevant if the circumstances of the child are as set out in the clause. I need not read it again. This means that for a child who is not disabled to be regarded as a child in need there has to be a clear basis for believing that the child will not achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development or that his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired without the provision of services. Parental disability will not in itself be sufficient. It would have to be clear that the parents were not able to meet the child's needs and that his health or development was likely to be prejudiced as a result. So it is dealt with negatively. These conditions are not met merely by the parent being subject to a disability. I believe that that is made clear in Clause 15 as at present drafted.
The proposition in the amendment is, as I said earlier, wholly unobjectionable in itself but declaratory statements of this kind tend to raise doubts about the effect of the main provision, in this case, Clause 15(9), and are, I believe, best avoided. Unless one can rely strongly on the main words, those words tend to be watered down in effect.
I have received a letter on the subject from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, referred to as RADAR. I have looked again at what was said in Committee about problems experienced by disabled people. There may be some confusion between the provisions of Part III, which deal with the provision of services to children in need and families on a voluntary basis, where the parents need not have any arrangement imposed upon I them, and the provisions for local authority care in Part IV.
Concern was expressed about cases where a disabled parent was worried that her child might be removed from her and placed in local authority care. But the protection against inappropriate removal into care is to be found not in Part III but in Part IV of the Bill. It does not add a declaratory statement to the provisions on voluntary arrangements in Part III. Part III is intended to stimulate voluntary arrangements as a way of dealing with the problem. It puts those arrangements first.
Part IV deals with the compulsory measures and safeguards those measures in words which, I believe, are strong and definite. It states that a child may not be placed in care without court proceedings, almost certainly an investigation by a guardian ad litem representing the child's interests and the court being satisfied on the rigorous grounds set out in Clause 26(2) and the welfare condition in Clause 1. I cannot

1389
imagine this careful procedure ever resulting in a child being placed in care just because his parent or parents are disabled. I hope that RADAR will be able to reassure people who approach it with such concerns accordingly.
I said in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, have reminded us, that I thought the immediate issue could be dealt with in guidance on the Bill which would, of course, be issued to local authorities and others before the legislation comes into force. I have indicated that before everything comes into force a good deal has to be done. 1 should be very surprised if social workers did not refer frequently to the guidance while they were becoming familiar with the new law. That will help establish the right foundation for future practice.
The proposal has been made by RADAR that it would like its point covered in regulations as an alternative to being provided for on the face of the Bill. But the difficulty about that is that the present regulation-making powers in the Bill are not concerned with identification of children in need. We have tried to do that on the face of the Bill. If your Lordships were inclined to believe that guidance might cover the point, we can do it in such a way that RADAR knows the precise terms of the guidance and where it is to be found. In this way RADAR would be able to reassure people who approached it. If a social worker showed any inclination to act contrary to what I am saying, RADAR could refer to the guidance.
I believe that the best bastion against improper interference in any family, not only in one where there is a disabled parent, is to have clear terms on which, and only on which, interference is justified. We have tried to do that very carefully and, I hope, successfully. I hope that in the light of that consideration the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I decide what to do with the amendment, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could help me. Clause 15(9)(c) makes clear that the disability of a child is a fact to be taken into account. That paragraph also refers to the family. The situation may not be uncommon where disabled parents with particular conditions have a disabled child. Does that make any difference to the way in which the legislation will be interpreted?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the point about Clause 15(9) is that it focuses on the circumstances of the child. It is the child who has to be disabled. It does not of course follow that the child will require any particular services, although he is disabled, but it puts the child into the category where his situation must be considered. That distinguishes him altogether from the parent. There is no question of a child being held to be in need simply because his parent, or indeed both parents, are disabled.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. The words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were extremely helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Day care for under fives and supervision for school children]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, leave out line 18 and insert—
("consistent with their duties under section 15(1) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we raised an amendment to remove the words "as they consider appropriate" from the relevant part of this clause. We did that because we thought there was a problem here. We considered we should not leave the decision entirely with a local authority. On 20th December 1988 my noble and learned friend said among other things that Part III required a local authority to provide services appropriate to the needs of the child. What we have sought to do here is to replace the words "as they consider appropriate" with a reference to Clause 15(1) which ends with the words,
"services appropriate to those children's needs".
We hope that that is more satisfactory. It does not overcommit a local authority, but it refers it exactly to the point that my noble and learned friend made in Committee. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I should add that the debates in Committee highlighted the fact that the words "as they consider appropriate" would mean that it would he impossible for a court to determine whether a local authority is adequately fulfilling its duty. Setting Clause 16(1) within the context of a local authority's general duties may make it easier for courts to get a grip on a local authority which is providing inadequate services for children.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I want very much to support the amendment; we think it an important one. It emerged in Committee that although the Bill often appears to place a duty on local authorities in relation to children in care or their families, on closer examination that duty is found to be framed in such a general way, or the local authorities have been given so much discretion, that they can in practice decide not to exercise it.
It is felt by almost all the organisations we have consulted that it is vital that the Bill should narrow the discretion of local authorities. We believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, achieves that end. The wide discretion makes it very difficult for children or their families to use even judicial review to argue that a local authority has failed to comply with a statutory duty or has failed to exercise its discretion accordingly.

1391
This amendment would narrow the discretion of local authorities where there is an identified need for the provision. We appreciate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not attracted to the merits of cross-references. But without a cross-reference we fail to see that the Bill places on local authorities a duty adequately to attempt to meet the need for facilities when that need has been identified.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to say something now, as I gather that it will not be well received if I speak after the noble and learned Lord has spoken. The range and level of services should be appropriate to children's needs rather than what a local authority considers appropriate. That is very important. I have before me a document which tells me the percentage of three and four year-olds in nursery schools, nursery classes and infant classes. I am well aware that this is not the same as day care. However, I am sure it gives one a good idea of how different local authorities produce very different services.
At the top of the list in my document, Salford is mentioned with 85·6 per cent. provision for three and four year olds. I am afraid that the bottom four councils on the list are all Conservative councils with 16·2 per cent., 15·7 per cent., 11·7 per cent. and 8·2 per cent. ratings. So one can obviously not rely on local authorities to produce a good service if they provide what they consider to be appropriate. We need something much stronger in the Bill to make sure we get a good service. I hope this amendment will be strongly supported.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, the purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the duty to provide day care by tying Clause 16 with Clause 15(1) and the authority's general duty to promote the welfare of children in need. I believe that it is unnecessary because as drafted the authority's duty or powers in Clause 16 cannot be exercised inconsistently with its duty under Clause 15·The words in Clause 16(1), "as they consider appropriate", have to be read in conjunction with the general duty to safeguard or protect the welfare of children in its area who are in need. Day care is a "facility", and Clause 15(1) requires the authority to provide services appropriate to the children's needs. Clause 15(1), by virtue of Clause 77(1), includes "facilities". Accordingly, Clause 16(1) is already emcompassed by the general duty under Clause 15(1).
The substitution of the phrase suggested in the amendment would not require local authorities to do anything different to promote the welfare of children in need who are aged under five. The loss of the phrase "as they consider appropriate" would remove the need for local authorities to decide whether to provide or pay others to provide day care for children in need. That would mean that the provision of services would not be subject to any sort of test. Surely that is not desirable.
I think the entire scope of Clause 15 has to be taken into account. We do not want to weaken that. It is a
1392
very general and all-embracing clause. It applies to the whole of the rest of this part of the Bill in a way that ensures that what the local authority does under Clause 16 is in fulfilment of its duty under Clause 15.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. Is he confident that a court would be driven to read Clause 16(1) in conjunction with Clause 15(1) without recourse to Hansard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first I should say that I should not seek in any circumstances to drive a court to look at Hansard. I think that they have enough to do without that. The court would seek to construe Part III of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, on the principle that Clause 15 imposes a general duty and Clause 16 gives the local authority the power to take actions which will have the effect of carrying out that general duty. I therefore feel confident that the court would not allow a local authority, by reason of any construction of Clause 16, to fail to carry out the general duty imposed under Clause 15. I believe that to be the true relationship between the clauses. I do not think that it is right to try to create links which in effect take away that primary consequence and thrust of Clause 15.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his careful explanation and to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I think the important point about the amendment is the uncertainty that exists about this whole area in relation to certain local authorities. As my subsequent amendents will show, we are seeking ways and means of making sure that local authorities concentrate on the duties which the Bill identifies, without unduly placing too great an imposition on the local authorities.
I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend is right about the overriding influence of Clause 15 on the rest of this part of the Bill. However, one is left with a nagging doubt. It does not relate to the courts; it is not for me to question the courts. There are far too many eminent lawyers in this Chamber at the moment for me to do that. People are not taken to court over this kind of issue in the ordinary course of events. However, 1 should like to see the obligations highlighted rather more than they are in the Bill.
With that proviso, the explanation that my noble and learned friend has given me is more than satisfactory. However, it may be that we shall have to return to this particular matter, if not at Third Reading in this House then in another place. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 19, leave out ("may provide") and insert ("shall ensure the provision of').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 23 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 24. That amendment is not shown in the group of amendments but my noble and learned friend has agreed that it might be included. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 26. It is possible that noble Lords opposite may wish to bring in Amendment No. 25, although it is slightly different in its approach.
The amendments were all developed from an amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, at Committee stage, reported in Hansard for 29th December 1988, at cols. 1323 to 1328. The main purpose of the amendments is what I have just been talking about—to find some mechanism for pressing local authorities more to take up their responsibilities in the areas covered by the amendments. We thought that rather than turning "may" into "must" as we did at Committee we should be more delicate, in a way which is typical of the noble House in which we sit, and talk about "shall ensure the provision of". That is not as definite but it is as definite as we dare be.
The important point about the amendment is that although it represents a second bite at the cherry 1 have a brief which is three and half pages long. I shall not for one moment attempt to read it out to your Lordships, even though it is after dinner. I should not dare to do so at the beginning of the day's work.
The brief I have comments on the recent report of the House of Commons Education, Science and Art Select Committee which identified the problems relating to educational provision for the under-fives. It highlighted the various aspects of the "stressful society"—illegitimate birth rate, high divorce rate, single-parent families: you name it—which make the under-lives much more of a charge on the rest of us in some way or another than they have been in earlier years. Sadly, that is not a situation which is getting any better. If anything, it is getting worse.
I could relate a great many details to emphasise that point. However, rather than doing so I shall point out merely that the general concept of the amendments is supported by 18 different organisations which are concerned in the main with children or the problems of ethnic groups. They all feel very strongly that we have to find some way of wording the Bill so that it places more of an obligation on local authorities in the area of looking after under-fives.
It may well be that there is another way of putting this. I gave my noble and learned friend a copy of the brief. I put a note on the bottom saying that I hope that we can find some way of making the point without unreasonably committing the local authorities. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, all these three amendments seek to ensure that local authorities are placed under a duty to ensure that there is day care
1394
available for all children, those under five and those over five, out of school hours and during school holidays.
I think these amendments are essential as a result of an article in the Spectator of 4th February 1989 which quotes the National out of School Alliance as citing evidence that more than 20 per cent. of British five to 10 year-olds are left at home alone during the school holidays and that 15 per cent. of the same age group are regularly left alone after school.
Another area of great concern is the vulnerability of pre-school-age children to abuse and neglect. Nearly 40 per cent. of all referrals to the NSPCC relate to children under five. I do hope that the Government will feel able to accept these amendments.
Lord Banks: My Lords, perhaps I may support very briefly this amendment and also Amendment No. 26, to which the noble Lord referred. That amendment deals with those over five years of age and the provision for them. The point I want to make is that activity out of school hours and in school holidays is important for the children, but its availability and continuation is essential if, in many cases, the parents—particularly, for example, lone parents—are to be able to continue to work.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments very strongly. There is not only women's need to have their children in day care but also the country's need to have women in the workforce. So it seems to me that there are two strong arguments for this provision, and I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have accepted this double reason.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may make four points. The first is that it seems to me that under these amendments each local authority should carry out a survey of the needs of their areas. Where there is high unemployment it is possible to have one scheme of things: where there is low unemployment, another scheme of things.
Secondly, there is a suggestion that the local authorities should not necessarily carry this out all by themselves, but should use voluntary organisations in many cases. Many voluntary organisations are only too willing to work in co-operation.
Thirdly, having worked out the scheme it should be monitored afterwards, both for its quality and its quantity. Perhaps I may say that, having talked to the police, it appears that some of the highest juvenile delinquency rates lie in areas where there is no holiday scheme for children and no scheme for children coming home from school with no homes to go to because the parents are out at work. Putting it at its lowest level, to have a good scheme of things in a local area is cost-effective to the country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the idea behind these amendments is the same for each of them although they are in somewhat different contexts. Perhaps I may look particularly at the first one, Amendment No. 23.
I appreciate the wish to increase local authority responsibility to develop the day care services for under fives. Clause 16 is in the Bill for that very reason; but this amendment goes further than giving local authorities power to develop such services. At present we have a wide range of day care services provided by voluntary groups, private individuals and organisations, as well as by local authorities. There is strength in this variety, and we want to keep it. The Government also want local authorities to decide their own priorities. That is the second point. The first point is to some extent dealt with by the form of the amendment. However, the second point is a different one.
The Government believe that local authorities should decide their own priorities, and matters of the sort that my noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned would be an important element in that. The present wording gives them discretion to decide the level of their own provision. It is right that for children in need they should be under a general duty to provide day care services. That is the result of Clause 15 taken with the power; but the particular clause into which this amendment goes makes it plain that local authorities are not restricted to providing day care for children within their area who are in need. It says that they "may provide" day care for children even though they are not in need, so it enlarges the power of the local authority to provide even when children are not in need.
However, we believe that it would not be right to go further and impose a duty on them to ensure the provision of day care services to all children whether or not they are in need. That would be to take over the responsibility of a local authority to allocate resources according to the needs of its particular area. It would require local authorities to channel substantial resources—not necessarily their own, for it could include voluntary organisations' resources—towards day care services at the expense of other local authority services.
While I can see that we want to encourage local authorities to develop services, we believe that we have done so appropriately by requiring them to provide the services for those in need and by giving them power to do so even if children are not in need and then to decide, in the light of all their priorities, how far they can go in giving that facility. The kind of considerations which have been mentioned would certainly come into that category.
I think that is as far as I can go. The same point applies in a slightly different context to all the other amendments to which reference has been made.
Baroness David: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him a question about the phrases "may provide" and "as they consider appropriate"? Could they provide nothing if they thought that that was appropriate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, they could provide nothing so long as there were no children in need, but if there were children in need they would have an obligation to provide. They have a power to provide for those not in need; so if there are no children in need they may provide nothing. I hope that I am making this clear.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was seeking to clarify the definition of "children in need".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the phrase "children in need" is defined in Clause 15(9). I am happy to read it out again, but we have already dealt with it. The phrase "in need" is a short expression to help shorten the Bill because the full definition is rather a long one. If there were no children in need the local authorities would not need to provide, but they have an obligation to provide for children in need and a power to provide for those who are not in need.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down may I ask him for further clarification? It may be my fault because I do not know the contents of the Bill sufficiently well, but does "in need" include the very many cases where the mother is out working? Is that a definition of "in need"? As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already said, an increasing number of women not only wish to go into industry but will be required to go into industry as a result of the falling school-leaver rate. It would be a great help particularly with regard to school holidays, where again and again there is great difficulty. If that is the meaning, can the phrase "in need" be extended to cases where both parents are in employment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no, I think that the definition of a child in need is of a more general kind. Clause 15(9) states:
"For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—

(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;

(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or

(c) he is disabled".

One can well see that in some circumstances, and depending on the length of time for which the situation arose, if a child were left alone (as I think was one of the circumstances suggested) for a long period that would certainly come into this category. However, I believe that it is a sensible way of approaching this matter to oblige the local authority to do something in the case of children in need and giving them a power to do so in other cases and then leaving it to them responsibly to allocate their resources between all the desirable aims that they might have before them.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has referred back to Clause 15(9), which has always seemed to me to be a very satisfactory definition of "in need". I do not know whether he has had a chance to consider the point that I made in Committee that that definition is expressed to be for this part of the Bill and that the words occur constantly in other parts also, in particular in the schedules. If my noble and learned friend has not been able to take that point up yet, will he be good enough to look into it before the next stage? My suggestion was that the definition should be contained in the interpretation clause, perhaps with a reference back to Clause 15(9).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that point. 1 have had an opportunity to consider the question. So far as I can see—but I am subject to correction if my noble and learned friend can point out an example—the phrase "in need" is used in this sense in Part III and the schedule which is a schedule to Part III. I am not aware, although I am very happy to be corrected, that the phrase "in need" is used in this context in other parts of the Bill. The words "in need" arise in other parts but it is a specific need. I believe that I am right in saying that this definition would operate only in a context in which children were "in need" without further specification. If my noble and learned friend has examples of such a context in other parts of the Bill, I should be extremely grateful if he would be kind enough to bring these matters to my notice. Perhaps when we have the meeting to which we referred earlier we could look into this also. However, I have had an opportunity of considering the matter and that so far is the result of my deliberations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. 1 will do the homework that he has set me. However, there is the question whether the schedule is properly described in this part because it is invoked by a provision in this part.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the matter has become very complicated. I thank my noble and learned friend for going as far as he could and for some clarification. We had perhaps overlooked this matter at an earlier stage. There is a nagging feeling that will no doubt remain for some time to come with the people who are concerned about this on the ground. However, at this stage I do not think that we can go further on this point in this part of the Bill. I expect that it may arise again at a later stage before the Bill becomes an Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 12, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
("(5) A local authority shall ensure for children who are attending any school such daycare provision and other supervised activities as appropriate—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 that are grouped with it are based on the advice that we have received from the National out of School Alliance—an organisation which is solely concerned with care after school and in school holidays for children over five years of age. It is nevertheless supported by about 20 other voluntary organisations.
I could adopt the general argument that was canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 and give the facts and figures which would show that the demand for such facilities are far outstripping the supply. I shall not at this late hour of the day burden the House with the statistics.
It is fair to say this. I am advised that the United Kingdom lags far behind most other European countries in providing out-of-school child care facilities. Apart from the weak provision in Clause 16(5) the Bill is silent on the needs of young children over the age of five years outside school hours or during school holidays, although the need for such facilities continues well beyond the age of five. The National out of School Alliance tells us that it continues until the age of 16. Subsection (5) states that,
"A local authority may provide for children who are attending any school such care or supervised activities as they consider appropriate".
I am advised that that is less than that required by current legislation, which is to be found in the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulations Act 1948. What is worrying the voluntary organisations is this. The 1948 regulations are due to be amended and we have not seen the amendments. I am advised that the existing 1948 legislation is inadequate. But if it is contemplated that the duty is to be weakened, or indeed removed, that would amount to turning the clock back. What are required are not less but more facilities and not more but higher standards.
I have mentioned that it is feared by the voluntary organisations that the Government intend to relieve the local authorities of the duty to provide day care facilities for children over the age of five. I have not taken instructions on this point but it seems to me that Amendment No. 29 is a compromise. If the Government intend to remove this duty altogether from the local authorities, we would argue that there should be a duty to ensure such facilities for children up to the age of eight years. Moreover, such provisions should comply with the requirements of the 1948 Act. That means that the term "supervised activity" should be defined as an activity taking place on premises specified in subsection (1)(a) of the 1948 Act, rather than an activity supervised by a responsible person as provided in the Bill. Moreover we would say—and, what is more important, those with whom we have consulted would say—that it should comply with the requirements of the statutory code of practice aimed at maintaining high standards in such premises. That is the point of Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment and those associated with it, to which I have put my name. As has already been

1399
made clear, these amendments are intended, first, to underline the importance of this type of activity for children under five and, secondly, to lay a duty on a local authority to ensure that it is provided. I know that we discussed that when we debated Amendment No. 26, but I hope that we have not by any means disposed of it as yet.
The activity out of hours and in school holidays is, as I mentioned earlier, important for the parents in enabling them to go to work. If these amendments are agreed to, steps will have been taken, by means of a code of conduct and by ensuring that all children under eight remain within the protection of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948, to ensure that the highest standards will prevail. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will respond sympathetically.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should make clear before the noble and learned Lord replies that we are asking not that the local authorities should provide all these services but that they should ensure that there is some provision within their areas. That is slightly different, but it is a very important point. There is also another point about the workforce; women find it very difficult to take full-time work and also to collect their children at 3·30 or 4 o'clock to take them home. There will be a gap until 5 or 5·30 and there should be some provision that they can use, whether it is provided by the authority or some voluntary organisation. Some arrangement should be made. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look kindly on this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendments for the reasons I gave for my amendments earlier: that there is this problem of young children being neglected because their parents have to go out to work. All these points have been raised before. I still do not believe that we have sufficiently proved that there is an obligation upon the authorities. They have a job to do that they have not really picked up yet in some parts of the country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have dealt with Amendment No. 26 to some extent already, but there is no harm in dealing with it in relation to Amendment No. 25, since I covered it in general before. With Amendment No. 25, the situation is that we are dealing with out-of-school care, including holiday arrangements for school-age children. There are two types which one should perhaps take separately—local authority provision and private and voluntary provision. I shall return to the first in a moment.
I had hoped that we could debate our proposals in the context of government amendments to replace the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulations Act 1948, but this has not proved to be possible. The 1948 Act does not deal with local authority provision, but with registration of private and voluntary facilities. I am sorry that it has not proved possible for these amendments to be included. We have had rather an
1400
unfortunate experience on our team, in that the draftsman has injured his back. Although his assistant has continued working on the Bill and the principal draftsman is working on it but from his sick-bed, this has slowed down the work on the Bill. I am anxious to have the principal draftsman's views on most of these matters if I possibly can. That is why we have not managed to pursue this quite as fast as I had hoped.
Our aim is to adjust the regulatory requirement to the needs in a more discriminatory way. This means for the under-fives an improved and more readily enforceable registration system. For school age children it means a relaxation of control, combined with strong guidance on the quality of provision which has hitherto not been available sufficiently. We have to draw a line somewhere and at the moment we believe that age five is the best place to do that.
As to local authority provision, the Bill provides not only a discretion under Clause 16(5) but also a duty under Schedule 2 to take steps to reduce the need for court action and to discourage juvenile crime. All this in the context of the general duty under Clause 15(1) to provide for children in need services in terms of that clause. Out-of-school provision could be part of a programme under Clause 16(5) and the Schedule 2 duty.
In view of what has been said we shall look again to see whether the wording is appropriate. However, I do not believe that we can go to the length of imposing on local authorities the overall duty required by Amendment No. 25 or, in its alternative, Amendment No. 26.
As regards residential holidays, there is in the Bill control over holidays which take place in institutions which qualify as voluntary homes (Schedule 5, paragraph 7) or registered children's homes (Schedule 6, paragraph 10). As regards other schemes, the debate was set out in paragraph 78 of the White Paper and was followed by a consultation paper.
I undertake to consider the matters further but I do not believe that we can go to the length of imposing on local authorities the general duty to provide such facilities or to ensure that they are provided. The overall responsibility of the local authority in the allocation of resources must be taken into account. Those who are working have a responsibility in relation to their children. That is an important aspect, and there may be need for co-operation and co-ordination in that area. At the moment I take the view that it would be unlikely that we could go to the length of imposing on local authorities such a general duty as that proposed. However, we undertake to look further at the point that has been made, particularly in respect of Amendment No. 25.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his helpful response to Amendment No. 25. I hope that he will also have regard to Amendment No. 29 and the suggestion that the age limit should be eight years rather than five

1401
years. I believe that the organisations will be disappointed if the age limit is drawn at five years.
We look forward to seeing the amendments to the 1948 regulations. We trust that they will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed during the course of this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 35, at end insert—
("(5A) The local authority shall, together with the education authority, keep under review the provision of day care within the authority.
(5B) The review under subsection (5A) shall include a plan for future provision, and the results of the review shall be published at least once every three years.
(5C) When exercising its duties under subsection (SA) the local authority shall take into account the views of:

(a) relevant voluntary organisations within the authority, and

(b) the district health authority, or district health authorities, within the area.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is close to the subject which we have been discussing. Its purpose is to give a duty to local authorities to review the provision which will draw attention to gaps and inconsistencies in provisions. It links the education authorities with the social services. I believe it is important that education authorities are part of any such review because they provide a great deal of the care involved in looking after under-fives in nurseries. It is also important that voluntary organisations and the health service should be taken into account. They will represent the providers of under-fives services and also the views of the users of such services; that is parents, health visitors, doctors and so forth.
The publication of the review which is requested in the amendment will be an important tool in enabling the authority to plan provisions in a careful way. It will also enable ratepayers to have a clear picture of the existing provisions and of the way in which their local authority plans to increase and improve such services. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 amends Clause 16, which is included in the Bill because we want all local authorities to develop an interest in day care for the under-fives.
The amendment raises the interesting suggestion of giving local authorities a duty to work with other bodies, including the local education authority and voluntary bodies in the field. If the suggestion can be developed I am sure that it will be of importance. We should like to consider the matter and perhaps on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. The matter requires to be considered further as the Bill progresses through its parliamentary stages: I do not have in mind the Third Reading in this House.
Baroness David: My Lords, obviously with that reassurance from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and look forward to what will come out of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of the Housing Act 1985.
. The following shall be inserted after section 65(4) of the Housing Act 1985—
"(5) Where they are satisfied that he has a priority need and that due to homelessness or threatened homeless

(a) a child might be made the subject of a care order, or

(b) a local authority would have to provide accommodation for or otherwise look after a child under any section of the Children Act 1989, or

(c) a child would have to be cared for by a person other than his parents,

then they shall have a duty to secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for his occupation forthwith."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 30 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 31. It might assist the House if I say just a few words about the background to these two amendments. We are advised by the Family Rights Group and the British Association of Social Workers that the starkest fact to emerge from local authority and university studies is that a significant number of children are being received into care for no other reason than homelessness and the most recent DHSS figures, which are for the year 1986, show that 519 children were taken into care because their parents were homeless. I appreciate that the Committee was told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that homelessness itself would never be sufficient reason for initiating care proceedings, but the figures which I have given seem to indicate that in practice successful care proceedings are being instituted on that ground.
I now turn to the two amendments, Nos. 30 and 31. Amendment No. 30 would place a duty on the local authority to ensure suitable accommodation for the needs of the family and our preference would be for this amendment. It is an amendment to the Housing Act 1985. The 1985 Act only establishes a local authority duty to provide homeless families with accommodation if they are deemed unintentionally homeless. If they are deemed to be intentionally homeless, the housing authority is only under a duty to provide temporary accommodation for such period as it considers will give families a reasonable opportunity to secure their own accommodation.
In practice we know that families who are deemed to be intentionally homeless are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation with all the health and welfare hazards which this involves for children. One might add that the chances of families being able to find their own affordable and suitable long-term accommodation are pretty remote.
We are advised that the position has worsened since the Court of Appeal judgment in April last yea

1403
in the case of Tower Hamlets ex parte Monef, which confirmed that while there is a general duty to prevent reception into care, there is no duty to take any specific action such as the provision of accommodation for a family. Indeed the Court of Appeal went so far as to say that it is entirely for the local authority officers to decide how they implement their duty to prevent reception into care. The court also stressed that there was no statutory duty to provide permanent accommodation and that if Parliament had decided otherwise that duty would have been clearly expressed in the legislation. Here is an opportunity to place such a duty on local authorities.
If it is said that this is not a Housing Bill and that it cannot therefore place a duty on housing authorities, how do we remedy the mischief? If we avoid the issue this evening, it will seem to some people that this is a case of passing the buck. I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to apply his very considerable talents and skill, let alone his radical approach, to finding a solution to this mischief.
If Amendment No. 30 is not acceptable, Amendment No. 31 would be a second best, but no more than that. It would at least place a duty on the local authorities to request the help of a local housing authority in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23. We appreciate that under Clause 23 of the local authority may request the help of any local housing authority, but we feel that this should be spelt out as a duty. If it is expressed as a duty, that would focus minds on the need at least to discharge that duty. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are in some difficulty with this amendment, which nevertheless I support, because we are straying into another department and another Act. Our difficulty is that under Clause 15(9) we are looking at a child in need and the Bill lays a duty on the local authority to look into the needs of children. As the noble and learned Lord has said, a child in need is defined in Clause 15(9).
If a child has to be taken into care only for homelessness, that child is in need. If it is not put into good accommodation—and I have to say that in this country a number of children are in very bad accommodation which is affecting both their health and their education—then Clause 15(9) is not being fulfilled. If we were to look at this from the point of view of the social worker who is dealing with the case, the social worker looks at Clause 15(9) and knows that she must deal with a child in need. On the other hand, the child is going to have to be taken into care if there is not adequate accommodation; so the social worker will be in some difficulty as between two Acts and two departments.
Therefore, although it seems to me rather strange to put into the Children Bill something that really refers to housing, if it is looked at in the light of Clause 15(9) it is not quite so strange because it is
1404
absolutely fundamental for every child, wherever possible and practicable, to have a home and a home where it can develop along the right lines.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said in introducing this amendment, it has been to some extent discussed in Committee. The principle behind Amendment No. 30 is that the social services department should not be required to provide accommodation for a child or seek a care order in respect of a child simply because his parents are homeless. It is suggested that it should be the duty of a local housing authority to secure that suitable accommodation is available in such circumstances.
I believe that the present law achieves what is necessary in this regard. Section 59(1)(b) of the Housing Act of 1985 provides that,
"a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside",
has a priority need for accommodation. The local housing authority has a clear duty under Section 65 of that Act to secure that accommodation becomes available for homeless persons who have priority need. It is true that it does not include the words "suitable" or "forthwith" referred to in the amendment; but it deals with the fundamental duty of the local housing authority to secure that accommodation is available. That is the principal point and it exists, as I say, in Section 65.
In so far as your Lordships in considering these amendments are seeking to amend the Housing Act 1985, I have to say that the Department of the Environment is currently reviewing homelessness legislation and any amendments at this time would be premature. However, I undertake that the matters which have been raised by your Lordships in connection with this amendment will be drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The second amendment is closely related but concerns a responsibility not of the housing authority but of the social services department. This does not seek to impose a duty on the housing authority but refers instead to the provision of Clause 23 which concerns co-operation between authorities. This amendment proposes that the local authority should not provide accommodation for the child solely because the person caring for him is homeless. Under this Bill homelessness alone cannot be a reason for a local authority to accommodate a child. Of course, it could be one aspect of some form of neglect which could form the basis of such an application but homelessness by itself could not.
As I said, the housing authority will have a duty to accommodate under these circumstances and, moreover, Clause 23 enables a local authority to seek the assistance of the housing authority. This request will effectively activate the housing authority's duty and I do not believe that this amendment adds to those provisions.
Reference was made to homeless families being accommodated in bed and breakfast

1405
accommodation. As has been pointed out, that is not suitable. The Department of the Environment has advised local housing authorities in its code of guidance that the use of bed and breakfast accommodation should be only as a last resort. The department makes clear that such accommodation is generally unsuitable for families with children in particular. The code of guidance recommends that housing authorities should instead make use of short life housing or of properties leased from other bodies.
I hope I have said enough to show how these matters arc appropriately dealt with and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply to the debate on these amendments. We believe that the amendments identify a mischief. It is a disgrace that children should he separated from their families because of homelessness or the state of their housing. We should have thought that Amendment No. 31, which is certainly our second best amendment, might have been accepted because it merely points to the need for local authorities to exercise their duty under Clause 23.
As to the main amendment, Amendment No. 30, I am grateful for the undertaking given to the House by the noble and learned Lord that he will draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the subject matter of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of accommodation for certain children]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities not only provide accommodation for 16 year-olds in extreme circumstances. Under Clause 17(1), the local authority must provide accommodation for all children if they are orphaned, abandoned or their parents are prevented, for any reason, from providing them with suitable care. Clause 17(3) adds a further duty in relation to 16 year-olds. The authority must provide them with accommodation if it considers that the young persons' welfare would otherwise be seriously prejudiced.
This is a probing amendment to discover why the additional duty exists in relation to 16 year-olds. What circumstances are envisaged whereby the young persons' welfare is seriously prejudiced but the parents are not preventedfromcaringforthemadequately—that is, whereby subsection (3) is necessary in addition to subsection (1)? If there are such circumstances, why are they special to 16 and 17 year-olds and not to younger children?
The reason for subsection (3) is not apparent from the face of the Bill and it may, unfortunately, suggest to local authorities that they ought to eject 16 year-olds from care if their welfare is not seriously prejudiced, thus worsening the leaving care situation. We have had many anxieties about that. It is hoped that subsection (3) has something to do with giving this older age group greater rights to self-determination. Is that so?
The Bill already provides for them to be accommodated in care against their parents' wishes and the noble and learned Lord said that there is nothing to prevent 16 and 17 year-olds from discharging themselves from Clause 17 care; so presumably this group will not be caught by the recovery of absconding children provisions which we are told are soon to he tabled by the Government.
Given the above, it is difficult to see why the separate criterion for admission to care under subsection (3) is needed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I should try to explain the background to this because in a way it is slightly strange to find the noble Baroness seeking to excise from the Bill a duty on the local authority to provide accommodation for any particular group.
Baroness David: My Lords, I said that it was a probing amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a child is defined in the Bill as,
"a person under the age of 18".
Clause 17 places a local authority under a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need within its area if it appears to it that he requires accommodation because there is no person who has parental responsibility for him, he is lost or abandoned or the person who has been caring for him is prevented from providing him with suitable accommodation or care. In the case of children of 16 or over the responsibility of parents to provide accommodation is not clear. As the noble Baroness mentioned and as I said before, at that age children are largely self-determining and it is generally accepted that they have a right to choose where they live. Parental responsibility diminishes as the child's capacity to make mature judgments increases. We therefore wish to clarify the local authority's obligation to provide accommodation to youngsters aged 16 and 17 years who are in need where they consider the welfare of such children will be seriously prejudiced without the provision of accommodation.
I must emphasise, however, that the youngster in question would be under no obligation to accept the accommodation which the authority is obliged to provide if he did not wish to do so. The child would only be obliged to live in accommodation provided by the local authority if he was the subject of a care order. Otherwise he can, as I have already said, choose where he wishes to live.

1407
The idea of this amendment is to place a duty on the local authority as regards the older children aged 16 and 17 who no longer have a right to be accommodated by their parents. As I have said, they are largely self-determining and it seems right that the local authority should have a duty to provide accommodation for them if the circumstances are as described in the provision.
Baroness David: My Lords, I said that this was a probing amendment. I shall read with care in the morning what the noble and learned Lord said rather fast. If needs be I shall come back with something again. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("in a community home").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 34. In the light of the observations that were made in Committee on Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, I agreed to re-examine the wording and the effect of Clause 17(5). These amendments are the result of that deliberation and I think that they meet the points that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, made at that time. They represent a recognition of a possible ambiguity in
1408
that Clause 17(5) could be considered to refer only to homes which cater solely for persons aged 16 and over. We wish to make clear that these should be homes which can take children aged 16 and over, whether or not children under that age are also accommodated there.
These amendments also remove paragraphs (a) and (b) from subsection (5). I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that in some instances it would be impracticable and even unhelpful to restrict the power to accommodate a young person to those who are working or seeking work nearby or who are disabled. On reflection I can see that this provision is unnecessary and I believe that the amendment will provide a more appropriate degree of flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble and learned Lord for meeting us most graciously and generously with these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 27, leave out from ("one") to end of line 33 and insert ("in any community home which takes children who have reached the age of sixteen.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment already. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
("(7) Where a local authority provide accommodation under this section they shall enter into an agreement in writing with any person who has parental responsibility for the child, or in the case of a child of sixteen or seventeen, the child himself.
(8) The agreement in subsection 7 shall include details of the type of accommodation to be provided, schooling, contact and the notice which is to be given by either side before the child returns home. The period of notice may only be a period of up to and including 8 days.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we discussed a similar amendment. The noble and learned Lord told us that, while the Government fully accepted the principle of agreements, they were opposed to incorporating in the Bill a statutory requirement that the local authority should enter into such agreements. It was suggested that we should rely on the powers in the Bill to make regulations and we were told that this would cover the agreements of the kind suggested in the amendment.
The Family Rights Group, the National Foster Care Association, the National Children's Home and Barnardo's inform us that they cannot rely on regulations. Two days after the noble and learned Lord had suggested that reliance be placed on the regulations, the new regulations on the boarding out of children were published. These govern foster placements and will come into force in June of this year. They are particularly important because the majority of children are placed with foster parents. While these regulations provide for written agreements to be entered into between the local authorities and the foster parents, the natural parents are not to be involved in the agreements.
The regulations governing placement with parents were also published two days after our discussion in Committee but those regulations do not apply to children in accommodation provided by the local authority. They apply only to children in compulsory care placed at home. In the light of the regulations published since our discussion in Committee, the voluntary bodies say clearly that they cannot rely on regulations. In Committee the noble and learned Lord also felt that our original amendments were potentially restrictive. We would not wish the agreements to be restrictive. Under the new amendment the matters to be covered in the agreement need not be confined to the matters specified. However, if on reflection this wording could be further improved to meet the point made by the noble and learned Lord we would welcome the improvement.
I should like to say a few words about the need for a notice where this is provided for in the agreement. The noble and learned Lord was opposed to a requirement that there be 24 hours' notice. It was said that it would be an obstacle to the freedom of voluntary arrangements and that it would discourage parents from entering into voluntary arrangements. It is accepted by all the organisations that most parents will behave responsibly in accordance with the arrangements with the local authority, but there may be a risk that people will be anxious if a period of notice is required. However, it is thought that that risk would be greatly diminished if the regulations made it clear that a period of notice need not be
1410
required in every case and that it would be negotiated in each individual case depending on the age of the child and the length of stay in accommodation.
I am advised that if a requirement of notice does not exist there is a far greater risk that local authorities will not be prepared to use voluntary arrangements for short-term requirements. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will give favourable consideration to the amendment in its new form. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I support the amendment, particularly in so far as it provides for a period of notice to be given before a child is removed from what we presently call voluntary care. If a child goes into voluntary care for a predetermined period—for example,togive the mother a period of respite or to enable her to undergo an operation—there is, generally speaking, little risk that the child will be removed from care without agreement. But there is still a risk, especially if the father is estranged.
However, if the child goes into care for an indefinite period there is a risk that the child will be peremptorily removed. The timing of the removal may be quite inappropriate. It may be at any time of night or day; it may he at a period in the child's life when it is quite inappropriate to remove him or her from where he or she has settled, having regard to schooling and various other matters which may have become part of the child's way of life. Indeed, as we discussed in Committee, the condition of the parent attempting to remove the child may be quite inappropriate. Children in those circumstances have quite enough to cope with without being shuttled about at the whim of their parents.
As I understand it, the Government's answer to the problem is to say, "Well, the local authorities have a general duty to safeguard the child concerned and they won't therefore allow the child to be removed arbitrarily". It seems to me that that general duty of the local authority is not adequate when placed alongside Clause 17(8), which provides a completely unqualified entitlement on any person who has parental responsibility for a child to remove the child from accommodation provided under that particular part of the Bill.
One must remember that the reality of those situations is that decisions must be made quickly, on the spot, by social workers, foster parents or those in charge of children's homes who are sometimes faced with irate and irrational parents. There must be a mechanism whereby people are obliged to give notice if they intend to remove the child, without necessarily detracting from the basic entitlement which the Bill seeks to give in Clause 17(8).
I should remind your Lordships that under the existing law, as I recollect it, there is a provision for the giving of notice if a child has been in voluntary care for six months. That is a somewhat arbitrary period but, nevertheless, there is no evidence of which I am aware that it works badly. But in so far as the existing law is arbitrary, the Bill goes too far the other way and I suggest that the amendment gets the matter just about right.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord when he replies could tell us why, as the suggestion that there should be a written agreement was included in the White Paper, and I think went into the previous consultations, it has not been included in the Bill. I think that that omission is quite a disappointment to many of us in the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the first amendment, it would require local authorities providing accommodation for a child to enter into a written agreement with the parents (or the child himself if 16 or 17). The second would specify the details which should be included in the agreement; namely, schooling, contact and the period of notice which must be given on either side before removing the child.
I feel that the amendment is restrictive because by specifying the matters which the agreements shall cover it may not be capable of covering matters other than those specified. We want such agreements to be flexible enough to accommodate any matter which is appropriate to the circumstances of the individual case. When we last debated the matter I said that the regulation-making powers already in the Bill for the various types of placement are wide enough to provide for the circumstances in which agreements would be required—namely,voluntary arrangements—and the subject matter which the agreements should cover. I am convinced that that is the better approach.
Secondly, I question whether the amendment is necessary. I do so on this basis. There are various types of accommodation which local authorities can provide—with foster parents, in a community home, in a voluntary home or in other ways specified in Clause 19(2). The Bill makes provision for the different types of placement to be governed by separate sets of regulations. That allows the different features of the particular types of accommodation to be provided for. Thus at present we have separate sets of regulations to govern foster placements, community homes, voluntary homes, registered childrens' homes and so on. As 1 have said, the powers under the Bill for the different types of placement are broad enough to make provision for voluntary arrangements to be recorded in writing and to contain specified matters. It is not necessary to duplicate those powers. I hope that your Lordships will accept that. We believe that the powers are wide enough to make provision for voluntary arrangements to be recorded in writing. That is my answer to the noble Baroness's question.
I must emphasize that we are fully committed to the principles of providing for written agreements in relation to voluntary arrangements and the Bill as drafted allows for that. The Government made a firm promise in the White Paper and I stressed that we would keep our promise when we debated the matter in Committee. I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed about the new Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1988,
1412
which have recently been made under the current law. They do not include provision for written agreement with the parents. But the reasons are technical—the powers under which those regulation are made are thought not to be wide enough to provide for these agreements. When the Bill is implemented, the new regulations will make provision for the agreements. That is as firm an undertaking as I can give. I confirm that that is the position.
As to matters covered by the agreements, we would expect them to set out desirable arrangements for a schooling contact notice to parents of proposed changes in placement and arrangements for return of the child, but we would not want to compel parents to agree to a requirement in the term put forward by this amendment. The essence of the agreement is that it is voluntary.
Turning now to the second linked amendment, that would provide for a period of notice to be given before a parent can remove a child from accommodation provided by the local authority under a voluntary arrangement. For the reasons already mentioned, I have to reiterate the strong reservations that I expressed in Committee. If we provide that a period of notice will have statutory force then an element of compulsion will be introduced and the essential character of the arrangements will be altered. It is very important that the arrangement should be fully voluntary. If it is not, that could undermine the confidence of parents as regards approaching the local authority for help. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there is at present no period of notice required for children who have been in voluntary care for up to six months, so to make this a requirement of all such arrangements is a new concept. The idea that we should make this type of arrangement compulsory is a step backward rather than forward.
The regulations that I have just mentioned should address as one of the matters to be included in written agreements the practical arrangements for the child being returned to a person with parental responsibility. We of course accept that the child should be protected from being precipitately removed by a parent if that would put the child at risk, but there are ways of dealing with difficult situations without resorting to compulsory notice periods. In a serious case an emergency protection order can be obtained, but it is also important to realise that Clause 3(5) gives powers to a person who is not a parent but who is caring for a child to do what is reasonable to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. For example, 1 consider that a foster parent would be able to prevent a parent who, by reason of alcohol or drugs, was in no fit state to remove the child from doing so. The combination of that power and the emergency protection order should be sufficient to deal with any difficult situation which may occur.
It is important that we do not lose sight of the essential principle behind a voluntary arrangement; that it is voluntary: compulsion should arise through due process and a court order. This will be to the benefit of the vast majority of families who will be

1413
able to use local authority services in a new, and more productive, free partnership.
I should perhaps add that although the regulations have been unable to specify agreement with parents for the reason that I have mentioned, the matter is addressed in paragraph 156 of the guidance that accompanied the regulations. Perhaps I may read briefly from that guidance.
"The aim should be in relation to the involvement of parents for the plan for a child to be discussed with parents and for agreement to be reached with them. The parents should also know and, wherever possible, have agreed to the elements in the placement agreement which affect the child and parents. The parents are not asked to sign agreements, but Regulation 7 requires that the parents be given written notice of the placement, including the name and address of the foster parent and the agreed access arrangements, having regard to the code of practice on access, and any other matters relating to the care and welfare of the child".
The reason why it does not go as far as we would hope to go under the Bill is the technical one which I mentioned.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the shortcomings of the regulations which were issued last December. I also note the undertaking given in that respect. I anticipated that the noble and learned Lord might well take the point that our amendment was potentially too restrictive. We should gladly and willingly come back with an improved amendment if we thought it would be acceptable to him. It appears to those whom we have consulted that they accept that partnership underlies much of the thinking upon which the Bill has been built and that an agreement along the lines indicated in the amendment would reinforce that partnership.
The half dozen or more organisations that are very concerned with the amendment will wish to study carefully the words of the noble and learned Lord. All I can do at this stage is to thank him for replying to the discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35A not moved..]
Clause 18 [General duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I propose to move Amendment No. 36 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Clause 18(4) at present provides that before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after or proposing to look after, the authority, so far as is reasonably practicable should ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child, his parents and any person who is not a parent of. the child but has parental responsibility for him. However, in Clause 22(2)(d) dealing with reviews of cases we say that regulations may provide for not only those persons to be consulted but also any other person whose views the authority considers to be relevant.
While we must take care not to overburden authorities, we think it would be logical to have the same provisons as to consultation on decisions and reviews. Amendment No. 38 would make a consequential amendment to Clause 18(5) to ensure that the authority gives due consideration to these views. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of those in your Lordships' House who made this point at the Committee stage I should like to say that we are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert ("and
("(d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant,").
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("to (d)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I beg to move Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 41 since it is obviously part and parcel of the same provision. These amendments follow upon an amendment which I moved at Committee stage and which was prompted by a case in which I was involved. I was struck by the lack of co-ordination between a social services department and an education department in one local authority and the lack of co-ordination between the social services department of one local authority and the education department of another local authority in relation to a child who had special educational needs.
In moving that amendment I struck a chord, it appears, with the National Children's Bureau, which has long been concerned by the lack of emphasis given to health care and educational achievements of children in care. The same problem was noted apparently by the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services report on children in care in 1984.
More recently those problems have been borne out by an article in the latest edition of the journal Adoption and Fostering. That journal cites evidence that coming into care creates a high risk of educational failure for the children concerned. It also cites evidence that social workers tend to overlook the importance of education, or at least do not give education sufficient weight in deciding how to deal with a particular child.
It is inevitable—one comes across this again and again in practice—that by the time a child has come into care he may well have attended a bewildering

1415
number of schools. He may have moved on several times and not put down any roots. Alternatively there is the situation of a child whose home life is in complete turmoil and who finds that the school which he or she attends is increasingly a fixed point of great importance in his life.
The National Children's Bureau has reached much the same conclusion in relation to the lack of importance which is placed on the health needs of children in care. It is with those points in mind that I have been emboldened to bring forward the amendment again at this stage. I hope it adds no great burden to local authorities. It does not add greatly to their duties. I hope that the amendment does nothing other than add something which is entirely desirable and a matter of common sense. On that basis I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in making any decision about a child that it is looking after a local authority must of course give consideration to the child's health and educational needs whenever those are relevant to the decision to be made. But those are matters which are central to the child's welfare, and in subsection (3) of this clause the authority is placed under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child that it is looking after. This welfare duty bears on all matters arising in respect of these children, including decisions made with respect to them, and it is not necessary to pick out certain aspects of the child's welfare in subsection (5). Indeed, as I have argued before, there are positive dangers in emphasising particular elements of the welfare duty in this way because it may raise doubts about the completeness of the duty and therefore dilute it. It is essential that nothing is done in the Bill to undermine or raise questions about the comprehensiveness of the authority's welfare duty to these children.
It may also be of use to refer to Clause 23 and the reference there to education authorities and health authorities as authorities to which a request may be made by a local authority responsible for a child's welfare for advice and other such matters. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that his point is covered in that way, and perhaps particularly that the references in Clause 23 are helpful.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord says, these are matters which are or should be central to the needs of the child. Accordingly, I suggest they should be on the face of the Bill. The reason I sought to have them on the face of the Bill is that the evidence apparently suggests that there is a failure to give due consideration to these aspects of children's needs.
The noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that putting them on the face of the Bill would somehow distort or give undue emphasis to those points which I seek to highlight. That of course is a point of view. With respect, I suggest that in so doing I should no more be giving undue emphasis to the educational and health needs of the child than the matters set out in the existing Clause 18(5)—including the wishes
1416
and feelings of the child, religious persuasion, and such matters—give undue emphasis to influencing the operation of the local authority. I believe that what I propose in the amendment would be a positive improvement of the Bill and not a distortion of it.
Nevertheless, at this hour of the night I do not intend to press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I may wish to come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14. line 38, at end insert—
("(5A) The local authority shall draw up a plan to meet the individual needs of every child in their care within 28 days of the child being provided with accommodation with them.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was widespread support for the concept of every child in local authority care having a plan drawn up to meet its individual needs. The amendment is similar to an amendment which I moved at Committee stage (Amendment No. 94) but would cover children accommodated as a result of a care order and children in voluntary care. It also gives local authorities a reasonable deadline to work towards.
The problem of children drifting in the care system is widely recognised and was referred to at Committee stage. DHSS (as it then was) research studies point to that, and there is much anecdotal evidence from young people who have left care. A similar problem occurs in relation to children who are in voluntary care. Unless positive action is taken, even very young children can find themselves in voluntary care for considerable periods of time with the danger that the child is then unable to return home as he or she is unable to re-form the bond with parents.
Whenever and wherever possible children should not remain in care. The best place for a child to grow up is within the caring family situation. Unless there is determined action to facilitate the child returning home, or other suitable arrangements made, the child may spend a considerable time in limbo.
Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 18 indicate clearly who should be consulted in the drawing up of a plan and the circumstances which need to be taken into account. Clause 22 deals with the matter of reviews of cases. The plan could be evaluated and amended during the review process. It would give the local authority, the child and the parents a yardstick by which to work.
My noble and learned friend has indicated that the plan must be laid before the court if a care order is being considered. However, at that stage a plan is likely to be embryonic and lacking in detail. The 28–day period stipulated in the amendment allows time for the relevant consultations to take place and also allows for a detailed social work assessment to be made at the same time. I suggest that the amendment does not conflict with any general principle or other provision of the Bill and provides a way to facilitate the intentions behind both Clause 18 and Clause 22. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, as I said earlier during the consideration of this Bill, the problem of children drifting in the care system is a widely recognised one. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already mentioned that point. I support the amendment, and the noble Lord has explained it so well that there is nothing further to say.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think we share common objectives in this matter. I have already mentioned, as have the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the need to avoid children drifting in care. The rules of court would provide for a plan to be laid out in the application. I agree that in all probability it would not be very detailed at that stage, but it should be sufficient to allow the court to understand what is proposed.
Clause 22 will place a duty on local authorities to review the cases of all children whom they are looking after, not just those in care, as this amendment proposes, but also those who are looked after under arrangements other than a care order. These powers will lead to detailed regulations dealing with the reviews. Planning for the child is the central purpose of the review and Clause 22(2)(c) specifies that the regulations should include provision:
"as to the time when each case is first to be reviewed and the frequency of subsequent reviews".
So 28 days might well be the right time at which to start.
We think it important that an initial planning meeting be held as soon as practicable after a local authority takes over the care of a child and we shall wish to specify the period within which this should take place. It may well be appropriate for these regulations to specify 28 days, but this is one of the detailed matters on which we wish to consult when we draw up the regulations. There will therefore be a further opportunity not only for the noble Lord but for those whose comments he has communicated to us to give their views then.
It would be right to have the detailed matters regarding the plan as the subject of regulations and the Bill contains firm provisions to enable that to be done. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment, having regard to the fact that we are very concerned that the system set up under this Bill should avoid the difficulties that have been mentioned, particularly the difficulty of children drifting without their cases being properly considered.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. As always, I am not very happy about things turning up in regulations later on after Parliament has had the chance to consider these matters, but perhaps this is a place where regulations are the right solution. I shall look with care at what my noble and learned friend has said. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert—
("(5A) Where, in exercising their duties under subsection (5) of this section, a local authority is satisfied that a child has sufficient
1418
understanding to make an informed decision and wishes to do so, the local authority shall give first consideration to the child's wishes.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, whereas existing legislation provides only for regard to be given to the wishes and feelings of the child in care, as we see, Clause 18(4) provides that local authorities give equal consideration not only to the child's wishes and feelings but also to those of his parents and anyone else with parental responsibilities and to his racial origin and cultural background.
The fact that "the child" appears in Clause 18(4)(a) is irrelevant in so far as it may be thought to point to a position of importance. The amendment that I move seeks to ensure that, where older children are concerned, their wishes and feelings are given first consideration. In law, this does not mean that the child's wishes are given overriding or paramount consideration, but simply that they come top of the list of factors that should be taken into account.
This provision would clearly be very important where, for example, a parent and young person were in conflict with each other or where a young person did not wish to be fostered by a family of the same cultural or religious background, although that might be a somewhat unusual situation. For the avoidance of these dangers of potential conflict we think that it is valuable to emphasise that:
"the local authority shall give first consideration to the child's wishes".
I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may express a little hesitation about now re-introducing the phrase "first consideration". We had the phrase "the first and paramount consideration" from the Guardianship Act of last century up to the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Committee gave detailed reasons supporting the use of the word "paramount" without the word "first".
The words "first consideration" have, so far as I know, been considered twice: once judicially by Lord MacDermott in a case called J. v. C.; and, if I may say so, in the other instance by myself extrajudicially on the Guardianship of Minors Act. We differed profoundly without either knowing what the other was saying. 1 think Lord MacDermott used "first consideration" in the sense that it was a consideration that was first to be thought of by the court. I rather think that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones is using it in the same sense. I ventured to say that the first consideration was more important than any other but that paramount consideration was more important than all others. That obtained general assent in your Lordships' House on that Bill, and in the other place.
There being considerable doubt what the first consideration means, I very much deprecate reintroducing the words in this amendment. On the merit of the amendment, I have nothing to say. As a matter of drafting, I cannot help feeling that it would be a mistake.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on the merits of the case I have something to say, although not on the drafting. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider this sympathetically. It seems to me that when a child is what we would now call a grown up—when he is over, say, 16—it would be most extraordinary not to place first, whether paramount or not, a child's wishes in this context. I would ask any noble Lord who has a child of that age whether he would, for instance, answer to the name of "child". I very much doubt it. Many of these so-called children are twice one's height and weight and everything else. It would be more than one's life was worth, let alone one's fatherhood, to dare to call a person of 16 or 17 years a child, and not to give paramountcy to his wishes in circumstances where he does not have a father or mother to look to.
If one cannot put an upper age limit to children, and one has to leave it as a child of any age, the onus is on those to disprove the case for the noble and learned Lord's amendment, rather than otherwise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that the use of the word "child" in relation to some of these people is rather a legalistic way of going about the matter, but it is not easy to see how to replace it.
The important matter is that the Bill puts on the local authority the duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare. That must be the consideration that ultimately rules. We have said that due consideration must be given to the wishes of the child: we have done, so far as we can, what the noble and learned Lord asked of us by putting that first in the list. For what it is worth, that is the position. It will often happen that more than one consideration will come into the equation. There might be two children, both with different points of view, but it would be wise to keep them together. The noble and learned Lord's amendment would put us in difficulty in that connection. The overriding view would be that the children should stay together as that would be best for their interests. They may not see it that way, for children fall out sometimes, but one always hopes that they will fall in again, so their wishes at a particular time may not be the best test of what should happen to them.
I believe that the Bill has the balance about right by requiring the authority to give due consideration to the child's wishes, the ultimate result depending on all the circumstances. However, this is a difficult issue. I do not mean to suggest that our minds are closed to considering the matter further, but at present we believe that the Bill is about right. However, we are willing to keep this discussion going and not to close the book on it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I shall not exchange cudgels with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this. I certainly do not feel inclined at this late hour, or indeed at any other hour, to go to the stake on the issue; but I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is willing to consider it and perhaps we can look at it
1420
jointly and calmly at an earlier hour next time. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.s

  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH: COMMONWEALTH REFERENCES
  QUEEN'S SPEECH: COMMONWEALTH REFERENCES
  MBFR TALKS: CONCLUSION
  MBFR TALKS: CONCLUSION
  DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1986: ALLOCATION OF BLOCK GRANT
  DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1986: ALLOCATION OF BLOCK GRANT
  WORCESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY: CLOSURE OF RONKSWOOD BRANCH
  WORCESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY: CLOSURE OF RONKSWOOD BRANCH
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION: SEARCHES OF PREMISES
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION: SEARCHES OF PREMISES
  FYLINGDALES EARLY WARNING RADAR
  FYLINGDALES EARLY WARNING RADAR
  INF TREATY: EXTENT
  INF TREATY: EXTENT
  US BASES IN BRITAIN: EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS
  US BASES IN BRITAIN: EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS
  SDI: US/ISRAELI PROJECT
  SDI: US/ISRAELI PROJECT
  CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL AND MARITIME FORCES
  CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL AND MARITIME FORCES
  SALMONELLA OUTBREAK, HOUSE OF LORDS
  SALMONELLA OUTBREAK, HOUSE OF LORDS
  BST EXPERIMENTS
  BST EXPERIMENTS
  MILK QUOTA TRANSFERS: NOTIFICATION
  MILK QUOTA TRANSFERS: NOTIFICATION
  DAIRY FARM INSPECTION VISITS: CHARGES
  DAIRY FARM INSPECTION VISITS: CHARGES
  PROTEIN PROCESSING PLANTS: SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION
  PROTEIN PROCESSING PLANTS: SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION
  SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION OF FEEDINGSTUFFS
  SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION OF FEEDINGSTUFFS
  UNTREATED MILK: SALES BAN
  UNTREATED MILK: SALES BAN
  ILLICIT DRUGS CARRIED IN SHIPS: SHIP OWNERS' INSURANCE
  ILLICIT DRUGS CARRIED IN SHIPS: SHIP OWNERS' INSURANCE