Sitting of 20 February 1989

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

    Wales Tourist Board
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Wales tourist board; and what was discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I frequently meet the chairman of the Wales tourist board to discuss many matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and declare an interest in the industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have an interest in these matters have long felt that things in tourism are done rather better in Wales than in England? Will he accept congratulations on that? In view of the current review of tourism has my right hon. Friend discussed with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—and if he has not, I hope that he will—the structure of tourism in Wales?
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Declare an interest.
    Mr. Adley: I have already declared an interest. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Wales tourist board, or other agencies, will still be able to distribute grant as required to areas of Wales where development is still needed?
    Mr. Walker: Tourism is of incredible importance to Wales in bringing in people who will look at the commercial and industrial prospects of Wales and, of course, in providing jobs and opportunities in rural and coastal areas. That is why the board's net budget for 1988–89 will be 90 per cent. more than it was in 1983–84. Section 4 assistance to the industry has tripled from £1 million to nearly £3·3 million during the same period and has been of great advantage to the economy of Wales.
    Mr. Anderson: If we are to fill up the beds in our very welcome Holiday Inn in Swansea, we need, as the Secretary of State will be aware, to clean up Swansea bay. Is he satisfied that we shall not be able to comply with the EC bathing waters directive until 1995 at the earliest? Does he recognise the link between the directive and clean beaches in Wales as a whole?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, of course I do. I am glad to say that immense capital investment is going into that, which did not happen under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Harris: Given the common problems faced by the tourist industry in Wales and the more remote parts of England such as Cornwall, will my right hon. Friend tell me why on earth section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 are being suspended in England whereas, as he says, they are being tripled in Wales? What is the fairness of that?
    Mr. Walker: In fairness, they have not been tripled in Wales this year, but over the past few years. Section 4 grants have been continuing in England. The report that my right hon. Friend has had will be discussed with those concerned and conclusions must be reached on the English tourist industry on the basis of information on inward investments coming into the English tourist industry. I have to make decisions on the Welsh tourist industry.

    Welsh Coalfield
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to meet in the near future the chairman of British Coal to discuss the state of the Welsh coalfield.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am in touch regularly with the chairman and deputy chairman to discuss issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he tell him of the deep anger and resentment in west Wales that British Coal is walking away from the anthracite coalfield, with its enormous reserves of high quality and saleable coal? Will he urge the chairman to carry out a study of the economics of mining anthracite from small drift mines employing up to 75 people because many believe that mined in that way, anthracite could be extremely saleable and competitive in relation both to opencast operations and imports of Chinese coal?
    Mr. Walker: I shall convey the views expressed to the chairman of British Coal and I shall also examine, within the Welsh Office, the suggestion about smaller units employing fewer than 75 people and what economic impact that would have. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is constructive.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State note that British Coal Opencast has decided again to try for permission to work the Bryn Henllys site in my constituency, after an inspector turned down that application about a year ago? Is he aware that there is deep anger in the community that British Coal will attempt that again? Is there not far too much opencast coal in the south Wales coalfield, which is despoiling the environment?
    Mr. Walker: In making decisions about opencast coal applications, one must consider carefully both the short-term and long-term environmental implications. I hasten to add that when I was responsible, as Secretary of State for the Environment, for such developments in England, I found that, with certain conditions one could improve the environment over a period of years. However, such applications must be looked at carefully bearing in mind the whole environmental question.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the miners at Point of Air in my constituency for their dramatically increased productivity since the miners' strike? Will he confirm that over £130

    693
    million has been invested in the coal industry in Wales since 1985, and that our record compares favourably with that of the Labour party which, during its last two terms in office, closed a total of 56 pits in the Principality?
    Mr. Walker: I must correct my hon. Friend. In their last two terms, the Labour Government closed 62 pits. However, the closure of pits brings no joy to any party. Problems such as geology often affect such decisions. Although I deeply regret the closures of pits for mainly economic reasons as that creates problems, the increase in productivity has been helpful in that respect.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he was a Minister in the Department of Energy, he was responsible for several colliery closures in Wales? Does he realise that the mining fraternity has been reduced from 22,000 in 1979, to fewer than 8,000 now and that in my constituency seven collieries have been closed and 5,000 miners made redundant? Will he accept that his valleys initiative is not making any dent in unemployment in the valleys?
    Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that since the valleys initiative was announced, unemployment in the valleys has fallen faster than it has in the rest of Wales. In response to his anxiety, perhaps he will send me quotations of what he said during the period of the last Labour Government when 30,980 jobs were lost in the mining industry in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that the south Wales coalfield is apprehensive, especially in the light of the 1,500 jobs at the Cynheidre and Marine collieries and the 500 jobs elsewhere that are under review? Why has the Carway Fawr project been halted, after £34 million worth of investment? If the reason is geological, that is incompetence of the highest order, but if it is because of the prospect of privatisation, it is a scandal.
    Finally, since the coalfield and the valleys are synonymous, may I warn the Secretary of State about making statements tomorrow to his cronies in the Confederation of British Industry about the valleys initiative? He should come to this House to make a statement. What has he to hide? Is he engaged in a desperate election ruse?
    Mr. Walker: I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman's neurosis. I shall make sure that I send him a copy of my speech tomorrow, which will give detail after detail of what is actually taking place in the valleys. When the hon. Gentleman has seen all the details, he should compare them with what went on in the valleys when he was a Minister. I should be delighted to see the comparison.

    Tourism (Grants)
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of applicants for section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the number approved and the value awarded, for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall circulate the information in the Official Report and I shall also place a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that hoteliers and those who so successfully manage tourist attractions in Wales will not suffer the problems that beset their colleagues in England because of the Secretary of State for Employment who has suspended section 4 assistance? Will he confirm that section 4 is of great value to the Principality?
    Mr. Roberts: I can certainly confirm that there has been a considerable increase in the number of applications for section 4 assistance from 1980–81, when there were 160 applications, to the current year's forecast of 224 applications. Of course, the number of applications approved has increased over the years, as has the assistance offered. I can also confirm that the section 4 scheme is not being suspended in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made his statement on 31 January suspending, as I understand it, further applications for section 4 assistance in England.
    Following is the information.

    Development of Tourism Act 1969 Section 4 assistance

    Number of applications

    Number approved

    Assistance offered £ million

    1980–81 outturn

    160

    43

    1·6

    1981–82 outturn

    190

    113

    2·2

    1982–83 outturn

    158

    55

    1·6

    1983–84 outturn

    171

    56

    1·9

    1984–85 outturn

    224

    87

    2·2

    1985–86 outturn

    239

    162

    3·5

    1986–87 outturn

    207

    145

    3·5

    1987–88 outturn

    168

    119

    2·5

    1988–89 forecast

    224

    150

    3·4

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what percentage unemployment has fallen in Wales since June 1987.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Between June 1987 and January 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in Wales by 40,900, from 12·6 to 9·2 per cent., a decrease of over 27 per cent.
    Mr. Butler: How does that fall compare with the fall in England? What contribution has the increase in self-employment made?
    Mr. Walker: I believe that I am correct in saying that, in terms of a percentage fall in unemployment, the north-west of England, the west midlands and Wales have been the three best regions of the United Kingdom. There has been a substantial increase in self-employment during that period. I will send my hon. Friend the full details.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: With Welsh coalfields in a near terminal condition, with massive redundancies in the steel industry, including a major closure, is this the time for the Government to come forward with proposals to double the toll on the Severn bridge, our main access point? Why does the Secretary of State not plead with the Chancellor to get rid of that additional tax on the people of Wales?
    Mr. Walker: As I have pointed out many times to the hon. Gentleman, the toll on the Severn bridge was imposed during the period of a Labour Government. The toll on the Severn bridge was kept throughout the terms of all

    695
    Labour Governments. Unlike the Labour Government, we will swiftly deliver a second bridge. When I read the headlines of the hon. Gentleman's local paper, I found that there is deep concern because there are not enough sites for industrial development. With the enormous demand that is taking place in Newport, the hon. Gentleman is benefiting more than most from the change in the Welsh economy.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Do movements in the unemployment figures result from differences between jobs lost and jobs gained? Is it not a fact that most of the jobs lost have been in industries belonging to the last century and that most of the jobs gained are in industries with a bright future?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In the period that I mentioned, there have been substantial further job losses in the coal industry and some further job losses in the steel industry. The diversity of the Welsh economy will be one of the greatest benefits to Wales in the years that lie ahead.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Welsh Development Agency has identified the television and film industry as one of the growth sectors to develop more jobs in Gwynedd? In those circumatances, is he aware that his personal veto this morning on the urban plan to provide the shell of a building for a new studio to develop the industry in Caernarfon is seen as sabotage of prospects for that sector? Is he aware that that is contrary to indications given by his civil servants, not only to the company but to the county council and to the Welsh Development Agency? As a result of his veto, the company stands to lose £50,000 to £60,000. Is that his contribution to the economy of the area?
    Mr. Walker: I deplore the hon. Gentleman's emotional words. If he has evidence that any official in the Welsh Office in any way said to anybody that this grant would be made, he had better provide it. Whoever did so will certainly be seen by me. He has made an allegtion, and I expect him to substantiate it.
    Several people—some of them will known to the hon. Gentleman—have made strong representations to me. If there were any priority in that area, it should be urban aid for Holyhead. I am glad to say that I provide that. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps speak to some of his own colleagues who gave me that advice.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major ways in which unemployment has been reduced in Wales is through the Government's regional policy of relocating Civil Service and other Government agency jobs to the regions and Wales? Does he find it surprising that some Opposition Members are opposed to relocation?
    Mr. Walker: Relocation has had one remarkable effect on Wales. We now have in the Principality the head office of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Patent Office. The Companies Registration Office is also in Wales. When I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry most of those Departments were in London. 1 am glad to say that they are now in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Instead of making pussy-footing radio statements on the 1,000 steel job losses, why did the Secretary of State not fight for them? There are now 3,000 steel and coal job losses ahead. On his first real challenge
    696
    since his appointment, the Secretary of State has run away. The right hon. Gentleman is all talk and no fight. Does he not realise the bitterness of the steelworkers, who were in no way consulted? Before Christmas they were offered shares; now they are offered the dole. The right hon. Gentleman has funked his responsibilities. Where is the meat?
    Mr. Walker: During the period of this enormous fall in unemployment, there has been an enormous surge of inward investment and great diversification of the economy. The only role of the Labour party is to stir up any bad news that it can get hold of to give a bad image of Wales. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Welsh Office—[Interruption.]—10 years ago when major steel closures were announced. I am delighted that the Welsh steel industry is now modern and has a high level of investment. Will the hon. Gentleman pledge himself to renationalise the steel industry?
    Hon. Members: Answer.

    Environmental Research
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to stimulate and encourage research into environmental matters in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Welsh Office has commissioned a number of research projects into environmental matters related to my right hon. Friend's responsibilities in Wales, and with permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall circulate a list in the Official Report and place a copy in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister also circulate a list of those items that are being deleted and undermined by him and his right hon. Friend? When the Minister considers the proposed closure of research vessel support services at Barry, the destruction of the environmental research centre at Bangor, the threat to the environment from the Water Bill and the failure of Government Ministers to obtain a separate water authority for Wales, does he agree that the Secretary of State is presiding over the destruction of environmental research in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman took a little too long in preparing that question. I have read his speech in this House, in which he made most of those points, and some of his contributions in the Water Bill Committee, in which he made other points which have been well answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The research vessel services from Barry are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that the move has been made for the best scientific reasons.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister is right to say that the Department of Education and Science is formally and departmentally responsible. But, in pursuit of joint oversight responsibilities for these facilities in Wales, did the Secretary of State for Wales plead with that Department on the ground of regional policy alone—as is pointed out in the early-day motion of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), who is sadly absent today—that it makes no sense to move hi-tech jobs in

    697
    Government research and development from an area such as south Wales to an overheated area in the south-east of England?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman, too, is repeating what he said in the debate. This is a decision by the Natural Environment Research Council and it is for the best scientific reasons. There is no other similar institute which has its vessel separate from its main body. Southampton university will be a world-wide centre of excellence for oceanographic research.
    Following is the list:

    Environmental research projects commissioned by Welsh Office as at February 1989

    Project

    Researcher(s)

    Environmental Remote Sensing

    University College Cardiff

    Conwy Estuary Invertebrate Study

    University College of North Wales

    Evaluation of the Performance of pre-treatment facilities on marine discharges

    Welsh Water Authority

    Baseline Study of Acid Rain in Welsh Lakes

    University of Bradford

    Effect of Storm Water overflows on river water/biota quality

    Welsh Water Authority

    Investigation of the changes in Water quality and quantity arising from upland drainage of afforested areas

    Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

    Hydrological impact of small-scale broad-leaved forestry on lowland sites

    Institute of Hydrology

    The movement of sediments in Swansea Bay

    University of Southampton

    Ecological modelling of the impact of atmospheric pollution afforestation, soil type and land use

    University College Cardiff

    Organic compounds in Welsh Soils

    University of Lancaster

    Survey of contaminated land in Wales

    University of Liverpool

    Body Burden and exposure to heavy metals

    Singleton Hospital, Swansea

    Tree and Shrub seeding experiments

    University of Liverpool

    Survey of analytical capability for radioactivity in Wales

    University College Cardiff

    Development of a national system for monitoring wastes arising in Wales

    Aspinwall and Company

    Minimisation of waste movement

    M. J. Carter Associates

    Effects of ozone and other gaseous pollutants on Welsh vegetation

    Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

    Morbidity and heavy metal content of Welsh soil

    University College Cardiff

    Whole Body Monitoring for Chernobyl radiation

    Singleton Hospital, Swansea

    Radon Survey in Wales

    National Radiological Protection Board

    Assessment of Reclamation Methods for Contaminated Sites in Wales

    Richards Moorehead and Laing, Ruthin

    Effectiveness of coastal defence structures in Wales

    Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd

    Monitoring of East Pentwyn and Bournville landslips

    Gwent County Council

    Site specific monitoring of landslips using BRE methods

    Polytechnic of Wales, Pontrypridd, and Building Research Establishment

    Site-specific monitoring of landslips using microseismic/acoustic emission techniques

    Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd

    Durability and performance of 'fixtone' in coast protection structures

    Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd

    Project

    Researcher(s)

    Coastal process monitoring, Carmarthen Bay

    University College of Swansea

    Wales Terrestrial Rural Data Base

    University College Cardiff

    Welsh Landscape Study: the use of Remote Sensing to classify landscape

    University of Nottingham, Wye College, University of London

    Deeside Thematic Geological Mapping

    British Geological Survey

    Wrexham Thematic Geological Mapping

    British Geological Survey

    Assessment of sand and gravel resources in the Lleyn Peninsula, Gwynedd

    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool

    Welsh Highways Landscape Study

    MWT Landscapes, Avon

    Study of Exposed Highway Rock and Scree Slopes

    Richards, Moorehead Laing Ltd.

    A55 Ecological Study

    D. Lovejoy and Partners

    Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company; and what matters they discussed.
    Mr. Grist: I have had no recent meeting with representatives of the company.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company will not be offered the protection under the Water Bill that is available to the Welsh water authority? Will he confirm, therefore, that it will be open to hostile and foreign bids and that such a bid could provide a foothold in the Welsh water industry for further takeovers? If protection is good for the Welsh water authority, why is it not good for the Wrexham water company?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to the first part of his question. As the company is worth less than £30 million, it does not come under the same rules as the water authority when privatised. But we have nothing against foreign investment in British companies, and I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman should take that line. I expect that he appreciates that about 30 per cent. of water in the United States is owned by French companies, and I have not heard the Americans yelling.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister talk to the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company? Is he aware that only last week there was another incident of water pollution where a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, was tipped into the river and only fortuitously the company's intakes were closed at the time? There is a general lack of belief in Wrexham that the Welsh Office intends to clean up the River Dee. When will the Welsh Office, and its agent the Welsh water authority, prosecute those people successfully and give the public the confidence that their water is clean and fit to drink?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman had better prove that it is not clean and fit to drink. I have no proof of that. The responsibility for the serious incident to which he referred was shared among several water authorities. I believe that further steps are being taken.

    Poverty
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for dealing with acute poverty and deprivation in the Cynon Valley and other districts with a high percentage of low-income households.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is difficult to answer such a question in the short time available for a parliamentary answer. As this Government are carrying out massive programmes of expenditure in the Cynon Valley in education, health, housing improvements, factory building, derelict land clearance, urban aid, regional grants and training, I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the details in the Official Report and place a copy in the Library.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Secretary of State's statement today show an increase of 67 per cent. in the money that will be spent in the valleys of south Wales? That represents £7 million, which is made up of £1 million for inflation and £2·6 million for the garden festival, leaving only £3 million for all the valleys of south Wales. Is it not yet another of the Secretary of State's hot air balloons? How will it help the people of Cynon Valley—the poorest district in Wales, the district with most of the problems that have been identified in the surveys conducted for HTV by the Cardiff business school, and the area where 60 per cent. of households have incomes of £4,000 a year or less? Has the Secretary of State read the last sentence of the Cardiff business school report, which states:
    "If, as we are led to believe, Wales is drawing on a new era, nobody has informed Mountain Ash about it."?
    Mr. Walker: Although I had intended to publish my detailed answer in the Official Report, in view of the hon. Lady's long supplementary question, I shall place my answer on the record now. Since January 1986, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 27 per cent. Since 1984 regional industrial support has been provided towards capital investment of £79 million, with associated forecasts of about 3,900 jobs. More than £11·5 million has been spent on a broad range of training measures. The Welsh Development Agency has provided more than 500,000 sq ft of new factory floor space. Land reclamation covering 600 acres and costing about £6 million has been completed. Economic regeneration in the area has been supported through the allocation of more than £5 million of urban programme resources. More than 6,000 houses in the constituency have been improved.
    All those things cost tens of millions of pounds. The hon. Lady's old trick of quoting one item as an example for all the valleys has not come off this time. I hope that everyone will read the full reply.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very ambitious urban aid programme that was announced today will be warmly welcomed and that there will be special pleasure that Clwyd has not suffered at the hands of south Wales, although we should have liked to see more projects? Is he aware that there will be general satisfaction with the help that he has given to St. Asaph business park, which is one of the best developments to have emerged in Rhuddlan for a long time?
    Mr. Walker: The urban aid programme to the Principality is of particular help to north Wales. Although
    700
    the biggest concentration of help is in the valleys, in total the programme will do much good, create many jobs and improve the environment throughout Wales. Our record compares unbelievably well with that of the previous Government who were responsible for such matters.
    Mr. Murphy: Does not the so-called initiative for our valleys involve more fantasy than reality? What our valleys want are better schools, better hospitals and better housing. Does the Secretary of State not accept that our valley councils have lost more in rate support grant over the past 10 years than he has given them in new money in the latest package? Does he not also accept that much of his programme was going to come about in any event, that he has deliberately delayed the urban programme announcement, that six of our valleys are still not designated areas under the Act and that a proper revitalisation of the valleys would require massive and genuinely new investment spread over at least eight years, not advertising hype spread over three?
    Mr. Walker: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for making such a speech just before a by-election, but I am glad to tell him that tomorrow I shall go through every detail of the valleys programme and I look forward to the Labour party publishing beside each item what the Labour Government achieved in their last five years. I look forward to reading that comparison. I can only say that in dealing with derelict land, providing new jobs and building factories we dwarf anything that the Labour party ever contemplated.
    Following are the details:
    Since January 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Aberdare travel to work area has fallen by 27 per cent. Since 1984 regional industrial support has been provided towards capital investment of £79 million with associated forecast of some 3,900 new and 900 safeguarded jobs. Over £11·5 million has been spent on a broad range of training measures, including YTS and wider opportunities for women.
    The Welsh Development Agency has provided over 500,000 sq ft of new factory floor space since 1979 and within its current programme the agency is planning to build a further 16 units. Land reclamation covering 600 acres and costing some £6 million has been completed or is under way or planned.
    Economic regeneration in the area has also been supported through the allocation of over £5 million of urban programme resource since 1979 towards schemes submitted by Cynon Valley borough council. In addition this morning I have announced more than a further £1 million for 1989–90.
    The Government have made a substantial investment towards the cost of improving the A4059 at Aberdare and Abercynon. Furthermore, the Welsh Office has supported the county council's proposal which led to the reopening in September 1988 of the passenger rail link to Aberdare.
    On housing since 1979, work on over 6,000 grant improvement projects, costing £19 million, has been completed in addition to enveloping schemes on 450 dwellings at a cost of £3·3 million. Schemes are in hand to improve an additional 500 homes at a cost of £4·5 million.
    In the last five years, £9 million has been spent on improving school buildings in the area, and an allocation of £800,000 has recently been made towards the cost of providing a 40-bed unit for the elderly at Aberdare general hospital.

    Barrage Schemes
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to make any proposals to alleviate the impact on the ports of south Wales of proposed barrage schemes.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am not aware of any direct adverse effects on port activities in south Wales arising from current barrage proposals.
    Mr. Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a clear distinction between the proposed Severn barrage, which could severely affect all ports and port-related industries in and around the area, and other barrages such as the Cardiff bay barrage, which will have no such effect?
    Mr. Walker: There have been full consultations with the port authorities about the Cardiff bay barrage, which is the one for which I have responsibility, and I do not believe that it will have an adverse effect. As for the Severn barrage, the proposal will need to be examined thoroughly before any conclusions are reached. Clearly, however, the port interests will have to be considered carefully before any such proposal is made.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Cardif business school has reported on the barrage and on the valleys of south Wales? Will he tell us why he refused to give an interview on the television programme referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? Is it true that, while refusing to be interrogated by the House and on television, he is carrying out government by press conference, as he is holding one tomorrow? Is it true that he is beginning to unravel? Is Peter the piffle artist becoming Peter the pimpernel, who is never around when there is bad news about?
    Mr. Walker: As for that last phrase, the hon. Gentleman obtained coverage in this morning's papers, and I am surprised that he has repeated it for tomorrow's.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I launched the valleys initiative I challenged the Labour party to choose it as a subject for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The then Opposition spokesman said that that would quickly be done, but I am still waiting for Labour Members to choose the subject for debate in the Select Committee. Perhaps they would like to choose it for the next one.
    As for the television programme, I was asked to appear 36 hours in advance, having been sent the large number of documents. I said that I would be happy to appear on any television programme about the valleys initiative at any time.

    Health Service
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the Health Service in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: Record numbers of doctors and nurses are treating record numbers of patients. The increase in resources that we propose for the Health Service in 1989 will enable the NHS to extend its remarkable record of achievement.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the people of mid-Wales are succeeding in their concerted effort to raise £500,000 to install a scanner at Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth. I am sure that he is also aware of the view of the majority of those people that the Government should re-establish the Mid-Wales health
    702
    authority. Will he give an assurance that he will consider the matter, and also tell us the latest developments on the building of the second phase of the hospital?
    Mr. Grist: There are no proposals at present for the re-establishment of the Mid-Wales health authority. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman raise the subject of the scanner proposal, and I wish it the best of success.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: If any new hospitals are built in Wales, such as the East Glamorgan hospital, will the funding for those hospitals, in terms of capital costs, be entirely met by the Welsh Office or, as a result of last week's disclosure in Construction News, are we to take it that Treasury guidelines to introduce private sector money into such building will mean that the commitment from the Welsh Office will be less?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should know that we are still awaiting the proposals of the Mid-Glamorgan health authority for the funding of that new hospital. When we see those proposals we shall arrive at a judgment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention to cut the necessary construction of new hospitals, such as that to replace East Glamorgan hospital.

    NHS Review
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the National Health Service review as it affects Wales
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's National Health Service review, "Working for Patients", as it caters for the distinctive health care needs and circumstances in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The conclusions of my review of the National Health Service in Wales are included in the White Paper "Working for Patients", Cm. 555. I am confident that by increasing the responsibility and accountability of those working in the service, by increasing patient choice, and by ensuring appropriate rewards for those who deliver results, my proposals will lead to even better patient care for the people of Wales.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is great concern in rural Wales that the opt-out proposals in the review are totally unsuitable to that area and that the general practitioner services mentioned in the review are not properly structured to deliver the sort of services that should be provided in mid-Wales?
    Will the nurses' pay review in Wales be fully funded by the Government?
    Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman expressing his concern about the opting-out of hospitals in rural Wales, having looked at some of the press comments on the proposals. When the hon. Gentleman sees the working papers he will discover that no hospital will be able to ask for trust status unless it agrees to carry out the whole range of services that must be undertaken in that area. Thereafter, it will be the responsibility of the Welsh Office to monitor those hospitals to ensure that they carry out all those services. I promise the hon. Gentleman that no trust hospitals will be created without those hospitals

    703
    first agreeing to the totality of their obligations and without their being monitored thereafter to see that they fulfil those obligations.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GP practices throughout Wales differ from one locality to another and that the considerations for the rural areas are wholly different.
    Announcements will be made about the nurses' pay award, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that public and Government expenditure will be considerably increased throughout the Principality as a result of that award.
    Mr. Raffan: As the review referred to a much higher incidence of heart disease, strokes and most forms of cancer in Wales compared to the rest of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Health Promotion Authority for Wales will have a much higher profile than it has had and a budget to match? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the authority's detailed proposals will be published before the summer, and will those proposals include advertising campaigns on tobacco and alcohol abuse, which account for more than 100,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Walker: I share my hon. Friend's concern and that is why in the Welsh section of the White Paper I strongly stressed the importance of health promotion and the preventive side of health in Wales, which have an enormous contribution to make. At the moment I am examining a large number of detailed proposals that have been put to me. We have a meeting within the next couple of weeks to discuss those proposals and I assure my hon. Friend that we will publish the details as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Michael: In the light of the White Paper, what importance should the public in Wales now place on the 10-year plans being prepared by health authorities and considered by his Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman exempt Wales from the opting-out schemes, which could make those plans meaningless?
    Mr. Walker: No. The hon. Gentleman must give more careful thought to the detail of what he describes as the "opting-out schemes". Those schemes do not represent opting out, as hospitals will remain within the National Health Service. By opting out one decides to delegate some of the managerial decisions to a lower level. If that can be done with improved efficiency with the whole range of services continuing to be carried out, there is no reason why the Secretary of State for Wales should not give approval to such a scheme. Thereafter, however, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office will have the duty to monitor such a scheme. Such schemes should be judged on their merits and improved efficiency and they should mean that, in total, the hospitals still carry out all the functions required in the district.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest percentage unemployed for (a) Wales and (b) each of the five employment areas with the highest level of unemployment in Wales at that date.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 12 January 1989 the seasonally adjusted unemployed rate in Wales was 9·2 per cent. The unadjusted rates for the five travel-to-work areas with the
    704
    highest unemployment on 12 January 1989 were Pwllheli, 19·1 per cent.; Cardigan, 18·9 per cent.; south Pembrokeshire, 18·8 per cent.; Aberdare, 18·4 per cent.; and Holyhead, 18·3 per cent. I am pleased to say that unemployment in all these areas has fallen dramatically in the last 12 months—by 21 per cent. in Pwllheli; by 22 per cent. in Cardigan; by 25 per cent. in south Pembrokeshire; by 13 per cent. in Aberdare and by 16 per cent. in Holyhead.
    Mr. Wigley: Do not these figures of between 18 and 20 per cent. in unemployment black spots, when compared to the levels of 2 and 3 per cent. in Hertfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, give the lie to the public relations exercise that the Secretary of State is undertaking which says that the economy of Wales is coming right? Will he now reconsider his advice that local initiative will solve all these problems, given that he has undermined local initiative in the example quoted earlier about people who have been willing to put up £1·7 million of locally raised money for a project which was undermined by the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is emotionally carried away by this decision. I think that he should explain—
    Mr. Wigley: It matters.
    Mr. Walker: I think that he should explain that virtually all the money for that project was to be public expenditure. The local authority and central Government were asked to provide it all.
    I mentioned the reduction in unemployment that has taken place in Holyhead, and, while the decrease has riot been as good there as in some other areas, the announcements that I made this morning gave a priority to Holyhead. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to Holyhead and explains that in his view the priority should have been given to the television studios and not to Holyhead.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Publications
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what publications the Church Commissioners plan during 1989.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): During 1989 the Church Commissioners will be producing a range of publications including their report and accounts for 1988, the 17th report of the central stipends authority, a series of leaflets describing the work of the Church Commissioners, and a brochure on commended entries for the parsonage design award competition.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country yearns for a moral lead? Would the Church Commissioners consider using their publication budget to meet that moral need, especially as certain Church leaders are failing to give it?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will have noted the debate in the House last Monday on the initiative by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller). On the

    705
    question of a moral lead by the bishops and others, the overriding Christian message is not so much moral exhortation as justification by faith from moral failure. There can never be a surfeit of the propagation of that fundamental message of grace. My hon. Friend's message to the bishops will certainly be noted.
    Mr. Frank Field: Following the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that last week's meeting of the ecclesiastical committee and the legislative committee might point to a useful moral lead to be given by the commissioners? We heard that some bishops had sent on training courses in preparation for ordination people who could not be ordained because they had been divorced and were remarried. Would not a moral lead to be to make sure that those people are paid while we come to a conclusion with the legislative committee about whether that piece of legislation was expedient?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and pertinent point. A more definitive response to him must await the time which will probably arrive when the clergy ordination Measure is taken on the Floor of the House. Then we shall all have an opportunity to raise such issues at length.

    General Synod,
    Mr. Gow: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when he next intends to be present at a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England.
    Mr. Alison: I intend to be present at the next meeting of the General Synod which is scheduled for July of this year.
    Mr. Gow: While recognising the undoubted right of all members of the General Synod to deeply held views for or against the policies of the present Government, would it be helpful if my right hon. Friend were to point out to the General Synod that its reputation would be enhanced if its members, when in Synod, devoted more time to matters spiritual than to matter political?
    Mr. Alison: I certainly note what my hon. Friend says. He will know that there is a temptation in that lesser assembly to emulate the topics and methods of procedure of the greater assembly of which he and I are members. He will also know that the General Synod is a creature of Parliament and that it is fully in his hands, as a private Member, to introduce a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England if he so wishes.
    Mr. Winnick: When the right hon. Gentleman attends the Synod, or well before then, will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his excellent statement today, which, while expressing concern—which I share—for any offence caused to the followers of the Islam religion, strongly protests against the sentence of death passed by religious leaders in Iran? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that action is totally unacceptable to British people, including Moslems, who disapprove strongly of what has been said?
    Mr. Alison: I take note and respond positively and warmly to what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly about the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement. There could hardly be a more fundamental demonstration of the
    706
    difference between the Christian religion and Islam than the response of the Christian deity to those appalling and unthinkable attacks, which is the foundation of forgiveness in the Christian religion.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Computer Services
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff are employed by the commission on computer services.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Computer Officer, who has responsibility to both Houses for computer developments planned for Parliament as a whole, has a staff of two assistant computer officers, one of whom is on secondment to the House, and one full-time and one part-time secretary. In addition, there are 140 computer terminals throughout the Departments of the House which are available to a wide range of staff users.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the time of those operators for the installation of a fax machine which could be used collectively by right hon. and hon. Members rather than duplicating many times a facility that could be provided and serviced by one additional member of staff, or even by current members of staff?
    Mr. Beith: That proposal has been considered by the Services Committee. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee gave detailed consideration to the possibility of providing further centralised facilities in addition to those provided by the Post Office in the Central Lobby, for which a charge is levied. But the sub-committee concluded that the practical difficulties outweighted the advantages of a centralised service. As the hon. Gentleman said, several right hon. and hon. Members have purchased their own fax machines, the cost of which is reimbursable from the office costs allowances, and sufficient lines are available for all who wish to do so.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Fire and Vandalism
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many churches within the commissioners' care were damaged by fire or by vandalism in the past year; what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commission, representing the Church Commissioners): The limited information I have does not extend to most of those churches which are the responsibility of the incumbent and parochial church council, and the commissioners do not have information about fire and vandalism affecting them.
    Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures showing that at least one third of our churches and cathedrals have been vandalised by fire or in other ways in the past year? Does he share my worry about that and

    707
    about the fact that so many churches have to be locked as a result? Will he note that it is rare for a mosque to be locked and that people of the Islamic faith remain in their mosques to ensure that they are not vandalised. Will he encourage members of the Church of England to show the same fervour in their own churches and to keep them open by watching them and looking after them?
    Mr. AlisonBetween 1977 and 1982, a total of 56 per cent. of churches suffered theft, and the figures are higher in inner city areas. I take note of what my hon. Friend says: it is a great pity if any parish church has to be locked at a time when members of the public may wish to enter it. A conceivable solution to the problem might be to redraft the guardian angels when they are made redundant from Underground trains and deploy them in parish churches. The Church Commissioners would willingly supply them with wings.

  WALES

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from industries in Wales about the current economic situation.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have frequent discussions with industrialists, which confirm an expectation of rising investment.
    Mr. Jones: Although investment may be rising, surely the industrialists also made representations about the rise in interest rates and the cost of borrowing? I have certainly received representations from the farming industry in my constituency, whose members are worried about their income levels. One reason why they have low incomes is the rise in interest rates and the cost of borrowing.
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that rising interest rates present problems, particularly for the farming community, which has to borrow heavily. Inflation also brings problems and must be tackled.
    In industry—as opposed to merely the farming industry—the range of facilities offered by the Welsh Development Agency, provided by way of regional selective assistance, makes Wales an attractive place in which to invest. That is why an all-time record for inward investment into Wales was achieved in 1988.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Peers Gallery
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will estimate the average number of peers who use Peers' Gallery seats on each day of the week; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is not possible to provide the information that my hon. Friend requests, as attendance by peers in their Gallery depends largely on the business of the House.
    Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have noticed that the Peers Gallery is almost invariably empty, even during
    708
    Prime Minister's Question Time. Will my right hon. Friend and those responsible soften their hearts and open those seats, formally reserved for peers, to members of the public, hundreds of whom are disappointed every day in their attempts to enter the House? Perhaps peers could be invited into the Special Galleries of the House which are also almost invariably empty?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's specific proposal is a matter for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. On sitting days from Monday to Thursday, two rows, each of 12 seats, remain available for peers from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pin. If the 12 seats in the second row are not occupied by peers at 5.30 pm, they can be used by Members' guests. My hon. Friend should also remember that equally generous arrangements are made for Members of the House of Commons in the House of Lords.

    Food Programmes
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much money has been allocated to introduce healthy and nutritious food programmes covering the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Refreshment Department retains the services of a qualified nutritional adviser on an ad hoc basis, whose fees are paid from the trading account. It is the continuing policy of the Department always to maintain and, where possible, to improve the nutritional content of food served in the. House. However, no money has been allocated specifically for this purpose.
    Ms. Walley: I thank the Lord President for that answer. Now that the Commission has turned down the unanimous decision of the Catering Sub-Committee to invite the London food commission to give advice on how healthy and nutritious the food in the Members' arid Strangers' Cafeterias is, what will the Leader of the House do to improve the situation? Does he not realise that many Members on both sides of the House and many staff who work here have to eat morning, noon and night in those cafeterias, and that there is a desperate need to take on the services of people who are qualified and at the forefront of their field in this subject?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the hon. Lady's views are fully shared by all hon. Members or, indeed, by all members of the Sub-Committee. It is not the Commission's policy to disclose the reasons for its decisions, and I can only assume that the Commission prefer the Refreshment Department's current practices, which were designed to promote healthy and nutritious food in the House.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London food commission is not a body of recognised dietary experts but a Left-wing organisation?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's analysis is correct. As I understand it, the London food commission is a consumerist pressure group staffed by academics and investigative journalists. It has no expertise in advising on dietary matters. In addition, its future is uncertain, as the original funding from the GLC is known to be running short. As far as I know, the commission has not found any other source of funding so far.
    Mr. Dobson: Setting aside the Lord President's snide references to the London food commission, which has done a considerable amount of good work, I ask him whether, instead of being so complacent, he would be prepared to undertake a thoughtful and organised survey of the views of hon. Members and of the other people who have to use the cafeterias in this place—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are jolly good.
    Mr. Dobson: Some Conservative Members may think so, but many people think they are flaming lousy.
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not think my remarks were particularly snide; I thought they were straightforward and factual. If there were a need for a review or anything of that sort the initiative would have to come first from the Catering Sub-Committee.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I inform my right hon. Friend Friend that I lunch in the cafeteria every day? I have the sense to choose nutritious, healthy food, and I am lasting pretty well.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes her point effectively.

    Order Paper
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to make the Order Paper more user-friendly.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I am not aware of any significant demand for changes in the form of the Order Paper.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Lord President accept that the Order Paper is our daily agenda? If he looks at today's agenda, he will see that it is almost one inch thick. That must represent a tremendous waste of time and paper every day. Will he ensure that parliamentary questions are listed by Department, and consider any other reforms that hon. Members suggest, rather than destroying a vast amount of Amazonian forest each day?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Order Paper is designed primarily for the use of right hon. and hon. Members, and I am sure that many of us who have become familiar with its style and format would—contrary to the hon. Gentleman's belief—find the changes that he proposes considerably less convenient. The matter has been considered by the Services Committee; the Order Paper is designed to be of greatest use to the House.
    If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions, I advise him to bring them to the attention of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

    European Documents
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that European documents are considered by the House of Commons before a common position has been arrived at by the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: In their response to the second special report from the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, Session 1985–86, the Government
    710
    reaffirmed that they would endeavour to bring forward documents for debate at the earliest appropriate opportunity. That continues to be our objective. In the case of Community legislation subject to the co-operation procedure, it is the Government's aim that parliamentary scrutiny should be completed before a common position is agreed by the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Taylor: As many of the laws that used to be made in the House of Commons are now made by the Council of Ministers, and as we can discuss its decisions for only one and a half hours after 10 o'clock at night, does the Lord President agree that this makes nonsense of democracy and deprives the public of the knowledge of what is going on? Does he also agree that it is an insult to all that Parliament stands for if the House sits from 10 pm to 11.30 pm to discuss matters that have already been decided in Brussels?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree that the way in which the House has dealt with European matters in recent months has left something to be desired, and I am taking steps to try to improve it. However, I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention that some of these matters must be discussed after 10 pm, but I am afraid that they will continue to have to be so. My discussions show that it might be possible substantially to improve the way in which our debates are held.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that those who are concerned about this matter are grateful to him for referring to the Select Committee's report of two years ago and that we look forward to the Government implementing the intention that they stated at that time? Does he agree that it is becoming a matter of considerable importance that a common position is reached? A common position is, in effect, the last and combined word—perhaps on a majority vote—of the Council of Ministers, prior to possible amendment by the European Parliament at Strasbourg. Although debates may have to take place after 10 pm, the Leader of the House might care to bear in mind that debates at earlier times on major matters would be more appropriate.
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows the pressures that we are under and that I am trying to do my best to improve some of the apparent weaknesses.
    Mr. Dykes: Does not the Lord President of the Council agree that all parts of the House are anxious to get this right, including those who are keen on our membership of the European Community? Does he agree that Jacques Delors' famous 80 per cent. utterance was taken out of context, and that he was advocating greater involvement by the national parliaments? I appreciate the difficulties that my right hon. Friend faces and I am not criticising him, but would it not be a good idea to consider a combination of more all-day European Supply days such as the one next Thursday, longer debates—late at night, if necessary—the sending of more business upstairs to Committee whenever a particular document makes that relevant and also, once a month, having a longer Friday afternoon session so that European enthusiasts, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), myself and others can take part?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that most of his suggestions will form part of the solution , though I think that the House would he reluctant to depart from the view that it should rise at 2.30 on Fridays. However, his other suggestions are more helpful.
    Mr. Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Welsh questions and the Secretary of State for Wales' answer to the question that he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Secretary of State?"] I see that the bird has flown. He said that there would he no time for a statement on the valleys initiative during Question Time and that he would place a copy of his speech in the Commons Library. Has he asked you for permission to make a statement to the House on the initiative or has he, as he did last week when he refused to make a statement to the House on the Welsh business rate, copped out once again? Is it right that the Secretary of State should hide behind English Tory Members of Parliament, who consistently seem to have their names at the front of the Order Paper when there are Welsh questions, thus denying Welsh Members the right to put their point of view on behalf of their constituents?
    Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of a statement. Certainly one was not offered today. It may be offered tomorrow, but I do not know.
    Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not totally unacceptable that when only 13 questions were answered on Welsh matters, four of them should have been asked by hon. Members with English constituencies and that most of the questions were answered by a Member representing an English constituency? We have only one chance a month to cover a whole range of problems that are relevant to the people of Wales. When will you be in a position to defend the interests of Welsh Members in this Chamber?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to know, and I ought not to have to keep repeating it, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. He reserves the right to take part in discussions on other matters. The only Member who was present in the Chamber today who sought to catch my eye and was not called—and I deeply regret it —was the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was called twice, so I do not think that he has any cause for complaint.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I should very much welcome any extension of Welsh Question Time, because that would be such an advantage to the Government side of the House. Secondly, I shall be making a speech tomorrow in Wales in which I shall review in detail the massive progress that has been made under the valleys initiative, and I hope that every hon. Member and everybody in Wales will read it.
    Mr. Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not called at Question Time, nor did I stand to ask a question. However, as a matter of principle it annoys hon. Members to think that Welsh Members should adopt such an attitude, because millions of pounds of English taxpayers' money are directed towards Wales. We have given Wales one of the best Secretaries of State
    712
    in the Cabinet. It ill behoves Welsh Members to suggest that this is an English Parliament. We are entitled to look at how our money is being spent in Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a very serious point involved here. You have always said that you think it important that this House should be given information first. You will remember that on the occasion of the first valleys initiative statement we had to raise many points with you in order to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to come here 24 hours after he had made a statement in Wales. During Question Time today —and this involves your position, Mr. Speaker—the Secretary of State said that he could not deal adequately with the question on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) because there was not enough time in a parliamentary answer. Yet he then stood up and said that he would be making a statement in the valleys tomorrow.
    One might point out that this morning he issued to the press a 20-page document which he still has not come to the House to answer for. Is it not a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the time that would be available by way of a normal parliamentary answer, he could have opted—as any Minister, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, could—to take that question at the end of Question Time and then face proper intensive questions, or he could have made a statement?
    Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, who has been deposed from his position as shadow Secretary of State for Wales. The document that I issued this morning on urban aid has always been issued in that form by all Governments. Secondly, the speech that I shall be making tomorrow will give in great detail the marvellous progress made under the valleys initiative.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Not here.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman says "Not here". When he was shadow Secretary of State and I challenged him to have this debate in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, he said, "We soon will." The Labour party has never chosen it as a subject.
    Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more point of order, as the hon. Member was not called during Question Time.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales about the speech he is going to make, may I ask whether he can tell us if that speech will be included in the expenses of the Pontypridd by-election?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we can profitably continue Question Time.
    Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions you have said that it is your belief that any initiatives being announced by the Government by way of statement are best announced to the House. If the Secretary of State for Wales is indeed going to say anything new tomorrow, surely he should be saying it here. If his excuse is that he will not be saying anything new, I hope that the newspapers will note that he will just be churning out the same old stuff yet again. If he proposes to say something new, I hope that, as the guardian of the

    713
    interests of all parts of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, will make representations to try to make sure that he does it in the House rather than just making a speech or holding a press conference, even if it is in Wales.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall look carefully at the speech of the Secretary of State.

    BILL PRESENTED

      COMMON LAND (RECTIFICATION OF REGISTERS) BILL
      Mr. Tony Favell, supported by Mr. David Harris, presented a Bill to remove from registers of common land
      714
      and registers of town or village greens dwellinghouses registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965 which had been used as dwellinghouses for a minimum of twenty years immediately prior to the commencement of that Act; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Points of Order
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has always been said that the House is concerned with the rights of individuals and that any injustice, or possible injustice, to an individual is as much the concern of the House of Commons as is injustice to a large number of people. Is it not a fact that the very serious death threat that has been made against a British citizen—a death threat made by someone who is, in effect, the leader of a foreign country with which we have diplomatic relations—is of such importance that we should have a statement at the earliest opportunity?
There are two matters that I wish to raise with you, Mr.. Speaker. The first concerns the protection of the individual, which is a matter for the Home Secretary, and the second concerns the state of Anglo-Iranian relations. Many of us believe that diplomatic relations with Iran should be broken off. I hope that I am not in any way abusing the opportunity to raise a point of order with you, but will there be an opportunity for the House to question a Minister at the earliest opportunity? I hoped that we could do that today, but I trust that we shall certainly have an opportunity tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: That matter may well arise during Prime Minister's Question Time tomorrow.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and some other Members of Parliament are residents of Westminster. I am not sure whether you are a ratepayer in Westminster, but, as a resident of this building, you might well be one. It has been suggested that Westminster ratepayers can call for an extraordinary audit into the council's affairs. The council has spent £1 million paying off Mr. Brooke, the chief executive, to keep his mouth shut. 11 is possible within the law for ratepayers to call for an extraordinary audit.
I have the idea that, as you, Mr. Speaker, live here, we could have a round robin and you could head it. There are one or two Opposition Members who live up the road who would sign. I am not too sure that we would get too many Tories to sign. I am pretty sure that if we started things here, we could get an extraordinary audit and sort out this Lady Porter job.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member might start the round robin.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are on local government matters,
716
perhaps Derbyshire county council could be included in the extraordinary audit so that we might establish why Mr. Reg Race has lasted only nine months and the pay-off has not been announced to the public.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have been alerted, during the weekend, to the serious situation which has arisen again in Cleveland. It is a matter which Parliament has yet to debate. There has been a judicial inquiry into what happened, but many of ray constituents are being subjected, once again, to serious allegations, although they have been cleared in court. I wonder whether there is any way in which the Secretary of State for Health can be brought to the House to make a statement about child sex abuse in Cleveland. The Government clearly refuse to give us an opportunity to debate the matter, despite my asking for a debate on no fewer than a 12 occasions.
The Government were clearly unaware of the subterranean effort to bring the issue to the fore. It is no coincidence that there is a letter signed by 11 paediatricians, a letter from a psychologist and letters in the local press attacking the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and me, and that there is to be a seminar at Teesside polytechnic next weekend, at which the guest speaker is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I shall not be there.
Mr. Holt: The matter is serious. We ought to have a statement from the Government so that my constituents and those of my friend and colleague the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can have their minds put at rest.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Member has said has been carefully noted by members on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the reply that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but is it not possible to ask the Leader of the House, who is present, when we will have a statement about Mr. Rushdie and the ayatollah's decision? This is a matter of great importance to the British people. Can we have a Government statement at the earliest possible moment? As the Leader of the House is here, perhaps he can give us an idea of when a statement will be made.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Leader of the House has listened carefully and will have noted what has been said on this important matter.

Orders of the Day
  Transport (Scotland) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Transport (Scotland) Bill
    New Clause 4

      PENSION SCHEMES
      'The S.T.G. staff pension fund and the S.T.G. Transport Operatives Pension Scheme (T.O.P.S.) shall continue in operation, and it shall be a condition of sale that any new company operating any undertaking disposed of under section 1 above shall participate in them.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 17, in clause 12, page 6, line 32, at end insert
      'and shall ensure that employees' pension rights are in no way diminished by the operation of this Act.'
      Mr. Wilson: The new clause and amendment No. 17 deal with the pension rights of employees of the various sectors of the Scottish Bus Group under the present system and our concerns about how those rights will be affected by privatisation. New clause 4 simply asks that the Scottish Transport Group staff pension fund and the transport operatives pension scheme—TOPS—continue in operation and that it should be a condition of sale that any new company operating any undertaking disposed of under the Bill should participate in them. In other words, we are seeking to defend the rights of those who work within the Scottish Transport Group and to say that they and their rights cannot be sold off like so many cans of beans.
      At present, the vast majority of people who work for the Scottish Transport Group come within a pension scheme—TOPS. The latest TOPS report and accounts list the participating employers as all those who are to be sold off under the Bill. There are 10,473 members of TOPS, not only contributing members but pensioner and deferred pensioner members. There seems to be general agreement that the scheme is well run, well managed and extremely beneficial to those who have, in many cases, worked for the Scottish Transport Group for many years. The correspondence I have received on the subject shows that members of the pension scheme are appreciative of what they consider to be a good scheme which is advantageous to their interests.
      The scheme provides a pension on retirement linked to final pensionable pay near that time. As pay increases, pension expectation rises in line. For 40 years' membership, members receive a pension of two thirds pensionable pay near retirement.
      The STG pension schemes are good. They have been revised at regular intervals and have been improved with members being contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme with subsequent savings in national insurance compensation. The employees' contribution is 5 per cent. of pensionable salary and they are allowed to make additional voluntary contributions if they wish. The
      718
      employers pay the whole cost of the benefits for employees and their dependants. Those contributions are normally in excess of those paid by employees.
      From everything I have said, I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that it is a model pension scheme, which is what one would expect from the public sector. A person who has worked for 40 years for the Scottish Transport Group or one of its subsidiaries will receive a maximum pension of, as I have said, two thirds of pensionable salary. Therefore, someone who was earning £12,000 per annum would receive a pension of £8,000 per annum.
      There are many benefits other than the retirement pension. There is an early retirement pension, a late retirement pension, an ill-health retirement pension and, perhaps more important, an in-built provision for index linking so that it is not simply a straightforward sum each year. A lump sum on retirement is also possible.
      TOPS has been approved by the Inland Revenue superannuation fund under the Finance Act 1970. This is important because, from such approval, benefits stem to employees in tax relief on their contributions and their lump sums on retirement or death. The pension benefits are taxed, taking into account personal tax relief. Approval by the Inland Revenue also means that there may be limits on the contributions employees pay and on the amount of their benefits.
      On every score, it is a well established and well operated pension scheme and it is no wonder that there is immense concern among employees of the Scottish Bus Group about the implications for the scheme after privatisation. They have only to look south of the border at some of the experiences of their former workmates within public sector bus operations to see what the alternative propositions might be.
      It is tragic that any Government should, with such equanimity, be prepared to take away the rights of working people and the right to peace of mind for which they have paid over the years. One cannot do that in any sense of fairness or justice to those who have, without any political considerations, given their working lives to the Scottish Bus Group and its subsidiaries. There is contempt for those working people in the idea that pension rights can be swept aside together with their best interests and peace of mind. That is the proposition contained in the Bill. Make no mistake: nothing in the Bill will safeguard the interests of the employees of the Scottish Bus Group after it has been broken up and sold off, perhaps to the highest bidders.
      When the Minister replied in Committee to our amendments and proposed new clauses, he said—as he has tended to say throughout the passage of the Bill—that the Government can take to themselves the power to give certain safeguards. He pointed out that clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to make orders to protect pension rights with respect to subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group after privatisation. The Minister told us that clause 12 provided for the Secretary of State to take into account representations made by those who administer the pension scheme in question. He assured us that the preservation of a proper pension scheme would be a consideration taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining to whom the subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group were to be sold. On every count, the Minister's defence on pension rights is that it will be within the powers of the Government to safeguard the interests of workers.

      719
      I take exception to that and regard it as inadequate, for two fundamental reasons. First, experience does nothing to reassure us that the Government will use the powers they have taken to themselves to interfere with the untrammelled workings of the market place. Many Opposition Members have severe doubts about the likelihood of the Secretary of State making orders for the implementation of a pension scheme after privatisation if the scheme introduced by the new owner was unsatisfactory.
      Secondly, what will happen in the years after privatisation? As has been seen clearly from the English and Welsh experience, the initial sales of subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group may be only the beginning of a long and complicated saga. I have visited Southampton within the past few days to see what had become of one of the subsidiaries there—Hampshire Bus. What happened there was a classic example of asset stripping. A substantial part of Hampshire Bus—the operative side—was sold to another owner. As a result, many of the workers' previous pension rights have already disintegrated. I have not noticed the Secretary of State for Transport coming to the House with orders to reverse that process.
      If the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group are released into the private sector, with all the rhetoric about freedom and competition, one of the rights that will be established is the right of a buyer to sell on to a new owner. Whatever safeguards the Minister may tell us, to salve his conscience, are built into the legislation, the truth is that they will disappear immediately further sales take place. If the Minister can give us any example from the privatisation programme, in which the Government have been engaged since 1979, of a Secretary of State coming to the House in order to bring in check private owners who have subsequently done away with the right of the employees of former public companies, I should be extremely interested to hear about it. Such a precedent does not exist and will not be established under the relatively minor privatisation programme that we are discussing today. Unless safeguards of pension rights are written into the Bill now, it is extremely unlikely that those rights will be safeguarded subsequently.
      Mr. John McAllion: New clause 4 calls for the continuation of the Scottish Transport Group staff pension fund and of its transport operatives pension scheme—otherwise known as TOPS. The reason why new clause 4 seeks to do that is set out in amendment No. 17 which states that we aim to
      "ensure that employees' pension rights are in no way diminished".
      To secure that aim we want it to be a condition of sale to any private operator that pension conditions are preserved through the existing pension fund schemes. The existing arrangements are well established. Both the staff pension fund and TOPS are in the hands of trustees who run them through management committees. We are told in the notes on clauses that the management committee of the staff pension fund consists of group representatives and staff representatives in equal numbers, and that the management committee of TOPS consists of four members from the management of the Scottish Transport Group and three members from the trade unions, representing the workers.
      However, in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) pointed out that the
      720
      report and accounts for 1987–88 referred to six trustees responsible for TOPS and a management committee of 10. I do not know which figure is correct, although the Minister did not contradict my hon. Friend in Committee. I do not know whether there are 10 members of the management committee or only seven, as is referred to in the notes on clauses. I hope that the Minister will clear that up when he replies. It is fairly important to know with whom we are dealing when winding up the scheme. We need to know whether it is a 10-strong or a seven-strong management committee, with a majority of management representatives. That was not made clear by the Minister or the Government in Committee.
      There are good reasons why the schemes should be continued, even under the new privatised regime. The schemes involve all the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group and are therefore comprehensive and national, covering more than 10,000 members. By definition, a scheme of that size must be better than a scheme that is based on an individual privatised subsidiary or on one privatised company on its own. We can take as an example Strathtay bus company in Tayside, which is to be privatised and which has only 461 employees. If that company were to set up a new pension scheme based on only 461 employees, the likelihood is that that scheme would in no way match a scheme based on more than 10,000 members, as is the case with the Scottish Transport Group. The principle that applies is, the bigger the scheme, the better the benefits to the people involved.
      By opposing new clause 4 and amendment No. 17, the Minister seems to be trying to deny to the people who will be transferred to the new privatised subsidiaries the kind of benefits enjoyed by members of big schemes, such as the existing scheme. In 1987–88 the total investment income for TOPS was £6,208,000. The total income for TOPS in that year, in contributions from the company and the members, as well as transfers of pension rights from other schemes was £13,426,000. In the same year expenditure on benefits and other costs amounted to £3,104,000, leaving a net addition to the scheme of £10,322,000.
      The Minister will have to explain to me and everyone else how a scheme with such benefits and based on more than 10,000 members can be matched by a privatised scheme covering only 461 employees. It seems common sense to say that if the Minister transfers the pension rights of existing employees of the Scottish Transport Group to the new privatised subsidiaries he will, by definition, sign away the substantial benefits that the employees enjoy under the existing scheme.
      Under the existing TOPS arrangement, for example, the employees' contribution amounts to 5 per cent. of pensionable salary. The member can add to that voluntarily, if desired. However, the employers must pay the whole cost of the benefits that are not covered by the employees' contributions. That invariably means that the employer—the Scottish Transport Group and, through the Scottish Transport Group, Her Majesty's Government—ends up paying substantially more than the employees. I cannot see any private sector operator agreeing to match the scale of the contributions currently made by the Scottish Transport Group and Her Majesty's Government.

      721
      4 pm
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had an interesting exchange about the merits of the existent or non-existing pension scheme run by Magic Bus and Stagecoach. It was never made clear, if Magic Bus and Stagecoach are to have schemes, what they would be. Whatever the schemes may or may not be, they will not be able to match the transport operatives pension scheme which is run by the Scottish Transport Group. The Minister has failed to counter that argument. I look forward to hearing his contribution and finding out whether he can guarantee to employees whose companies are about to be privatised that their future pension rights will be as secure as they are under TOPS.
      TOPS benefits are substantial. Somebody who has spent 40 years of his life working for the Scottish Transport Group would receive two thirds of his pensionable salary on retirement. If he earned £12,000 in his last year, he would receive £8,000 from TOPS. That is a substantial benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, there are other benefits over and above that—for example, the early retirement pension, the ill-health retirement pension, the lump sum on retirement, insurance so that any surviving dependants will receive the pension rights of the deceased, and so on. Most important, there is an assurance that pension rights are linked to the retail prices index.
      If the experience of the National Bus Company, which was privatised in England, is taken as a model, we can be sure that privatised subsidiary companies will not index-link future pension rights for their employees in the way that TOPS has done for Scottish Transport Group employees. All 72 of the privatised National Bus Company subsidiaries left the best scheme, which was for them the equivalent of TOPS, and broke the link between pension rights and the rise in the cost of living. It is likely that the Scottish experience will be exactly the same as that in England. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that, saying:
      "All accrued benefits under the scheme will continue to receive index linking in future."
      The key words are "accrued benefits". Until the moment of privatisation, benefits will be secured by index linking into the future. What about future pension rights when the Government have ended the scheme, abolished TOPS and transferred the employees into new pension schemes with new companies? The Minister also said:
      " Pensions increase arrangements for new pension schemes will depend on the provisions of those schemes."
      Future pension rates will be at the mercy of employers who take over subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. In the main, they will be private sector employers operating in a free market and looking to secure an edge over their competitors. The Minister will find it difficult to convince me that the new employers' priority will be to match the existing and future pension rights of STG employees.
      What will happen when the existing scheme is abolished? What will happen to surpluses from TOPS? Again, that matter was debated in Committee as the Minister said, after remaining entitlements had been secured, using the surpluses which still remained from TOPS, if any surpluses are left in addition,
      722
      "Surpluses cannot be transferred to a purchaser. They would go to the Consolidated Fund."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 14 February 1989; c. 354.]
      The Minister used the word "cannot", but there is no such thing when one is dealing with Her Majesty's Government or Parliament. This is a sovereign Parliament, and it can decide anything that it likes. The Minister meant that any surpluses will not be transferred to pensioners because that is what the Government desire. The Minister is saying that the Government will take from pensioners what is currently theirs by right. That means that, in effect, the Bill will steal from pensioners what is their due.
      In Committee, the Minister tried to argue that that was because the Scottish Transport Group and employers had contributed towards the pension scheme and that, by right, it was the Government's money. Of course, the employers contributed to the TOPS scheme on the basis that such contributions would fund the pension rights of their employees. The Minister is backing away from the commitment that the Scottish Transport Group and the Government gave, and is now saying that the money must go back into the Treasury's coffers. We hear that the Treasury's coffers are already bloated with a £15,000 million surplus which is to be used in the next Budget to line the pockets of the Government's private sector friends.
      The Minister suggested also that the technical arrangements for preserving pension rights will be straightforward. He suggested two scenarios. First, any worker may have a transfer value of past entitlements paid into the new scheme offered by the new private owner. Secondly, if a worker does not want that to happen, sufficient funds may be transferred to a commercial company to enable it to continue to pay pension entitlements, including index linking. Either way, the schemes will no longer be underpinned by a publicly owned company and backed by the Government. Pension arrangements will be wholly in the private sector.
      What will happen in the event of a catastrophe—for example, if a commercial company goes bust or the new pension scheme collapses? What will be the Government's commitment to past pension rights? Will the Government intervene to ensure that any pensioners who are affected will have their pension rights secured by her Majesty's Government in the event of a collapse of a commercial company or the new pension scheme?
      The Minister claims also that the future of existing schemes is a matter for trustees and their members. In the case of TOPS that would mean the management committee—whether seven or 10—and more than 10,000 members. The Minister said that changes might be made by the trustees only with the approval of the Scottish Transport Group board and also with the approval of those voting at a meeting of members of the scheme. Exactly what arrangements have been put in place for more than 10,000 members to vote on proposals suggested by the STG management board?
      The Minister also said that the Scottish Transport Group intends to meet with the trade unions to discuss pension arrangements. We will finalise the question about pensions even before the meeting takes place. What is the point of that meeting taking place when we are deciding the configuration of any pension settlement? The Bill will soon pass through the House and go to the House of Lords. After that meeting with the trade unions, the House

      723
      will then meet to consider the proposed changes to protect the members' interests on privatisation. I am told that there is to be a meeting between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Transport and General Workers Union as soon as it is practicable.
      What is the point of the STG board, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister meeting the Transport and General Workers Union? What is the point of meeting to discuss pension arrangements when hon. Members are deciding what the pension arrangements are to be? The Minister will have to tell me what he will discuss with the trade unions. More important, if the trade unions negotiate important concessions with the board, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister himself, will they be incorporated into the legislation before it is enacted, or will the meetings be a complete waste of time?
      The Minister has already made proposals about future arrangements. He said that the Scottish transport scheme should be wound up and that there should be a transitional period to ensure continuity of pension provision and that employees are to be allowed to remain in TOPS for a limited period. He did not spell out what was meant by a limited period, but he will have to tell hon. Members how long employees will be covered by TOPS before the Minister winds it up and what chance employees or their representatives will have to influence the outcome of negotiations on the way in which the scheme is to be wound up.
      The Minister referred to Caledonian MacBrayne. He said that the workers who remained in the public sector with CalMac were assured continuity of pension provision and that their pension arrangements would be unaffected. If that is the case for 50 per cent. of CalMac employees who remain in the public sector, why cannot it be the case with the rest who will be transferred to the private sector? Why do they have to be the victims of the Government's dogma? Why are they to be denied any chance of having future pension rights secured under new clause 4 and amendment No. 17?
      The Secretary of State for Scotland has statutory powers to make pension orders in relation to the STG. He has never used those powers. Clause 13 provides, as a cautionary measure, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make such orders in relation to a privatised subsidiary in order to safeguard existing pension rights. That power enables the Secretary of State to intervene in the private sector and, in a sense, to discriminate against one particular group of private sector companies—those which take over one of the STG subsidiaries. I accept that that is fair. The price to pay for picking up the public asset should be respect for the pension rights of the public company employees. Why cannot the price also be to guarantee the future pension rights of the workers who happen to work in the public company?
      I am sure that when the Minister speaks he will say that one cannot discriminate against one group of private sector employers. But he is already doing that in clause 13, so the principle is already there. It is just that he will not apply it to future pension rights because he is not in the least interested in defending workers' pension rights.
      In Committee the Minister said that the Secretary of State will see clearly from the disposal programme whether pension arrangements are a key factor and will take that into account before he makes a decision. It seems that the Secretary of State will seek to safeguard the existing pension rights of those who work in the subsidiaries by
      724
      looking closely at the buy-out proposals and that he will not favour any buy-out proposal which does not give some future security of pension rights to the workers who will be affected.
      The Minister will not spell out what the Secretary of State is likely to find satisfactory. Are the standards which the Secretary of State will accept as sufficient to allow a buy-out proposal to go ahead those of TOPS or the standards of schemes run by Stagecoach and other private sector operators? The Minister has a responsibility to spell that out. Throughout our Committee proceedings he ran away from protecting the pension rights of STG workers.
      The real problem is that there is no democracy in Scotland. No one in Scotland voted for this measure. It is being imposed on Scotland and, more important, on the workers who, with the rest of the Scottish people, voted overwhelmingly against the Government. They do not want the Bill, privatisation or to lose their pension rights. Yet they have no recourse because of the flawed structure of this United Kingdom Parliament. If the Minister wants to retain this unitary Parliament, he had better start looking at the ways in which he can secure the rights of the people affected. He is selling out the workers' rights and, by doing so, the future of any United Kingdom Parliament.
      4.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am happy to respond. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked how the TOPS management committee was made up. It consists, as the notes on clauses state, of four management representatives and three trade union representatives. The scheme is vested in individual trustees.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was correct in suggesting that there are powers under clause 12 if future arrangements are inadequate. If future arrangements were inadequate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would undoubtedly use those powers. Pensions for employees of the Scottish Transport Group, with the exception of some Caledonian MacBrayne employees, are provided for by the group's pension schemes.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about CalMac employees. He is correct that 50 per cent. of CalMac staff do not belong to the STG schemes, but are covered by the Merchant Navy officers' pension fund, the Merchant Navy ratings' pension fund and British Rail funds. The pensions of staff in those funds will be unaffected by the Bill. I am glad to confirm that fact.
      Mr. McAllion: As 50 per cent. do not belong to TOPS, by definition 50 per cent. do. Will the Minister spell out exactly how pension rights will be affected? Will their rights be transferred to a commercial company or will some other arrangement be made through the Government or CalMac?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go into more detail, I shall do so. When the subsidiaries are transferred to the private sector it will be for the new companies to make pension arrangements for employees. The existing pension arrangements will continue for a transitional period. Accrued rights under the existing schemes at the date of an employee's transfer

      725
      to a new scheme will be fully protected. New pension arrangements will be made for CalMac employees in the STG scheme on broadly the same terms as they currently enjoy. Obviously, the STG pension schemes will be wound up.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that arrangements would be made "on broadly the same terms" for existing CalMac employees who are in TOPS. Exactly what does that mean? Will any of their existing rights be taken from them under the new arrangements?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is expected that the pension arrangements consequent upon privatisation will be made by those responsible for the schemes, without the need for any intervention by the Secretary of State. I am absolutely confident that in this case the 50 per cent. of CalMac staff who do not belong to STG schemes will be unaffected by the Bill. As for the remainder, I can only repeat what I have already said: the schemes will be on broadly the same terms as are currently enjoyed. I cannot envisage what the circumstances will be in 20 years' time.
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop the next point.
      It will be for the privatised companies in due course to establish pensions arrangements for their employees. The terms of such arrangements may be different from those provided by the existing STG schemes. When making bids, prospective purchasers will be asked to state their proposals for pensions arrangements and these will be taken into account in assessing bids. There are reserve powers in the Bill to make pensions orders if satisfactory pensions arrangements are not provided by any of the privatised companies.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about the purpose of the meetings that will take place with the trade unions. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure that the best possible pensions arrangements are reached. The Secretary of State must approve each individual sale. The bids that prospective purchasers make and the outline of their proposals will be taken carefully into account.
      The future of the STG schemes is a matter for the trustees and members of the schemes. Subject to the necessary amendments being made to the provisions of the schemes, they will continue for a transitional period after privatisation to provide for continuity of pension provisions and allow time for the privatised company to make new arrangements. The transitional period for a company will begin when it is privatised and will be at least six months and up to 16 months. During that period employees will be able to remain members of their STG scheme. They will be able to opt to have a transfer value paid into their new pension scheme at the end of the transitional period or to have their accrued pension rights in their STG scheme frozen to come into payment when they retire. Any such deferred pensions entitlement will be fully protected in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate STG scheme, both as regards the calculation of the pension to be paid at the time of retirement and
      726
      provision for future increases. Deferred pension entitlements for employees who have left the STG or who leave prior to privatisation will be similarly protected.
      Mr. McAllion: The period of between six and 16 months during which employees will be allowed to remain in the TOPS is to enable trade union representatives and the new employers to negotiate new pension arrangements. What happens if they fail to reach agreement? Will the period be extended, or will the trade union be almost forced to concede what the employers want at the end of 16 months?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have been careful not to lay down specific periods for the bids to come in, because, as I have said many times, it may take longer for some management-employee buy-outs to be lodged than others. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman that sufficient time will be given to take all such considerations properly into account.
      The new pension arrangements will need to be established for the 50 per cent. of CalMac employees who are currently members of the STG pension schemes. They will provide for pensions on the same terms as are currently enjoyed. Retired STG employees and those retiring before privatisation or before the end of any transitional period will have their pensions provision fully secured so that they will receive the same pensions as they would have received from the Scottish Transport Group.
      It would not be appropriate to make it a condition of sale, as is required by new clause 4, that new companies should participate in the existing pension scheme. The simple reason is that the provision of pension arrangements is a matter for those companies. However, prospective purchasers will be asked to declare their intentions when making bids, and that information will be taken into account when assessing bids. Should a company, after privatisation, fail to establish satsfactory pension arrangements, we would consider using the reserve powers in clause 12 to make pensions orders.
      Mr. McAvoy: If any bid included a reduction of employees' pension rights, may we have a firm commitment from the Minister that the Government would not give that bid the go-ahead?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To be frank, I do not envisage a management-employee buy-out team making a bid that would reduce pension rights. I have made the position clear. All relevant circumstances will be taken into account when bids are made, and pension provision will be a key subject for the Secretary of State to consider. As I said, the Secretary of State must approve each sale.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with that. He knows as well as we do that there is no guarantee that all the purchases will be made by buy-out teams which, as he said, may reasonably not be expected to reduce the quality of their pension schemes. But the scale of the buy-outs might make it more difficult to maintain that position.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All relevant circumstances will be taken into account, and those extremely important facts will be considered when bids are made. In that connection, clause 12 is an important insurance policy if adequate arrangements are not made.

      727
      On amendment No. 17, I have already explained to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that accrued entitlements will be protected. Employees will be able to opt for a transfer value or to have their accrued pension entitlements converted into deferred pensions which will be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the STG schemes. Future pensions are a matter for the new companies, and it would be surprising if they did not wish to secure pension arrangements that are satisfactory to their employees in the interests of attracting and retaining a motivated staff. I ask hon. Members to vote against amendment No. 17.
      Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not suspend the sitting until there is someone on the Tory Benches who is capable of walking over and picking up the notes to the Minister?
      Mr. Sydney Chapman: Am I not capable?
      Mr. Wilson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Government Whip, would have to maintain his position on the Bench. There is no one else on the Tory Benches, so perhaps we should give them time to get someone in to act as the Minister's runner.
      Mr. Speaker: It is well known that when the Benches are empty there is much else going on in the House.
      Mr. McAllion rose—
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once. He cannot speak again.
      Mr. McAllion: I had not realised that the Minister had finished speaking.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to try to answer a few more hon. Members' queries.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked how a small scheme can match a large scheme. There is no reason in principle why a small firm should not make pension provision on the same scale as a large employer. But a small company may not set up and run its own scheme. It may arrange its pensions through an insurance company or a pensions firm. The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if a pension scheme collapsed. It is for employers to set up suitable pension arrangements for their employees. A satisfactory pension scheme would be a funded scheme vested in the trustees under which, if an employer went out of business, employees' accrued entitlements would be safeguarded.
      Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He said that the reserve powers to make pension orders would be used to secure existing pension rights if a subsidiary did not take the steps that, the Secretary of State considered appropriate to secure the pension rights of its employees. What happens if a company is sold to one private sector owner but is transferred to another within a year? Would the reserve powers still be available to the Secretary of State at the second or third sale?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To the best of my knowledge, the answer is yes. The reserve powers are extremely important, and if grossly inadequate provision were made for pensions I would expect my right hon. and learned Friend to use them.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. It was full of even more weasel and imprecise words than usual. His speech was full of phrases such as, "All relevant circumstances will be taken into consideration"; "I am confident that" such and such a thing will not happen; "I do not envisage" that this will occur; "I fully realise that such may be the case"; "These will be taken into consideration"; "'The means will be satisfactory"; and "This will be taken into account." I was left wondering exactly what he meant, and I am not sure whether the Minister realised what he 'was trying to say. What he did not give in response to the many points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) were absolute guarantees arid reassurance for the people who work for the Scottish Transport Group.
      I hope that the Minister will go away to think about the matter and come back with some guarantees on the points that have been made. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, the Minister said that the transitional arrangements will take between six and 16 months. He was rather vague about that, so my hon. Friend asked him more questions. Having said that he would be specific about six to 16 months, the Minister then said that he did not wish to use specific time periods when discussing the matter. What is the magic about the period chosen?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, so he may be unaware that the disposal programme will start in the autumn and will continue for a considerable time. A crucial factor upon which it will depend is the speed at which management-employee buy-out teams can mount bids. Their interests will have to be taken into account.
      Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps, not being a classics or English scholar, I have trouble putting my words into a form that the Minister can understand. 1 was trying to ask what was so specific about the period of 16 months. I admit that I was not on the Committee and that I am on a steeply rising part of the learning curve, but I shall reach the asymptote fairly soon. May I ask what is wrong with 15 months or 17 months?
      4.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We consider a period of between six and 16 months altogether feasible. It seems reasonable to assume that the arrangements could be completed effectively within that time.
      Mr. Galbraith: I do not 'wish to tease the Minister further. He is obviously in considerable difficulty, and as his PPS, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not yet here to assist him, I shall pass over the matter of the transitional period.
      The Minister talked about the protection of pension rights. May we take it that that protection is absolute within the period of six to 16 months, although it may not be absolute outwith that period?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton indicated assent.
      Mr. McAllion: Perhaps, through my hon. Friend. I could try to obtain some sympathy. The Minister did riot answer me earlier when I tried to raise a point about the period of between six and 16 months. During that period the privatised company must come forward with a

      729
      proposal that the Secretary of State can accept, but included in the proposal must be an agreement between the trade unions and the employer about pension arrangements. If such an agreement cannot be reached within 16 months, must the trade unions collapse and accept whatever the employer insists on?
      Mr. Galbraith: That is the crux. I was on the point of asking the Minister the same question. He tried to fudge the issue earlier by saying that he did not want to specify periods. Must this period last until an agreement is reached by both parties, or will it be a finite period at the end of which the unions must accept the propositions put forward by their employers? Would the Minister like to clarify that now, or would he prefer to wait for his PPS?
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who looks like a bus conductor in that outfit.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman asked what was so magical about the number 16. If he cares to count the number of persons in the Chamber, including you, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and his Clerk, he will find that there are 16.
      Mr. Galbraith: That was an excellent contribution. I actually understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, which is unusual, although I do not think that it contributed much to the debate.
      Can the transitional period be extended for negotiation between union and employer? I shall be pleased to give way if the Minister wishes to provide some reassurance on the matter, but it appears that he does not wish to do so.
      The question of retaining a national scheme rather than creating smaller schemes has already been touched on. I too have a Scottish Transport Group company in my constituency—Kelvin Scottish. Retaining a national scheme with 10,000 members, rather than creating a smaller one like the one on Tayside, would benefit all employees.
      The Minister did not give a clear response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. What methods does he propose for consultation about transitional arrangements and pension schemes? We require a much more detailed answer before we can reassure those involved.
      Pension schemes are vital to many of our constituents, and I should have thought that they would be of equal importance to Conservative Members in Scotland, who may soon have to look to their own pension schemes—although the Minister has reassured me that he may have other arrangements. That is why we are pursuing the matter in detail, particularly the transitional arrangements.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a relevant point. If difficulties arose in a specific case, extending the 16-month period would certainly be considered. The period may start at different times for different companies. It will start on the date of a company's privatisation and will last for at least six months, to ensure continuity of pension arrangements for employees, and up to 16 months, depending on the
      730
      circumstances of the company concerned. It is thought that 16 months should provide sufficient time for new pension arrangements to be set up, but if difficulties arose the powers in clause 12 would be available to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has certainly gone some way towards clarifying the position, and it would not be proper for me to be mean-spirited. His answer, however, was infected with the same problem of vague wording that has featured in all his replies. He says that the transitional period may be extended. Why can he not say that it will be extended? The Minister shakes his head. But who will decide whether the period "may" be extended? Will it be the Minister, the Secretary of State, the employers, the trade unions or some quango in which failed Tory Members of Parliament serve on inflated salaries? This is not merely a matter of semantics. Can the Minister not say "will" rather than "may"? Can he explain the difference between the two? Why cannot he be more specific?
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 5

      SCOTTISH BUS PASSENGERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
      '(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee,—

      (2) It shall be the duty of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee

      (a) to monitor the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland; and

      (b) to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State regarding the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall have the power to direct bus operators operating undertakings disposed of under this Act to implement any recommendations of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee.

      (4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment and composition of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee.'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 20 after 'Group', insert
      'and representatives of consumer interests'.
      No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert
      'in the interests of the transport user'.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
      'In so doing he shall give consideration to the interests of employees and the travelling public'.
      No. 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, after 'State', insert
      'and to the interests of the Transport Users Consultative Committee'.
      Mr. Wilson: The new clause and amendments are primarily concerned with consumer interests. They assert the rights of those who use bus services to some form of protection and a place to go if their interests are not properly safeguarded.
      New clause 5 proposes the establishment of a body, to be called the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee, to monitor the effects of the legislation on passengers and to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would have power to direct operators who are the beneficiaries of disposals under the legislation to

      731
      implement any of the committee's recommendations, and would lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment of composition of the committee. We are suggesting the establishment of what might be referred to in shorthand as "Ofbus", along the lines of Oftel and Ofgas. It is not short for "Come on, get off the bus"!
      The proposal has a parallel in a new clause tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) proposing that bus interests should come under the Scottish transport users consultative committee, as rail and ferry interests do at present.
      I looked up just now to acknowledge the hon. Member for Dumfries, hut, of course, it was a futile gesture because, once again, there is not a solitary Conservative member of the Standing Committee present other than the Minister and the Whip. Perhaps it is not surprising that the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and those other hon. Members from other exotic places who served with us would not find it particularly attractive to participate in further debates on the Bill today. It is remarkable, however, that not a single Tory Member who represents Scotland has found it worthwhile to be here. We are sure that just as those Members' performance in the Committee will be noted, so their performance in the House today will be noted. Four English Tory Members were members of the Committee considering the Bill and we look forward with interest to see whether that number will rise to seven when we consider the Scottish education Bill because the fidelity of the hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) cannot he relied upon.
      The concern about the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group and its implications for its 10,000 workers felt on the Conservative Benches is demonstrated by the fact that no Back-Bench Conservative Member is present today. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) took one look and retired whence he came. He made an important intervention when he counted the number of people present. It is perhaps surprising that he did not count and find that he had double the actual number present, but he, too, has departed.
      The consumer interests that we wish to protect through the new clause and the associated amendments are many and varied. We have the support of every consumer body and of everyone who studied the bus privatisation and deregulation that took place in England and Wales. Those studies reached the conclusion that, whatever else is served by privatisation and deregulation, it is not the interests of the consumer. The Scottish Consumer Council commissioned a report on the impact of deregulation and, in passing, it commented on the implications once privatisation took place. That study clearly demonstrated that there were no proven benefits for consumers and that if such benefits were to be achieved they must be written into legislation. Similarly, the Transport 2000 group, which has done a great deal of work on this matter, has discovered beyond doubt that the interests of consumers in England and Wales have not been protected by privatisation.
      The Scottish Consumer Council has criticised Scottish bus services generally for being unsatisfactory, particularly in providing timetables and other information, especially at bus stops. At the Consumer Congress conference held in July 1988 a resolution was passed calling for an enforceable code of good practice for the operation and
      732
      provision of public transport. That code was to be developed to ensure that public transport met the needs of all passengers, including the disabled and that it worked efficiently in the consumers' interest.
      The Consumer Congress called for a working party to draft a code of good practice and it was intended that that working party should make use of the information generated by the 1988 transport workshop, whose discussions were reported to the congress. The idea was that there should be a checklist of consumer interests. The Consumer Congress was anxious to introduce good practices to cover such things as access, choice, information, safety and redress. We would expect regulations to be drawn up under those headings in the hope that the privatised companies would be obliged to act upon them.
      As in so many other instances, we, at least, are not prepared to rely upon hope. We want something written into the Bill that makes it likely that some of the consumer safeguards will become a reality. We should not have to rely on the private sector to assist in providing facilities, especially as currently in many cases it does not provide such facilities. If facilities were not provided or routes were withdrawn or changed at short notice consumers should have a statutory right to go to a statutory body to seek redress. That body should be created by the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      As I said in Committee, the lack of redress in terms of the activities of bus companies compared to the activities of rail or ferry operators represents a great anomaly. If British Rail wants to withdraw a service it must make an application to do so, which is considered, and the same thing applies to ferry services. Once again, I remind the Minister of the problems into which the Government ran when they first tried to dip their toes in the water of ferry privatisation with the Gourock-Dunoon service. That was a classic example of the consumers of transport services having their say and, as a result of the strength of public opinion—assisted by the process of a public inquiry carried out by the Scottish transport users consultative committee—forcing a reversal of Government policy. Consumers can have their say regarding ferry services, and, theoretically, regarding rail services, but the anomaly is that they have no say regarding bus services. There is no regulatory body to which people can go to subject the operators' proposals to the necessary scrutiny in the public interest, particularly in the consumers' interest.
      Protection is needed for the disabled—their needs are a good reason for a code of conduct to exist—and it should be statutorily enforceable. In Committee, we discussed the report of the disabled persons transport advisory committee many times. There was general agreement that the recommendations put forward in that report were excellent, compassionate and necessary to protect the interests of the disabled. If those recommendations were sensitively applied they would greatly enhance the prospects and ability of disabled people to enjoy the benefits of public transport by travelling wherever bus routes may take them. Currently, physically disabled people—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I belive that the hon. Gentleman is talking about what might have been within the scope of new clause 6 had Mr.

      733
      Speaker selected it. He has not done so and, therefore, it would be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his present line of argument under this new clause
      Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure you that I am talking about the disabled only in terms of the general need for consumer protection, which is encompassed in new clause 5.
      The Scottish bus passengers consultative committee proposed in new clause 5 would consider the needs of the disabled if representations were made to it. Provisions for the disabled should also be contained in the code of conduct that we have asked to be drawn up. In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my remarks on this subject brief but I hope that other hon. Members will also refer to the disabled persons transport advisory committee report that I mentioned.
      In Committee when we discussed the needs of the disabled and the need for a code of good practice, the Minister's response, as it was to everything else to do with consumer interest, was "It will be all right on the night". The Minister used such phrases as "We hope", "We will advise", or "We will suggest" that private operators should take account of the consumer interest. The Scottish Consumer Council, Transport 2000, BusWatch and so on have urged that consumer interests should be statutorily enforceable by the Bill, but the Minister has rejected such recommendations. On the basis of the English experience of privatisation, it is clear that unless such provisions are written into the Bill, consumer interests will not be considered by the bus companies. Currently, there is no source of redress to which the travelling public can go.
      In Committee the alternative proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Dumfries was for the powers of the Scottish transport users consultative committee to be extended. At that time the hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that between then and Report his hon. Friend the Minister would look into the matter, talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and decide that it was more logical to have one body looking after all transport issues in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dumfries is not in the Chamber to press his point, I shall charitably do it for him. Will the Minister tell us whether any such discussions have taken place and, if so, what were the conclusions? Because of privatisation, a separate regulatory consumer body is desirable, but we certainly regard the extension of bus powers to the Scottish transport users consultative committee as better than nothing.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I support the new clause because it is essential for bus users to have their interests protected. I hope that the Minister will make clear what happened to the idea of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about extending the remit of the Scottish transport users consultative committee to include buses. I am not sure why the Minister would not take that on board. Had that something to do with the traffic commissioners or with the Department of Trade and Industry? If so, it is deplorable because I should prefer the remit to be allocated, as it were, by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Minister.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that it is regrettable that there is no umbrella
      734
      body to oversee all modes of transport in Scotland. Many journeys contain an element of bus travel and it is essential that bus, ferry, train and even air services should be co-ordinated to give the best possible connections to passengers whose journeys require the use of more than one form of transport.
      Many of the remote areas of Scotland have aging populations and many such people do not have the use of cars. In Committee we talked about the needs of women returning home late at night and of the problems encountered by mothers with young children transferring from one mode of transport to another. As I say, we need an integrated service.
      Mr. McAvoy: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations should apply to the movement of the management headquarters of a particular industry to another location?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady before the hon. Gentleman intervened. I draw to the attention of the House that the new clause deals with a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. I hope that hon. Members will confine themselves to talking about bus passengers.
      Mrs. Michie: I note your ruling about sticking to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I have no intention of straying into the question of the location of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne.
      I reiterate that we should have a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee and I am trying to relate the new clause to my belief that we should have an overall consultative committee. It would be much more sensible to have a body responsible for surveying all transport activity in Scotland because there is no organisation with responsibility for doing that. We shall have the Scottish TUCC and if the Minister accepts the new clause we shall have another body responsible for the buses. The users of Scotland's buses should be able to turn to one body which oversees the other modes of transport. Perhaps that role for the Scottish TUCC is being rejected because on many occasions it has been reactive rather than taking the initiative.
      Will the Minister explain why we do not have an overall monitoring system to ensure that transport users get value for money and that there is a proper service, especially for those in rural areas? If the Minister cannot answer that, I shall support the clause.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I fully support the new clause and the related amendments. The changes that are taking place, especially in relation to bus passengers, are wide and varied and are becoming more important as each week goes by. The deregulation of buses has led to a great diminution in the service, especially at weekends and at night when people in rural and city areas feel isolated.
      The use of buses is becoming even more important in relation to rail transport. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will wonder how rail transport could relate to the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. It is precisely because of Government policy. It will be within the memory of the House—although the memories of Conservative Membes are probably as blank as Conservative Benches—that about five and a half years ago the right hon. Member for Cirencester and

      735
      Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was the Secretary of State for Transport, implemented a very novel idea. It was about the relationship between the Government and the transport industries and the Government and the rail industry in particular.
      The right hon. Gentleman started the process of the three-year letters of intent in which the relationship between the Government and British Rail was clearly set out. It is well known that I disliked what was in the first three-year letter of intent, but I wholly approved of the principle. It is worth repeating that it stripped for ever from folklore the idea that British Rail was wholly independent and could do what it liked, that the Government had no connection with it and were not concerned in the day-to-day running of its affairs, and that there was a chasm between British Rail and the Government. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made clear that British Rail did what it was told. Certainly there is much discussion and bargaining about how much money is available, hut, essentially, British Rail does what it is told.
      The second three-year letter of intent was provided by the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security. An important part of that letter which impinges directly on new clause 5, and makes it essential that the new clause is accepted, was that the right hon. Gentleman said that before British Rail made any investment plans for rural areas it should consider bus substitution. It is perfectly clear what that meant. There was to be no investment in lines to help rural passengers, many of whom were denied easy access to hospitals, doctors' surgeries, pharmacies, dental facilities and leisure and recreation. Many of them were also completely cut off from the normal trading conditions that enable people to exercise choice. The Government are keen on people exercising choice when buying the weekly groceries, but such choice is removed from people who live in rural areas and depend on public transport.
      The role of the bus becomes much more important if rail services disappear and are to be replaced by bus services. Part of the three-year letter of intent went so far as to say—this is quite astonishing—that for an initial period, which as far as I can recollect was never defined, British Rail should subsidise bus services because buses were being subsitituted for trains. That was a novel concept for the Government to put forward. In some circumstances I would have welcomed such a discussion. If British Rail is under pressure to increase the frequency of its service, there is a case for a co-ordinated transport system operating bus and rail services. If there is a need for transport when it is not convenient to run rail services, or if only a certain number of trains can run on a line because goods trains and passenger services cannot operate at the same time—although perhaps British Rail should be more innovative in its mix of passenger and freight services—perhaps it is a good idea for British Rail and the bus services—as they are today, not as they will be affected by the Bill—to get together.
      5 pm
      There are many examples of how different services should work together and how passengers' interests would be better served if there were a body to decide whether the bus companies are carrying out their responsibilities. In the village of Portlethen, some 15 miles outside Aberdeen,
      736
      the main line station was closed many years ago as it was said to be uneconomic. The nearest main road is three or four miles away, but the buses would not leave the main road to drop passengers at Portlethen village because the bus companies said that it was uneconomic. As the years went by, the village of Portlethen grew, partly due to the oil industry, and became a greater commuter catchment area, and better transport links became vital. After all the years in which we pressed British Rail to open the station and the bus company to allow buses to come down into Portlethen village, when the station was reopened, the bus companies suddenly decided that buses would come down off the main road and start a service to compete with British Rail. That seemed to be nonsense. There were difficulties for British Rail passengers and bus passengers.
      While all that agitation was going on a dual carriageway had been built between Aberdeen and Stonehaven. Instead of providing a service when it was most needed, the bus companies and British Rail were persuaded to provide services only when the road network made it less attractive for people to use public transport if private transport was available. In such a situation we would expect the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee to step in and examine the proposals.
      It is difficult enough to persuade publicly owned companies to provide bus services to replace rail services when an element of public subsidy is available, at least in theory if not in practice. As hon. Members who are present know, the way in which transport subsidies and grants are provided in Scotland is quite different from the system in the rest of the country. Transport does not appear as a separate item, but as part of the overall block grant to regional authorities. Therefore, it is difficult to know how much money is being provided, and whether a regional authority is using the money allocated for transport in the block grant for transport matters. That is difficult enough for a publicly owned company with a social responsibility. Whatever anyone might say about private companies, they do not have a social responsilbility. Their responsibility is to make the maximum profit for their owners. Therefore, they will be ruthless in cutting services that do not pay. If they have come to an arrangement with British Rail under the bus substitution programme and they consider that they are not getting enough money, there will be no cosy chats or friendly discussions in the board room; they will be absolutely ruthless and cut the services.
      It is fashionable to say that transport has changed dramatically over the past decade or so, and no one would deny that. Of course modes of transport have changed and people's personal choices have widened. There is no doubt that the advent of the motor car and the provision of bet ter roads—although in my part of the world we would argue strongly for road improvement—mean that people exercise greater personal choice. Therefore, it is fair to ask why we are so keen on public transport if all experience over the past decade or so shows a fall in rail and bus passenger services and traffic in rural areas and in cities. Things have changed and unemployment has hit people extremely hard and reduced their ability to buy cars. The Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee would be an excellent way of examining what happens.
      In response to the noises we make about services disappearing, cuts in services and increased fares, the Minister might say that we are speculating. He might say, as he constantly says, "Don't worry, the market will provide. It will be taken care of. If there are enough

      737
      passengers there will be enough buses, and if there are enough buses there will be enough passengers." That is a nice simple equation, but it does not work. I know that the Minister is a fair-minded man and I fear very much for his future. If the Prime Minister reads the debate in Committee and sees the praise that I heaped on the Minister during those 12 sittings, the Minister will be next for the chop in the reshuffle, and I would not want that to happen to him.
      The Minister is a fair-minded man, so he is bound to accept that there are genuine worries. We are not scaremongering. It is too easy to say that the Opposition are just scaremongering and making it all up, and it will not be as bad as we fear. I hope that it will not be as bad as I fear, but experience of the National Bus Company in England and Wales shows that it was worse than we feared. The services were cut so drastically that at the time no one in their right mind would have forecast that they would become so bad.
      Without scaremongering, we fear very much for the needs of bus passengers. Not knowing which companies will take over, and not knowing whether they will simply speculate on the available properties, it is essential that there is a back stop. It can do no harm; it can do only good. I do not know why the Minister, having listened to the arguments of my hon. Friends, has not leapt to his feet to say that he accepts the new clause. We could save a lot of time and move on to other things. The Minister ought to accept the new clause. We would be delighted, and I expect that would blight his future even more, but it is essential that we have a mechanism to check on what is happening so that there is information and a body to which people can bring their grievances so that matters are properly set out and, more important, rectified before damage is done.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government are taking us into unknown waters with the changes in the legislation. Who knows what the exact situation will be and what problems will arise as those changes are forced upon the Scottish people who did not want them in the first place? However, it is quite clear that there will be major difficulties for travellers in Scotland. Certainly the first signs from other areas in which the Government have been allowed to carry out such schemes show that there will be considerable problems for transport users when the changes are introduced.
      We are entitled to ask who will look after the public interest and consider the problems for individual travellers. The new clause seeks to address that specific problem. A Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee would be one mechanism by which any problems caused by the changes could be examined from the point of view of the users of the transport system in Scotland. At least there would be an assured mechanism which could be guaranteed to represent the interests and needs of travellers. The new clause seeks to give the Committee reasonable duties, and surely seeking to monitor the effects of the legislation is a necessary and useful function for such a committee. We are entitled to ask who will perform that task if there is no consultative committee. What assurances can the Minister give the Scottish travelling public? Who will make the necessary recommendations if problems arise—as they surely will?
      738
      A consultative committee would be an assured way of helping the travelling public, but without it the problem will be passed to the Government. In that event, how would they expect to protect the consumer? Before the afternoon is out, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister how the Government propose to do that and how effective his alternative—if it exists—will be.
      The new clause will allow a consultative committee to make recommendations to bus operators and to the Secretary of State about the effect of the Act on bus passengers in Scotland. If no such committee is formed, who or what will make those recommendations?
      The new clause also seeks to create a fair and reasonble assured mechanism to protect the rights of travellers under the new system. If the Minister cannot reassure us and explain how he intends to achieve those objectives, he should accept our proposals.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: When this legislation was presented to the Chamber some weeks ago, I inquired of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last attempted to board a bus whilst trying to fold a pushchair, with an infant in one arm and a toddler held by the other hand. I am still waiting for an answer. Since the Ministers presenting this legislation hardly ever travel by bus, the least they can do is to listen to those who do so daily.
      I would go further—I am not sure whether my hon. Friends presented such an amendment but it was not called—and ask that such a consultative committee comprise a large number of women bus users. I am sure that the proposers of the new clause would agree with that because women tend to use buses more than men, for two main reasons. First, even if a household owns a car, typically, the car is used by the husband going to work in the morning. The wife, presumably looking after the children, gets about by bus with whatever inconvenience that entails, such as the lack of public transport at less busy periods.
      Secondly, since women are generally lower paid than men—earning on average about three-quarters of men's pay—they are less likely to be able to afford cars. This is obviously well known, because car advertisements in glossy magazines are clearly, on the whole, addressed to men, not women, car buyers.
      The least that the Government should do when designing the legislation is to address the needs of women bus users. They should think not only of convenience, especially for women who have young children to look after, but of safety. The Government cannot be unaware that women are frightened to travel alone at night in isolated places, to wait in bus depots where no staff are present, or to be dropped off at bus-rail links at isolated railway stations where there is no one to guard them against possible danger.
      The point is frequently made that if bus fares were set at a reasonable level, buses would be used more often and public safety would be greater. Conservative Members tend to ignore the dangers for women bus users because there are so few women amongst them—at the moment there are no women at all on the Government Benches. The Government perhaps ignore the need for safety, but many women take it very seriously. Surveys demonstrate that 88 per cent. of women feel that it is unsafe to walk alone on the streets at night, which shows that a great public need is being ignored.

      739
      5.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the needs of disabled passengers, and clearly the Bill should represent the needs of bus users who suffer from any form of physical disability. Those needs are largely ignored. Disabled people find that they have to put a great deal of effort into making various authorities meet their ordinary everyday needs. At this stage, we have an opportunity to ensure that the legislation will allow their voices to be heard through formal channels so that they do not have to resort to the usual practice of writing to the appropriate organisations. Such methods do not give their cause sufficient weight, but a consultative committee would ensure that disabled people have a strong voice in these matters. That should not be a matter of controversy and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: The new clause offers Scottish people the opportunity to have at least some confidence in the Government's attitude to the privatisation of the bus service. We know that the recent privatisation of bus services has led to escalating prices, a lowering of standards and customers' complaints being ignored. That was all in aid of the companies' desperate need to make massive profits.
      I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the call from the Opposition and ensure that when privatisation takes place, the golden opportunity will not be missed to set up the Scottish bus passenger consultative committee, which, we hope, will examine customers' complaints and safeguard their interests. It is obvious that the Government have a chance to consider what they are proposing. If they really mean to improve transport in Scotland, why are they frightened of agreeing to the new clause?
      At present, many bus companies operate routes that are subsidised by local authorities. They also run timetables that attempt to meet the needs of the local people. The fare structures have also been closely examined.
      I believe that the consultative committee will be able to ensure that bus routes serve local areas and communities. It can also examine timetables to ensure that bus companies operate not only at peak times but at midday or at other times when people wish to travel to doctors, hospitals or services that may be situated in the centres of population in cities and towns.
      As the Minister knows, I live in a rural area and if I want to go to hospital I first have to go to Paisley. What a disaster it would be if the local bus company decided not to run bus services after about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. What would happen to the elderly and the disabled who are invariably given appointments at off-peak times? Most doctors and consultants in hospitals try to make appointments for people in work at a time when they will not lose too much money.
      Correct timetabling in rural areas is essential to ensure that people get to work on time, and the consultative committee could examine such matters. The fare structure is also extremely important. The Government talk about competition, but what chance is there for competition in rural areas where there is perhaps only one bus every hour, or every two or three hours? Passengers have a gun at their head and are told they must pay a certain amount. If they do not, they cannot travel. Such a system punishes the
      740
      elderly and the unemployed who are on fixed incomes, and the disabled who, we all know, live well below the poverty level.
      A consultative committee could also investigate the quality of the buses. I hope that privatisation will not lead to the kind of things that happened after deregulation. Some buses are hardly fit for the road. I am not alleging that they are mechanically unsafe, but when people go to parties or dances they find that some of the buses are not clean and up to the standard that they had come to expect when buses were under local authority control. Some buses are absolutely filthy. They are not kept thoroughly clean, as they were when they were looked after by the local authorities. Since deregulation, buses are only trying to get from A to B as fast as possible in order to make as much profit as possible. The Bill could lead to exactly the same kind of problem. A consultative committee could investigate the quality of buses.
      The Minister knows of my concern about the attitude of this Government and previous Governments and that of the people of Britain towards the disabled. We treat them lamentably. The new clause would provide a golden opportunity for the consultative committee to ensure that bus companies carry out recommendations that would ensure that the elderly and the disabled can travel on buses in Scotland in comparative safety. It could also consider what type of adaptations and timetables should be introduced to meet the needs of the disabled.
      The Minister has been praised in the debate. He has been described as a caring individual. I believe that he is. The new clause provides him with an opportunity to prove that he is a caring individual. It is clear, however, that the Minister has been browbeaten by his superiors who have said to him, "No, Minister, you will not look after the needs of the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed. You will look after the fast buck merchants who are waiting to come in to steal and cheat and to deal in a shoddy, grasping way with bus companies that have been made successful by the local authorities."
      The Minister has an opportunity to stand up and be counted by the travelling, suffering public in Scotland. The new clause provides him with an opportunity to ensure that Scottish people are provided with a consultative committee of men and women who will look after the public's interests and recommend to bus operators what they ought to do to improve services. If the bus operators do not accept its recommendations, the consultative committee should be able to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to take action. I ask the Minister to support the new clause. It would provide the people of Scotland with at least the hope that after privatisation they will have decent bus services. Otherwise, I am convinced that bus services in Scotland will continue to deteriorate.
      Mr. McAllion: I support the establishment of the kind of body that is outlined in new clause 5. I am sure that all 62 Opposition Members with Scottish constituencies support the establishment of a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. I suspect that a number of Conservative Members support the establishment of such a committee—most likely the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). If they were here, I am sure that they would support new clause 5. The

      741
      reason that they are not here is that they feel that they would have to vote for new clause 5 if they were here, so they have absented themselves from the debate.
      The heart of new clause 5 is subsection (2). It refers to the duty being placed on the new committee

      "(a) to monitor the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland; and

      (b) to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State regarding the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland."

      If we examine the provisions of the Bill, we realise that there is a great need for such a committee to protect the interests of bus users.
      Clause 2 sets out the objectives of disposal. They are to promote competition, to bring private sector bus operators into the market and put them in charge of what are now public sector subsidiaries. The changes would have a detrimental effect on bus passengers. Control of subsidiary companies could pass into the hands of an owner who is outwith the local area. Nothing in the Bill guarantees that management and employee bids will be successful. Somebody could come along from outwith the region, or even from outwith Scotland or the United Kingdom, and take over a bus company.
      If that happened, there could be a number of consequences. There could be asset stripping, with the new owner selling bus stations for a quick profit. The result would be a deterioration of services in all the ways that my hon. Friends have pointed out—the cleanliness of the buses, the regularity of services and the kind of facilities that are made available to the unemployed, women, the elderly and the disabled.
      It is important to establish a committee to monitor these matters, because of what has happened since the deregulation of bus services in Scotland in 1985. Under the Act, regional councils no longer have the power to co-ordinate bus services in their area, with the result that gaps have begun to open up in the bus network throughout Scotland. For example, in Dundee the Tayside Public Transport Company, which is still owned by the regional council, has been forced, under the provisions of the 1985 Act, to alter some of the services and make them commercial. The No. 17 service to Whitfield in Dundee used to operate a two-way pattern which suited everyone; because of cross-subsidy, the public transport company was able to maintain that service. However, the pattern of service has had to be changed to make the service commercial and profitable. The bus, therefore, no longer goes along Summerfield terrace, with the result that 50 old-age pensioners have had to draw up a petition to try to persuade the public transport company to reinstate the two-way pattern.
      However, the company's hands are tied because the Government insist that the main consideration must be that bus services are commercially profitable. Consequently, the 50 old-age pensioners have a 10-minute walk to catch the local bus, whereas previously they could catch it near their front door. That is the reality of Government interference in the way that bus networks are run in Scotland. It is important, therefore, that there should be a committee, with consumer representatives on it, that can give advice to, and be consulted by, the Government. It is important that it should also have teeth.
      Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
      742
      "The Secretary of State shall have the power to direct bus operators operating undertakings disposed of under this Act to implement any recommendations of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee."
      That is a very important subsection, because the Scottish transport users consultative committee and the disabled persons transport advisory committee have no such powers. The Government promised to consult the disabled persons transport advisory committee on the introduction of new regulations that would result in better standards of accessibility to buses for the handicapped and the disabled. The Government consult that committee and specifications for both new and existing buses are laid down, but nobody is under any obligation to do anything about them.
      Under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities had a duty to pay regard to the transport needs of the elderly and the disabled, but merely having to pay regard to those needs does not mean that anything has to be done about the specifications that have been laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee. No duty is laid on the majority of commercial operators to pay any attention to the specifications. The recommended specification published by the disabled persons transport advisory committee says:
      "The implementation of this Specification rests on the goodwill that is needed towards those passengers for whom these features cater".
      That refers to features such as route numbers, destination displays and entrance and exit steps for the disabled. They have to rely on the Government's goodwill.
      In Committee, the Government said nothing that suggested that such a change will be made. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) trapped the Minister on that point. He asked him whether the bus specification, as laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee, would be a requirement in the disposal programme and whether the bus companies that tender will need to give the Minister an answer. The hon. Member said that he welcomed the Minister's positive response. In fact, what the Minister said was that it would be the general policy under the disposal programme.
      So the Minister has to be very clear, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, on whether any company applying to take over STG subsidiaries will be required to take on board the specifications laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee. If he says yes, he will have to go further. It is not just a question of the disabled; all the other bus users have to be taken into account. Also, the Minister must take these powers not just for the privatised subsidiaries but for all the bus operators currently providing services in Scotland. The only means he has of doing that is by accepting new clause 5. He will have to come up with very convincing arguments to persuade any hon. Member that he cannot accept it, but it is framed in the most uncontentious way anyone could imagine.
      5.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A considerable number of points have been raised. The hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the question of the procedures to be adopted if a bus service is withdrawn. Obviously, if a bus service is withdrawn the local authority can replace it with a subsidised service and thus fill any gap. I should make it absolutely clear that since deregulation there has been a

      743
      very considerable increase in mileage served by buses both north and south of the border. In Scotland the increase in vehicle kilometres has followed a pattern very similar to that which resulted from deregulation in England. The figures for Scotland were 285 million vehicle kilometres in 1985–86, 302 million vehicle kilometres, in 1986–87, and 329 million vehicle kilometres in 1987–88.
      Of course, as hon. Members have suggested, travel for the elderly and disabled is extremely important. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a particular point to which I should like to respond. Local authorities do have the power to subsidise services at times when the provision of a service might not be a commercial proposition. This obviously includes late-night services, which were also a concern of the hon. Member for Maryhill. I have every reason to believe that authorities have made use of these powers. Local authorities also have the power to set up concessionary fare schemes, and all authorities, except one island authority, have concessionary fare schemes covering the elderly and the disabled.
      The hon. Member for Maryhill raised various points in relation to the disabled. I am glad to confirm that the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which was set up under the Transport Act 1985, exists to provide exactly the voice for which the hon. Member called.
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was concerned about safety conditions. I stress that any person wishing to operate buses must have a PSV operator's licence issued by the traffic commissioner, who has to be satisfied that the person is of good repute and financial standing and has adequate facilities to maintain the vehicles in a roadworthy condition. These vehicles are subject to an initial fitness test by the Department of Transport vehicle inspectors and are then tested annually to a higher standard than cars. They are also subject to spot-checks on the roads. I have to say that since deregulation there is no evidence to suggest that safety standards have been significantly affected, and there is no reason to expect that privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group would affect safety.
      We dealt quite fully in Committee with the question of sanctions. However, I should like to repeat that sanctions do exist. The person principally concerned with the general supervision of standards is, of course, the traffic commissioner. If there is a flagrant abuse of procedures, the traffic commissioner can stop the operator from running the services and can require him to repay part of his fuel duty rebate. Although these sanctions are not used often, they are undoubtedly there. Of course, it goes without saying that any operator will wish to run a reliable and satisfactory service if he is to attract custom.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has said that the sanctions are seldom used. Can he tell the House how often they have been used?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall seek to find out the exact number of times and shall write to the hon. Member, but I think that what I said was absolutely correct: that the sanctions are severe and are rarely used. But they do exist to deal with operators who fail, without reasonable excuse, to provide in a satisfactory manner the services registered. The real test is whether they have been used in all the cases where there has been flagrant abuse, and I have reason to believe that the traffic commissioners
      744
      are doing their job competently in that connection. As I have said, the inspectors are responsible for ensuring that all vehicles are safe and roadworthy.
      The question of the disabled was discussed at length in Standing Committee. I shall not go over all that ground again, but I want to mention one point. The specification recommended in the document which has been issued, and which was praised in Standing Committee, has been acted upon by the Scottish Bus Group. The group has revised its own specification to require most of the recommended items to be incorporated in any new vehicles that are purchased.
      Mr. Wilson: I do not want to pre-empt anything that the Minister is going to say. We have heard that the Scottish Bus Group has incorporated the recommendation of the Committee. Can he tell us how many private operators in Scotland have done so?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is considerably more difficult to say. The answer is, of course, that the new clause does not relate to all the private operators. but it does relate to the subsidiaries being set up in the Bill. That is one of the anomalies of the new clause.
      I have agreed with the hon. Member for Cunningha:me, North that there have been criticisms by the Scottish Consumer Council as to information about bus services. I shall certainly be following up this matter with the council when I meet it shortly. Of course, local authorities have power to make information available if they choose to do so, and they have a very important part to play. I shall take advantage of the discussions to consider what improvements can be made.
      The new clause, to which the hon. Member addressed himself particularly, provides that there should be a new body called the Scottish bus passengers consultative committee, whose job would be to monitor the effects of the Bill on bus passengers in Scotland. The committee would make recommendations to bus operators—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are factual matters, so perhaps the hon. Member can come back in a minute when I have developed the point.
      The committee would make representations to bus operators and to the Secretary of State, who could then direct any of the privatised Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to implement any such recommendation. These powers of direction go well beyond the powers of the Scottish transport users' consultative committee in relation to rail and ferry services in Scotland. They would apply only to the privatised bus companies; they would not apply to their competitors. There would, therefore, be the anomalous situation that half of the Scottish Bus Group would be subject to a statutory form of supervision which did not apply to the other half, and that would be unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that the Minister intended some slight criticism of the new clause on the ground that it refers only to the companies covered by the Bill. If my memory serves me well, a broader new clause which was tabled in Standing Committee was ruled out of order on the ground that it was outwith the scope of the Bill. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to accept the principle of the Bill, surely it is within his powers, when

      745
      it reaches another place, to have either the long title or the short title amended and to bring in an amendment on a broader basis within the Bill's scope.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is touching on the other matter about the STUCC and its remit—a matter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. If the hon. Member will give me just a moment to finish the point that I am making I shall come to that.
      The powers in the new clause are very wide. It appears that the committee could make recommendations about any aspect of bus operations, presumably including fares, and the Secretary of State would be able to direct that such recommendations be implemented. However, one of the objectives of the Bill is to free the STG subsidiaries from central and governmental control. This would not merely perpetuate such control but would allow the Secretary of State to interfere in the activities of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to a greater extent than at present.
      With regard to the remit of the STUCC, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and, several times, including today, by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), there have been suggestions that the Scottish transport users' consultative committee should have responsibility in relation to bus services and involvement in the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
      It might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the history of the STUCC and of the Government's thinking on this matter. The transport users' consultative committees number eight in all, and cover Scotland, England and Wales. They were set up under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. The chairmen and members of the TUCCs are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also funds their activities.
      Overall responsibility for policy matters that affect the committees therefore lies with the Department of Trade and Industry. I have, of course, spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on this subject and my officials have been in touch with his Department concerning comments that were made in Committee.
      The main function of consultative committees is to help users who have complaints about rail services and other facilities provided by British Rail and, in the case of the Scottish committee, about ferry services provided by the Scottish Transport Group. There is also the London area committee which, exceptionally, is empowered to look after consumer interests in London Regional Transport services. Road transport was excluded from its remit by legislation.
      The Transport Act 1968 applied that exclusion to road transport services provided by the newly created STG. Bus services were excluded from the committee's remit as, even before deregulation, buses operated in a much more competitive and diversified environment than the public sector monopolies over whose transport services TUCCs were designed to act as watchdogs. It was felt that the TUCCs would not have the time or resources necessary to look after the wide range of services and operators, many of them locally based, in the bus sector. That argument will apply even more strongly after privatisation.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that, in its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which studied rural transport in 1980–82, the STUCC asked the Committee to consider the need for it to have a remit to examine bus services so that there could be an integrated service in Scotland?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I sat on that Select Committee, so I am aware of the circumstances which the hon. Member describes. The bodies were set up to deal with consumers who travel using nationalised industries, not private bus companies. New legislation and changes to other legislation would be necessary to make the new clause effective. I do not think that it would be helpful to create an additional role for the STUCC at this stage.
      Mr. Wilson: I shall not prolong the debate, but the Minister's reply was a litany of excuses for doing nothing.
      The Minister's latter point was especially interesting. It was not a defence of his stance but a further argument against denationalisation. He told us that, as long as there are nationalised travel facilities, the consumer has a double benefit. He said that, as soon as we privatise—thus putting the service at the mercy of the market—consumers will have poorer services and be deprived of the redress offered by a consultative committee or some parallel consumer body.
      The Minister was engaged in nothing more or less than casuistry. I do him the credit of suggesting that it was not of his invention. He opposed the new clause because it would cover only half of the Scottish bus industry—that half which the Bill will privatise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that when an attempt was made in Committee to create a consumer body with a wider remit, the Chairman ruled it out of order on the ground that it went beyond the scope of the Bill. There is nothing in new clause 5 which would prevent the Government from expanding the proposed consultative committee's remit to include the entire Scottish bus industry.
      The Minister wasted everybody's time by using that 50 per cent. argument because the real reason for opposing the new clause is that the Government do not believe that private sector operations should be reviewed by any consumer body or consultative committee. That decision is at odds with the fact that consumer organisations have been established to monitor larger privatised industries. Scottish bus users are clearly not regarded as a category of citizenry who must be bought off with window dressing of that type. Privatisation is to be pushed through without even the safeguard of a consultative body.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 1

      TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS OF THE GROUP
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 9, after 'Group")', insert
      'and management and employee buy-out teams'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 9, after 'Group")', insert 'and trade unions'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
      'the provision that preference be shown to management/employee buyout bids'.
      No. 7, in page 3, line 7, clause 3, at end insert—

      747
      '(2A) The Secretary of State shall, having regard to section 2(2)(a) of this Act, give directions to the Group to allow a 10 per cent. share to employees and management desirous of aquisition of any undertaking or part of an undertaking.'.
      No. 13, in page 3, line 11, clause 3, after 'State', insert
      'and to the interests of trade unions representing employees interests'.
      No. 19, in page 3, line 12, clause 3, at end insert
      'any financial assistance made available for management or employee buyouts shall be available for up to three buyout attempts by existing management or employees within any one of the undertakings created by the Act.'
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Wilson: We have heard from the Government at every stage that they are in favour of buy-outs. Like good weather, buy-outs are a desirable thing. There is as much in the Bill to ensure the success of buy-outs as there is to ensure good weather.
      Once again, we are making it clear to the Minister and putting it firmly on record that, in its present form, the Bill does nothing to make it likely that the Government's words, which have been employed to make the Bill more politically acceptable in Scotland, will be translated into reality.
      We want the Minister to say that sales will not proceed until there is agreement—not consultation—among the parties concerned to ensure the success of buy-outs. In each company, buy-out teams are working to put together plausible offers. We do not think that they should have been put to this trouble—we defend the status quo in the Scottish Bus Group.
      Confronted with the Government's ideological measures, however, people are working in good faith and, in some cases, raising money in good faith, in an attempt to put a buy-out together. We think that a couple of buy-outs will be allowed to succeed as a form of window dressing. There will be many photo-calls involving the Minister, holding up his little blue bus again, just to show us that, as the Government said, buy-outs have succeeded.
      The big sales, however, will go to private sector companies. I am sure that the Minister will not be the ultimate authority on these matters. The ideological jiminy cricket—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—is not with us this evening. I am sure, however, that the idea of the entire SBG being given away or sold to some form of socialised ownership would not be too popular in that quarter.
      We believe that one or two buy-outs will be allowed to succeed, but that many SBG assets will be sold to the crude private sector. To give us some reassurance, the Minister can easily accept the amendments which propose that the sale of components of the SBG will not be proceeded with until there has been agreement—not consultation—with interested parties, including management-employee buy-out teams and trade unions. That is a reasonable proposition because, if the Minister is sincere, the last thing that he would want would be to rush in to sell-offs when the buy-out teams were not ready to participate.
      Our next concern is about the number of buy-out initiatives that will be given support by the Scottish Office. We have heard a great deal about the assistance that will be given to buy-outs. There will be a guarantee of £48,750 from public funds to the initiators of buy-outs if they do not succeed. Opposition Members do not believe that that
      748
      is very generous because we know that the cost of putting together a serious buy-out offer is likely to be nearer to £250,000.
      In Committee we learnt from the Minister, almost by accident—it was not clear at earlier stages of our proceedings—that, within each privatised company, only one buy-out bid will qualify for the £48,750. That is unacceptable. We know that at least one of the companies that is to be sold off—a large company covering a substantial geographical area of Scotland—has two initiatives going ahead. One initiative is management-led and the other is employee-led.
      It is entirely wrong and against natural justice for the Government to make a pre-emptive strike against one of those bids by saying that they will support the other with the financial guarantee of £48,750. In the legislation the Government have not said that they will support only one form of buy-out and no other. If they had had the courage to say that, they would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. English experience shows that there are various forms of buy-out. Everyone knows that there are various formats and varying degrees of emphasis on management and work force. Anyone who has contact with the real world knows that sometimes the management might not have confidence in the work force and the work force might not have confidence in the management. In those circumstances, surely each of those elements is entitled to try to put together a buy-out on is own initiative.
      One of the amendments under consideration proposes that up to three potential buy-outs should qualify for Government support. That will not impose any great burden upon the public purse. We are talking about a maximum of 30 potential buy-out bids. Nobody thinks that there will be 30 bids in reality. It would be unlikely if in any more than two or three of the companies to be bought out there were rival bids from within the existing management and work force. However, to rule out the possibility and say that there are no circumstances under which management or employees will be allowed to diverge and put together rival bids to be considered on their merits is unacceptable and flies in the face of what the Government are supposed to espouse—competition.
      If a worker-led bid came forward and there were employees within a company who had drive, initiative and new ideas about how it could be run more successfully and provide more services at no cost to the public purse, why should they, in effect, be disqualified without their case ever having been studied by those who are supposed to study the bids? If the Government adhere to their position, the decision on the bids would be taken not after due consideration and detailed examination but at the outset by telling one bid that it had not been selected to receive the £48,750 assistance.
      In Committee the Minister said—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I just want to check my memory. Is it not the case that if the buy-out bid is successful, the money would have to be paid back?
      Mr. Wilson: That is right. As my hon. Friend knows, that supports rather than contradicts my point.
      It would be extremely unattractive to any group of workers or management to enter a serious bid if they had been told by the Scottish Office that the bid was so contemptible that it would not even qualify for assistance if it failed because another bid from within the same

      749
      management or work force had been judged as superior. That is what the Minister is suggesting and that is what we find unacceptable.
      Within the framework of this short debate the Minister has an opportunity to say whether the Government will give any substance to their words. We lack confidence. Time and again we have put down the markers and placed on record that we would regard it as a perfectly reasonable alternative to what exists now if there were a series of companies throughout Scotland which represented the ownership of those at present employed by the Scottish Bus Group under the same conditions as at present and with the same commitment to the current level of services. In the legislation as drafted, where is any provision that underwrites the existing conditions of employment for those working in the Scottish Bus Group?
      The only way that that can be ensured, as the Minister recognised in our debate on pension schemes, is if the buy-outs are given a real opportunity to succeed. On the basis of what the Minister says, we will learn whether the Government's thinking has advanced. We will discover whether there is a real commitment or whether it is simply words which they hope that the Scottish public will forget were ever uttered so that in the fullness of time they can shunt the companies off to the private sector to do with them as it will.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A large number of points have been raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but the preferences are those stated on the first day of our Committee proceedings. First, a preference is given to bids where there is a high level of employee participation through an employee share ownership plan or some other scheme designed to ensure significant employee participation. Secondly, for competitive reasons, new independent companies will also receive preference and, thirdly, companies which are locally based with their headquarters in the area to be served will receive a preference to increase local responsiveness.
      Amendment No. 9 would require the Secretary of State to consult management-employee teams when drawing up the disposal programme. We have already made clear that we are determined to encourage management-employee buy-outs. We welcome the widespread interest that has been shown by management-employee teams in developing bids for their companies. Financial assistance will be given by the STG to one team per company to develop a bid. When considering bids, preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation.
      The STG and, through that, the Secretary of State will keep in touch with the development of bids. The disposal programme will set out the criteria against which the bids will be assessed, including the basis upon which a preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation. It would not be appropriate to consult prospective purchasers, whether or not they are management-employee buy-out teams, in drawing up the disposal programme. The preparation of the programme is a matter for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the STG.
      750
      Therefore, the amendment is inappropriate. As I have said, we will keep in touch with the development of bids by management-employee buy-out teams and we shall take account of any relevant points that arise from that process.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The issue of who receives assistance and who does not is extremely important. Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office, or somebody, will carry out an initial selection process if there is more than one employee-management buy-out effort and that there will be, in effect, a preferred bid for assistance? If a bid falls flat quickly, will it be possible for the Secretary of State to switch the assistance to the other bid which was previously ruled out and to give those involved the chance further to develop their proposals?
      6 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If more than one bid is forthcoming from different management or employee teams in a given company, we shall, of course, consider those bids. All bids, from whatever source, will be given due consideration. I hope that there will not be more than one bid from within a company and I believe that it is unlikely to happen. Amendment No. 19 seeks to require the group to make any financial assistance offered to management-employee buy-out teams available for up to three buy-out attempts in any company.
      It may be helpful if I remind the House of the basis on which financial assistance will be made available to management-employee teams. The assistance will be available to one team per company and will consist of an underwriting of 75 per cent. of the costs of the professional fees required to mount a bid up to £65,000—that is, a maximum of £48,750. The assistance will be required to be repaid in the event of the bid being successful. The assistance will be provided by the Scottish Transport Group, which will consider applications from management-employee teams against the background of promoting the buy-out of a controlling interest by management and employees. The best way to encourage and promote a controlling interest by employees, who include management personnel employed by the company as well as other staff, is to encourage strong competitive bids by management-employee teams. We have made it clear that bids involving a substantial degree of employee participation will receive a preference. Successful bids by management-employee teams would also help to meet the competition objective by establishing independent, locally based companies.
      The best chance of success for a management-employee bid will arise if there is only one such bid from within the company. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North made an important point on that. More than one bid would probably be counter-productive because of the substantial danger that neither of the two bids would succeed. If there were disruptive factors at work, one management-employee buy-out team might not come forward. I expect the Scottish Transport Group, before reaching a decision on assistance, to see what it could do to encourage any separate teams to come together to mount a single bid. I hope very much that management and employees in the various companies will be able to agree to mount one bid. I consider amendment No. 19 to be counter-productive in terms of what the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve.
      Mr. Wilson: I fully understand that the Minister hopes that one bid will emerge and perhaps that would be the best answer, but if one bid does not emerge, will the Minister maintain the right to dictate that either only one bid will emerge or that he will condemn those involved in an alternative bid to effective disqualification?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clearly, financial assistance will be given for one management-employee buy-out team per company and no more because that would be counter-productive. Were I to agree to do more than that, it might have the effect of making it extremely difficult for either management or employees to launch a successful bid.
      Mr. Wilson: So the Minister categorically denies the right either for management to have insufficient confidence in the work force to mount a bid or, more probably, for the work force to have insufficient confidence in management to mount a bid. I remind the Minister that, when the National Bus Company subsidiaries were sold off to the private sector, the first thing that the private company did in many instances was to get rid of the management because of its dissatisfaction with it. That right will not exist for workers within a company. There may be a good relationship between management and employees in most companies, but if people are not prepared to go down the road together they will not be allowed to go down the road at all.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this. We are not preventing anybody from making a bid, but we believe that there should be one form of assistance per company.The Scottish Transport Group will give advice about which body it should go to.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister must accept that if another potential buyer was coming cold on the scene, there would be no question of qualifying for financial assistance. Yet if there are two bids from within the company that is to be sold off, a unique pre-judgment would be made by the Scottish Office about the superiority of one bid against another. It is against natural justice for the mere existence of a bid to be the basis for judgment, rather than the quality of the bid.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I very much hope that that situation will not emerge. The Scottish Transport Group will made recommendations and give advice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that clause 3(2) provides:
      "The Secretary of State may, having regard to section 2 of this Act, give directions to the Group as to the manner in which they are to implement the disposal programme generally or in any case specified in the directions."
      I accept that the Secretary of State will have the ultimate responsibility because he will have to approve each sale. Any group can make a bid and will be considered seriously, but assistance will be given only for one management-employee buy-out team per company.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that there will be only one form of financial assistance per company, in the form of the £48,750 to help people to put together a bid in the first place. In Committee, it emerged that the Scottish Development Agency has been investing public money in the private operator Stagecoach to enable it to put together £5 million with which to buy some of the public assets involved in this privatisation. The Minister said that
      752
      the money that the Scottish Development Agency invested in Stagecoach was more than £65,000, but less than £1million. Will he tell us exactly how much public money the Scottish Development Agency has invested in the Stagecoach operation and whether the same level of investment will be available to every bid, including management-employee bids, that is made to buy one of the subsidiaries? If there are one, two or three management-employee bids within a company, will they all receive the assistance from the Scottish Development Agency that Stagecoach has received?
      Mr. Bill Walker: I want to speak briefly. As those hon. Members who were in Committee know, I have been giving advice to Strathtay, which is the current Scottish Bus Group company, and to Stagecoach, both of which operate in my constituency. I hope that both companies will be successful in the privatisation programme because both have much to contribute in different ways.
      There is some merit in amendment No. 19, which deals with the possibility of more than one group within management and employees considering a buy-out. In any auction, the more who bid, the greater the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price. In this instance, that is in the interests of taxpayers and also of managers and employees because it is only through learning what the values are and what the method of bidding is that they will achieve a learning curve. Anyone who has had dealings with the present management of the Scottish Bus Group will realise that that is new, uncharted territory for most of them. Some people have previously worked in the English companies when they were privatised and have some direct experience, but the majority have not. There would have been merit in considering the possibility that more than one proposal might come forward in any given company in the group.
      It is interesting that the Minister believes that that could have a damaging impact on the quality of bids and that it is better to receive one bid that represents management and employees. He must know—as I know —that some managers are more acceptable to some of the employees than others and that the employees may wish to follow those managers down this road. That is fairly common—there is nothing unusual about it. In any large, structured company, some people are better motivators and better at getting on with the work force than others. Although that does not necessarily mean that they are good or bad managers, it may have an impact on the employees' decision about whether they wish to be part of any bid.
      We are talking about a lot of money. Although it may not seem much to people who are used to talking in millions, it will be a substantial risk for the individuals involved. That, too, will have an impact on the decisions made, especially by the employees.
      I hope that both Stagecoach and Strathtay will be successful. Strathtay is a good operation and well put together. Those companies could be successful in different parts of the country. Strathtay could be successful in Tayside, and Stagecoach elsewhere. I have never made any secret of the fact—
      Mr. Wilson: We know that the hon. Gentleman is advising both companies—he informed us of that in Committee and has said so again tonight—but is it correct

      753
      that he is backing Strathtay for his own area? Can he give us any reason why the same principle should not be applied to any part of the country that does not happen to be his own?
      Mr. Walker: I can answer that easily. I do not know the facts and the background and have not met the people at other firms, but I am impressed by the quality of the management and the attitude of the employees at Strathtay. If I had the opportunity, which I have not had, to go round the rest of Scotland, perhaps I would form the same view of the rest. I am judging by the quality of the management, the leadership and the fact that Strathtay employees—the hon. Gentleman knows this because it came out in Committee—are having funds deducted from their pay every week to make their contributions to buying the shares. I do not know whether that is being emulated elsewhere, so I am asking rather than making a statement. However, as I have said, I am impressed by the quality and the attitude adopted and therefore hope that Strathtay will be successful.
      In the final analysis, I hope that whoever acquires the independent groups will be committed to road transport and to public service vehicle activities. That applies equally to those in the private sector and to those who are now in the public sector but who hope to make some kind of management-employee buy-out. It is important to Scotland that those who end up running our bus operations are committed to bus operations. That is one reason why I have no hesitation in saying that I support Stagecoach also.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his speech. Obviously, he will give whatever support he can to his constituency, and that is welcome.
      In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that I would follow up with the Scottish Development Agency the need for management-employee buy-out teams to receive the same treatment as any other applicant for assistance from the SDA. I confirm that my officials have written to the chief executive of the SDA to strengthen that point.
      Mr. McAllion: Has the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency acted on that letter?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have not yet seen a reply from the chief executive, but my understanding is that the position is exactly as I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee. There will be comparable treatment, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
      Mr. Wilson: We have noted with interest the declaration from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he will support Stagecoach everywhere except in his own backyard—
      Mr. Bill Walker: I have made it clear that I would not be unhappy if Stagecoach ended up with the Strathtay area, but that I would prefer Strathtay bus company.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has not added anything to my previous comment.
      I come back to the Minister on the question of Scottish Development Agency assistance to Stagecoach. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)
      754
      asked specifically how much it has received. My understanding is that it is no secret and that it is public information—that is unless it has received £250,000 or more. Surely it has not received £250,000 or more.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Development Agency, in syndicate with a number of other financial institutions, subscribed part of a total of £5million new money raised by Stagecoach. The SDA's investment was made in accordance with our normal commercial criteria to help to strengthen the financial and business position of an expanding company, headquartered in Scotland, which is prepared to provide the prospect of continued growth.
      I stress that that money relates to new equity and is not directly linked to any specific plans by Stagecoach for bids for SBG companies. The point that the hon. Member for Dundee, East was making was about assistance to management-employee buy-out teams.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Wilson: With respect, that is not good enough. I am asking a straight question to which the Minister can either give or refuse to give the answer. How much public money has Stagecoach received through the Scottish Development Agency? The Minister should not give us that disingenuous stuff about new equity, which is not meant to assist with buying Scottish Bus Group companies. Stagecoach has been more honest and straightforward than that and has told us that it will bid for every part of the Scottish Bus Group. That will be the point at which the Minister's lip service to buy-outs will be put to the test. The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify that position. I assume that he has the information in front of him. Presumably public money is not dispensed with such largesse to Stagecoach or anyone else that the Minister does not know how much has been given. How much Scottish Development Agency money has gone to Stagecoach?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said in Committee, it is less than £1 million. I shall check the exact figure with the SDA and, if I am in a position to reveal it, I shall do so.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 199.

      Division No. 103]

      [6.16 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Alton, David

      Cummings, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dewar, Donald

      Beith, A. J.

      Dixon, Don

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eastham, Ken

      Blunkett, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bradley, Keith

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Buckley, George J.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Foster, Derek

      Clay, Bob

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clelland, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Corbett, Robin

      Galloway, George

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      755

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hardy, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Haynes, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Patchett, Terry

      Henderson, Doug

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      Janner, Greville

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Robertson, George

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kennedy, Charles

      Short, Clare

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

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

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Strang, Gavin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Wall, Pat

      McFall, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McKelvey, William

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McNamara, Kevin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McWilliam, John

      Wilson, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Winnick, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maxton, John

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Amess, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Critchley, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Atkins, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bendall, Vivian

      Durant, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, W.

      Eggar, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evennett, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Favell, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brazier, Julian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bright, Graham

      Fookes, Dame Janet

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

      Forman, Nigel

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Forth, Eric

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Franks, Cecil

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Cash, William

      Gow, Ian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gregory, Conal

      Chope, Christopher

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      756

      Grist, Ian

      Patnick, Irvine

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hannam, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

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

      Price, Sir David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Raffan, Keith

      Harris, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hayward, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Heddle, John

      Redwood, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Riddick, Graham

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'lh'm)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Holt, Richard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howard, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

      Shersby, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Sims, Roger

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Irvine, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Irving, Charles

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jack, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Janman, Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Stern, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Summerson, Hugo

      Key, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Knapman, Roger

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Knowles, Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lang, Ian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Lord, Michael

      Trippier, David

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mans, Keith

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Walden, George

      Mates, Michael

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Waller, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Ward, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wells, Bowen

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wheeler, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Wilkinson, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mudd, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Neubert, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Page, Richard

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Paice, James

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1A) It shall be a condition of purchase for any undertaking proposed for sale under this section that the business shall not be re-sold within a period of five years without the consent of employees in the undertaking'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments.
      No. 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
      '(1A) In giving effect to subsection (1) above, no single buyer may own more than two of the subsidiaries set up for disposal'.

      757
      No. 5, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert
      'and in giving such directions the Secretary of State shall direct that no fixed assets shall be sold by a disposed undertaking within a period of five years without the consent of the Secretary of State'.
      Mr. Wilson: We now come to the disposal of assets of the Scottish Transport Group. The key amendment is No. 3. Amendment No. 5 deals with the assets of the undertaking and states that they should not be disposed of within five years after privatisation.
      The Bill is a potential asset stripper's charter. There is no hypothesis in that. We have only to look at what has happened in England and Wales to see why the fears that Opposition Members are expressing are so strongly founded. We have only to look at the string of sell-offs of assets of the former National Bus Company groups after privatisation to demonstrate conclusively that those are not far-fetched fears or exaggerated concerns. It is the reality. Unless safeguards are introduced, sell-offs will Occur.
      I want to look in particular at the case of Hampshire Bus which was based in Southampton. It was sold as part of the National Bus Company sale to a company about which we have heard a great deal in our deliberations, Stagecoach, which is based in Perth. Hampshire Bus was sold for £2 million. It owned two bus stations in Southampton. One was used for city buses and the other for long-distance coaches. At the time of privatisation it was well known that the city bus station was subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council and would be taken over for whatever sum. I have been unable to establish precisely what the sum was. It was apparently part of a complex transport property transaction.
      6.30
      As I observed on Saturday when I visited Southampton, that site is now the scene of development building work. What was wholly unacceptable and certainly played no part in the deliberations prior to privatisation was that the coach station would also be sold. That was the surprise packet that Stagecoach pulled out of the bag. Having bought Hampshire Bus for £2 million, it sold the coach station for £4·1 million within a fortnight of the initial purchase. The profit on that deal was £2·1 million, with the great majority of assets still in hand.
      Since then Stagecoach has disposed of a large part of the bus operations. They were sold to Solent Blue Line, which is a subsidiary of Southern Vectis on the Isle of Wight. It is believed that the selling price for the mobile assets of Hampshire Bus was about £1 million. We now know that Stagecoach has obtained a minimum of £5·1 million for the £2 million worth of public sector assets.
      As I observed in Southampton, that leaves a problem for the travelling public. It can be defined as a lack of bus stations. Solent Blue Line no longer operates any sort of bus station in the town centre. Anyone who wishes information about bus services goes to a bus. "Where better?", Tory Members may ask. A bus has been turned into a mobile information centre, giving details of the times of services and other facilities provided. The bus stops in Southampton are ranged along the pavements with the various companies using those facilities—that is perhaps too strong a word—which leads to congestion.
      758
      The operational station—the enginering workshop and so on—which was previously accommodated within the bus station has been shunted off to a glorified shed on what can best be described as a piece of waste ground. That is the joy of privatisation in that particular case. Solent Blue Line offers no proper facilities, such as canteens, for workers and they cannot all crowd into a bus to take advantage of such facilities as it provides.
      The progression has been as follows: Hampshire Bus was sold to Stagecoach for £2·1 million. Its city bus station was sold for development and its long-distance coach station was wholly unexpectedly sold for £4·1 million. Half the buses were sold for £1 million. The remaining facilities for city bus travellers are virtually nil.
      Although Hampshire Bus's successor, Stagecoach, in what we were told was splendid entrepreneurial fashion, doubled its money in a fortnight by selling the coach station, it still left the problem that some people wanted to travel by coach. Fortunately, Southampton is under Labour control and there is an interest in providing public services. Despite the fact that the public purse had been so shamefully ripped off by the sales and the asset stripping, it was left to the ratepayers, through the local authority, to pick up the tab. Because of Stagecoach's speculation, the ratepayers of Southampton have had to fork out £138,000 to provide another coach station. The good, sturdy, private sector alternative would have been to leave people waiting in the rain. After all, why do they need a coach station? If Stagecoach has sold it, why should the contemptible consumers of bus services not just be left to suffer from market forces imposed on them by the Government through privatisation? The people of Southampton have paid £138,000 to assist Stagecoach towards its profit of a minimum of £3·1 million.
      In the last few minutes of the Committee stage we had an interesting debate when the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) defended what had happened. He said that it did not matter how the £3·1 million was acquired and that it was what the company did with the money that mattered. So long as it invested the money in buses, that was all right. That is an extraordinary doctrine of private enterprise. In other words, it is defensible to buy public assets cheap in order to sell them dear. It is a disgrace to the word "enterprise" to attach that claim to it.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should look a little more carefully at what I said. I have not yet seen the Hansard report of our proceedings, but I said that the assets of any company are its resources, which are human as well as physical. Buildings and buses, as well as employees, are its assets. It is how the management employs those assets to the benefit of the whole that matters. It does not matter that a company has large capital assets if they are under-employed and if the company is going broke. It makes no difference. Management is required to maximise the use of assets. That is exactly what I said.
      Mr. Wilson: That is a sophistication of what the hon. Gentleman said and the record will show that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is distancing himself from what happened. If so, I welcome that.
      Clearly, this case was an outrageous fraud on the public purse. Someone has said that the assets of Hampshire Bus were worth £2 million. Within weeks Stagecoach had turned. them into £5·1 million and still had half the

      759
      operation left. Does the Minister care to defend that? If nobody does, why the hell are the Government doing this again under this Bill? There is nothing in the Bill which gives the slightest safeguard against that sort of asset stripping by the same companies to which sections of the National Bus Company were sold.
      We are playing for big stakes here. There are many big sharks waiting for the wee Minister to announce the terms of these sales. My advice is that the development value of Buchanan street bus station in Glasgow is £4 million. The development value of St. Andrews square bus station is extremely difficult to assess because in the last year alone commercial property values in the centre of Edinburgh have literally doubled. The best estimate that I can get is that it has a development value of £15 million. Even the Southampton example pales into relative financial insignificance compared with the huge sums that are at stake in the sale of the Scottish Bus Group companies. The Minister will have to agree that nothing in the Bill would stop whoever buys Eastern Scottish from selling the St. Andrews square bus station a fortnight later for £15 million or thereabouts.
      On previous form today and in Committee, the Minister will say, "We hope that it does not happen. We do not want it to happen. We shall take into consideration the possibility that it might happen, but it would be dreadful if it did." But the Government will do nothing about it. When it does happen, all that the Minister will be able to say is, "It should not have happened."
      In Committee I gave a list of the bus stations in town and city centres in England that had been sold off similarly to, although rather less spectacularly than, the station in Southampton. The record shows that it happened all over the country. Asset strippers and property developers are extremely interested in the property assets of bus companies, and nothing in the Bill would exclude them from bidding for bus companies. A property developer who was interested in bidding for a bus company would not put himself forward as such, but would acquire the acceptable face of a bus company. How will the Scottish Office separate one from the other? The answer is that it cannot and will not. Unless something is written into the Bill to prevent it from happening, what happened in Southampton will happen in the towns and cities of Scotland. Will the Minister write a safeguard into the Bill?
      The other amendments in the group deal with the resale of the businesses themselves, which we suggest should not be done without the consent of employees in the undertakings. It is a modest proposition, but I do not expect the Minister to accept it. Time and again in England and Wales, the company that bought the bus undertaking in the first instance proved to be only a halfway house to resales, mergers and splits, and all the time the very last consideration was for the interests of the travelling public. If nothing is inserted in the legislation, that will happen again.
      I want the Minister to deal with the details of the Southampton case and of the Scottish company involved in that case. Who advised the Government that the assets of Hampshire Bus should be sold for £2 million? Will those same advisers be involved in valuing property assets in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities and towns where the Scottish Bus Group has properties? I do not expect the Minister to say that the matter is outwith his ministerial
      760
      remit. No Minister could have introduced this legislation without having investigated extensively the experience in England and Wales.
      If the Minister admits that monumental errors were made that allowed those profits to accrue to companies that were almost given the assets of the National Bus Company, he must tell us what will be inserted in the legislation to prevent those errors from being made again. The potential also exists for conspiracy, because the idea of people getting their hands on public property at a low valuation and of selling it for a different purpose at a high price is no novelty. Will the Minister safeguard against that, or will he make this Bill a charter for asset strippers and property developers?
      Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has made a compelling case for the amendments, and I wish only to reinforce one or two of his points.
      Before I do that, may I deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who said that there was a difference between asset stripping and freeing capital for use in a company? To some extent, he is right. We all know that some struggling companies that are trying to develop their business and put money into services might wish to develop by introducing modern buses, by erecting good bus shelters or by creating decent waiting facilities in their out-of-town operations. If that had happened after the sale of the National Bus Company, one could accept it as good business. Companies may run into cash-flow problems. To pay the wages, they may have to realise some of their assets. Had that been the case with the National Bus Company, one would not have quarrelled with it.
      As the hon. Member for Tayside, North knows, the difficulty is that that is the opposite of what happened in England and Wales. Assets were sold not to be reinvested in mobile assets or to provide better services, but simply to take profits out of the company without regard to how they had been earned. The hon. Gentleman had better address his mind to that difference.
      We believe that the amendments are vital because we have never been told officially the price of any of the bus companies.
      6.45
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman must have studied what has happened in the company referred to, so he will know that it has used the assets to buy new buses. The hon. Gentleman understands how businesses are run. If one can spread a core cost over a larger operation one can offer cheaper fares. That is exactly what has happened with that company because the costs of the base operations have been spread over a much wider network. That is using assets, not stripping them.
      Mr. Hughes: Had that happened, it would have been fine, but we know that it did not happen in the vast majority of cases.
      The problem is compounded by the fact that we have not been told the prices realised by the sale of the NBC's subsidiary companies. What is more, we are told unequivocally that only those who are fortunate enough to live for another 30 years will be able to find out the purchase price of those companies. I presume that the

      761
      papers will become available then. It is a bit perverse that one's potential for getting public information depends on one's age. But that is what the Government rely on.
      The Minister is a friendly young chap. I do not know the latest medical prognosis of how long he will live, but perhaps he is hoping not to be around in 30 years' time when the papers become available. If he is, he will know that he has repeated the error that was made in England and Wales.
      The Minister has made matters worse. Several times in Committee, when defending differences of approach in the Scottish Office and slight differences in this Bill, he said that one of the great benefits of introducing this Bill some years after the privatisation of buses in England and Wales was experience. Yet on this important issue the Government have not taken that experience into account.
      The Government say that they cannot tell us the value of the companies because the information is commercially sensitive. I do not understand how it can be against commercial interests to be told the selling price. I repeat the charge that we made in Committee which the Minister, regrettably, did not answer. If a local authority behaved as the Government have over the sale of public assets, its members would be disqualified and taken before the district auditor and might have to spend some time in gaol —and quite right, too. There should be no secrecy. We should be told precisely what the sale price is.
      The Minister's only defence—I do not recall him using it in Committee—against the charge that he is wantonly selling public assets cheaply is that we always have recourse to the Public Accounts Committee. The trouble is that that Committee does not have the information on which to act. I have no information with which to write to the Chairman of the Committee asking it to investigate the sale.
      Perhaps I had better measure my words carefully, as I do not wish to embarrass anyone. I made inquiries about one of the sales mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. When I asked how the Public Accounts Committee could examine what I regarded as gross excesses and a gross dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State for Transport, I was told-quite properly-that the PAC could investigate only specific charges. It was no use my saying, "I read in the papers that this happened", "I believe that this happened" or "There is speculation that this happened". The PAC wants hard and fast information, and it is right that it should. We do not want to pillory people without cause. I consider that one of the great benefits of public investigation is that not only are the guilty found guilty but the innocent are exonerated if false charges are made.
      The Minister, however, is encouraging speculation and rumour. He is leading us to believe that the information will never be provided. That will fuel speculation. Indeed, we have good grounds for believing that the information that we have been given is accurate: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North would not have read out that list without a solid belief that the property speculators were busy.
      Why should this matter? It matters in principle. Someone once said that principles were expensive things. The people who suffer if they are broken are not the owners, the shareholders or the board of directors, but
      762
      those who work in the industry—people who have given their lives to that industry, built up the companies' assets and made them into going concerns attractive for privatisation.
      I am astonished to see that no Government amendments have been tabled. I certainly do not charge the Minister with dishonesty; if I were to do so I should be reprimanded. Nevertheless, he has not honoured the spirit of the words that he used in Committee, where we engaged in a long debate about the value of the assets and the effect on the workers. I regret that I cannot quote the Minister exactly, but I am sure that he will tell me if my paraphrase is inaccurate.
      The Minister said that he understood the points that we were making and would undertake a close examination to find out what information could be made available. He hinted, at least, that he might be prepared to table a Government amendment on Report to cover the possibility of making the sale price known. In answer to a question from me to that effect, he said in his charming way—with the little smile that he wears when replying—"We shall have to look at it." Perhaps I am becoming too gullible in my old age. I believed that he might bring forward such an amendment, but he has not done so.
      The Prime Minister believes that her words strike a chord with the British public. I shall not allow myself to be tempted to discuss devolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, apart from getting into trouble with you, I should get into trouble with my hon. Friends. Let me, however, refer briefly to the speech in which the Prime Minister said that she was totally against devolution. Why? Because, she said, she wanted to devolve power to the individual, not to corporate bodies. That, incidentally, is the core ethos of Socialism; we want power for the individual. It seems odd that the Prime Minister should use the same words as us. I thought for a moment that she had been re-reading "Das Kapital" in her spare time, but 1 suspect that it was all a charade.
      We have learned one thing from this Government, if nothing else. When the Prime Minister speaks, Ministers jump. Either they jump out of the Cabinet, or they jump around in it. If the Prime Minister had meant what she said, and if the Secretary of State—whom I am delighted to see taking an interest in the Bill—had conveyed her message properly, the Minister would have put down an amendment, and would by this time have leapt to his feet to accept amendment No. 3.
      What better example of devolution to the individual could there be than the provision in amendment No. 3 that
      "It shall be a condition of purchase for any undertaking proposed for sale . . . that the business shall not be re-sold within a period of five years without the consent of employees in the undertaking."
      Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that that is too modest. Perhaps the Minister will say that five years is not long enough, and will propose a Lords amendment providing that the business shall never be resold without the consent of the employees. I would accept that. I would go out of the Chamber with my tail between my legs. I would have to go to my constituency and say that I had been outbid by Tory Ministers, and that after complaining for all these years about their accruing power to themselves I had found that I had been wrong all the time. But I know that I am right. The Government have no intention of giving power to anyone except those who hold the purse strings. The paymasters of the Tory party have said, "You will

      763
      privatise. You will sell off the companies. The power will go with the purse strings, and the people who get the companies will be those who ray the most bucks."
      In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to give a fair wind to employee-management buy-outs. None of us, however, is naive enough to believe that such a buy-out will necessarily succeed in every case. If a private entrepreneur comes along and buys the company, there must be a fall-back provision for employees to have a say on whether their livelihoods are to be bought and sold.
      There has been great agitation about the fate of professional footballers—a cause close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, and indeed of great interest to all of us who are football fans. The idea that a player was bound to a company for the rest of his life, and could be bought and sold like a chattel with no real say in the matter, went out of the window because it offended against the principles of individuality. I think that, having accepted that, we must also accept that the buying and selling of jobs in this context is also an affront to individuality. I know that the Minister believes that, and I hope that he will accept amendment No. 3.
      The Minister said in Committee that he believed that if abuses were proven the Secretary of State would be able to act. I can find no reference in the Bill to his having the power to act: it must be one of the more nebulous powers in the legislation. I hope that if the Minister cannot accept the amendment he will take the matter seriously and will understand that we are dealing with people who, by and large, do not have the interests of the travelling public at heart, but are interested only in making money. They do not care about the people in the industry or those who may serve. The Minister ought to accept this group of amendments in principle—on ethical grounds—and I am sure that he will do so.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has raised again a question that he put in Committee about publication of the prices obtained for the subsidiaries. I said that once the process of privatisation had been completed we would publish the figure for the total proceeds, and also that I would reconsider the possibility of publishing individual sale proceeds.
      The suggestion that we should publish the amount paid for each company raises difficult problems of commercial confidentiality. During the process of privatisation it will clearly not be a good idea to publish the amount received for each company, as it could well affect prices in subsequent sales.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: If the Minister will say that, once all the companies have been sold, he will publish the individual price, I at least will be willing to meet him halfway and accept that.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have considered this matter carefully. Publishing the prices once the sales are completed also raises problems of commercial confidentiality because the companies involved may be concerned that the price they paid for a business should not be revealed to their competitors. The financial backers may also be sensitive about the disclosure of the purchase price that they had supported.
      764
      7 pm
      With regard to the public interest, the important figure is the sum that is realised for the Scottish Bus Group as a whole. I have already said that we shall publish that figure once all the sales are completed. If individual purchasers want to reveal what they paid for a company, it is a matter for them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is no doubt aware that Grampian Transport plc has revealed that it paid about £5 million for Grampian Regional Transport. After carefully reconsidering the issue. may I say that we would not want, as a matter of practice, to publish the proceeds from each company sold.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister should not pray in aid the Grampian experience, which is totally different. He knows that Grampian regional council is bound by statute to say how much it got from the sale; it cannot simply say that it will not tell anyone.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I stress that any company can reveal what it paid, but it is a matter for the company.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked about the Scottish Development Agency investment in Stagecoach. The investment was worth £500,000 and was made in the form of preference shares.
      Amendment No. 3 would make it impossible for a Scottish Bus Group subsidiary to be resold within five years without the consent of its employees. That would impose a limitation on the Freedom of action of that company which would not apply to the companies with which it was competing. That could cause difficulties and if such an inhibition operated which did not apply to other bus companies it could make it difficult for management-employee buy-out teams to raise funds. However we are keen to see employees participating in their companies through share ownership. The more substantial that share ownership, the more voice employees will have in the running of their company and over issues such as change of ownership.
      In privatising the Scottish Bus Group in the pattern we have chosen, we aim to set up a number of new, viable independent bus companies which will ensure healthy competition. We obviously want to see those companies continue as viable units. Successful operation is obviously the way to achieve that—not by giving employees a veto as proposed in amendment No. 3. In any case, it is not clear why the period of five years has been chosen. The best course is surely to encourage bids with substantial employee participation which will ensure that employees have a say in the operations of their company in the long term.
      Mr. Wilson: As the Minister reiterates his enthusiasm for bids that give workers a substantial say, does he consider that there is any conflict between that and what he has told us about the SDA investing £500,000 to ensure that such bids do not succeed?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Out of a total of £5 million investment provided by a number of financial institutions, the SDA contributed £500,000 in the form of preference shares. That does not alter the reality, and representations have been made to the chief executive of the SDA arising out of what was discussed in Committee.
      Amendment No. 4 would limit to two companies the number of bus companies which one purchaser could buy.

      765
      The prime aim of the privatisation is to increase competition, efficiency and service to the consumer. No limitations were written into the English and Welsh legislation, and I do not believe that such a limitation is appropriate in this case.
      The House should reject the amendment, but should be assured that we have taken on board the point made by the amendment. We entirely accept the need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies. In England, when 72 units were sold, no single buyer was allowed to acquire more than four. An application of a similar proportion to the 11 SBG subsidiaries—that is nine operating subsidiaries plus two other operations—would limit any single purchaser to acquiring one subsidiary.
      We accept the need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies. In part, of course, it depends where those companies are. However, given the nature of Scotland, with its urban concentration in the central belt, we accept the need to limit the numbers bought by one purchaser and will consider what can be said in the disposal programme, by which time the picture will be clearer.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spent a considerable time addressing amendment No. 5, which would prevent any of the privatised bus companies from disposing of fixed assets within five years without the consent of the Secretary of State. It is obviously important to ensure that there is no asset stripping.
      It is clearly essential to ensure that property is properly valued, not only on its existing use value for bus operations, but on other bases such as its full development value. We obviously want to avoid asset stripping and the selling on of assets at a large profit. Specialist property advisers have been appointed to value all the properties of the bus group and to advise on the best treatment of those properties in the course of the sale. There are essentially three options for dealing with the properties. The first option is to strip the property from the company and sell it separately. This might apply to a property that is not really essential for the running of a bus undertaking. The second option is to sell the property along with the company but ensure that the price received for the company fully reflects the range of values for the assets. The third option is to sell the property along with the company but with a legal charge on the property which will ensure that if the property is sold, say for development, within a specified period, the Government will receive a specified share of the development proceeds. A fourth option—I did not mention it in Committee—is to sell the property separately but arrange for it to be leased to the bus operating company.
      A prohibition on sales of property without the Secretary of State's consent would not achieve the desired objective. The only control open to the Secretary of State would be to prevent the property from being sold for a period. It would not prevent the owning company profiting from the sale. After five years there would be no controls at all.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked about the arrangements for the sale of the NBC and its assets in Southampton. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport and I would not want to comment on it. I have made clear the actions that we shall take to
      766
      avoid asset stripping. The key element is to obtain professional advice on the value of the assets at current use and for development.
      Mr. Wilson: Even by the Minister's formidable standards, that was a pathetic reply. I may be naive, and possibly the Minister will tell us differently, but perhaps there were no professional advisers in England and Wales. Perhaps the number of such advisers was pulled out of a hat. What possible answer is it to say that there will be professional advice? Of course there will be professional advice, but we are talking about whether that advice will be any good.
      We have already explained in some detail that the professional advice that the Government got in England and Wales stank. Whether that was due to incompetence or corruption, we shall never know, but we know that public assets were sold off cheaply to be sold on dear. That was done on the basis of professional advice.
      The Minister has said that what happened with the NBC is nothing to do with him but is for the Secretary of State for Transport to consider. Scottish Office Ministers are extremely selective about when we are operating in a unitary Parliament with unitary interests and when we are operating as a small segment of the United Kingdom when that segment is not supposed to know what is going on in another. Is the Minister seriously saying that when he drew up the disposal scheme and the scheme for professional advice he had no consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport? If so, it is certain that the quality of the professional advice will not be any better in Scotland than it was in England and Wales. Once again I challenge the Minister to address the Southampton example. Would the Minister find it acceptable if the same sort of windfall profits were made by the beneficiaries of the sell-offs? Would there be anything wrong with that?
      Perhaps the Minister could clarify the impression given by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who believes that it is all right to buy from the public purse something for £2 million and then to sell off a fraction of it for £4·1 million a fortnight later as long as the proceeds of the sale go to buses. Perhaps the Minister could write a cheque. Why should the Minister sell off the subsidiaries? Why not give them away while saying, "Look here, have it, so long as you spend the proceeds on buying buses.". The public purse would not get anything; after all, it all comes to the same thing. If the Government had given away Hampshire Bus and the assets had then been sold for £2·1 million, the profit would have been the same to the buyer, and the loss to the public purse in real terms would have been no less. Does the Minister regard that as acceptable?
      Will the Minister tell us the names of the professional advisers? Are they the people who gave such appalling advice about Hampshire Bus and other segments of the National Bus Company? Does the Minister have any information about that? Has any account been taken of the record of those advisers in past sell-offs? Is it the same old boys' network? Is it always the same advisers and no matter what advice they give and whether it is right or wrong they will always be there? The Minister must tell us something. He must not simply say that there will be professional advisers. I understood in Committee that they were already at work.
      Mr. Graham: Perhaps they are the professional advisers who advised the Government to sell the royal ordnance factory in my constituency for a pittance to people who later recouped the price in one sale.
      Mr. Wilson: That is an interesting question. My guess would be that they are the same advisers or perhaps from the same coterie of advisers. They are either bent or stupid, but they are not competent and certainly are not working in the public interest.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I said in Committee that the advisers were Kenneth Ryden and Partners?
      Mr. Wilson: I am well aware that the Minister said in Committee that Kenneth Ryden and Partners were advisers on property values. He did not say whether they had been involved in any of the English advice or whether they were advising on the valuations as going concerns as bus stations or advising on the development values. He did not say whether two sets of values had arisen in the English context. I am sure that the Minister has consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that.
      Were there two valuations for the coach station in Southampton? We shall be grateful if the Minister can help us on that, but if he cannot perhaps he will help us another time.
      I am grateful to the Minister for at least informing us that £500,000 of public money has been invested in Stagecoach in order, presumably, to help establish the level playing field which we are told is to exist in these sell-offs. I am surprised that at this sensitive time the Scottish Development Agency should have seen fit to invest £500,000 in Stagecoach, but I suppose that is a matter for the SDA—unless it did that under political direction. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about that as well.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since its inception the SDA has been investing in this way throughout Scotland and in companies. There is nothing odd about that. Why should it make fish of one and fowl of another? The fact that Stagecoach applied and was accepted is surely enough. There is no end of examples of companies obtaining assistance in this equity form and then going on to be assets to Scotland. Unfortunately, others have been disasters and much public money has gone into them. It is part of the risk that the SDA takes in evaluating this type of equity, and it goes on all the time.
      Mr. Wilson: Unlike Conservative Members, I am an admirer of the SDA and I am not attacking it in any way. I just find it a little odd that, at this sensitive time, when Stagecoach has announced that it will bid for every Scottish Bus Group subsidiary and is putting together a £5 million war chest for that purpose, the SDA is investing £500,000. That is especially surprising because the successful achievement of Stagecoach's aims appears to be in conflict with the Government's preference as repeatedly stated by the Minister. It is even against the wishes of the hon. Member for Tayside (Mr. Walker), because he has made it clear that he does not want Stagecoach to succeed in his area.
      The other issue upon which the Minister was at his disingenuous worst was about why individual sale proceeds could not be revealed to us. The magic words
      768
      "commercial confidentiality" were incanted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) capably said, a local authority does not have any such option because its dealings have to be a matter of public record. It has always been a mystery to me why the Government can hide behind commercial confidentiality while local authorities have to do things up front.
      7.15 pm
      The idea that the interests of the buyers should be protected is also mysterious. It is not like a pools entry when one can mark an X for no publicity. The public is entitled to know what has been paid for public assets; there can be no ifs or buts about that. That should be an entitlement, as it is in local government but for some reason is not in Government dealings. However, the truth will out and in each of the 72 National Bus Company sell-offs those who keep an eye on the industry were in a strong position to find out what was paid.
      I assure the Minister that we shall keep a close eye on these sales. Even though the Government may be afraid to say what has been paid for the companies, we shall do so and will be able to compare the selling price with the asset stripping price when that process is engaged in.
      The Minister was asked many specific questions about the lessons that were learned from the sell-offs and the asset strippings in England and Wales, which in some cases involved Scottish companies and certainly involved companies that will be engaged in the bids for parts of the Scottish Bus Group. What safeguards have been taken against the same thing happening in Scotland? The answer in simple terms is, none. The Minister said that there were four options, but did not tell us which one the Government had decided to implement. Perhaps he could help us on that.
      Unless there are safeguards in the Bill, there will be asset stripping and property rip-offs on a grand scale. In many parts of Scotland bus stations that are centrally located in the interests of the travelling public will be sold by property speculators and will be replaced by facilities that are much less adequate arid less convenient. That is exactly what has happened in Southampton where, in spite of all the professional advice, the Government committed an offence against the public purse for which they should still be held accountable.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 184.

      Division No. 104]

      [7.16 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Alton, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beith, A. J.

      Cox, Tom

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, David

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Boateng, Paul

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Dewar, Donald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dixon, Don

      Buchan, Norman

      Doran, Frank

      Buckley, George J.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Eastham, Ken

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Clay, Bob

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

      Clelland, David

      Fisher, Mark

      769

      Flannery, Martin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Marek, Dr John

      Foster, Derek

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Maxton, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Galloway, George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mullin, Chris

      Gordon, Mildred

      Murphy, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hardy, Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Henderson, Doug

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Robertson, George

      Ingram, Adam

      Short, Clare

      Janner, Greville

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Strang, Gavin

      Kennedy, Charles

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Wall, Pat

      Lamond, James

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McAllion, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wilson, Brian

      McCartney, Ian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McFall, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McKelvey, William

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      McWilliam, John

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Madden, Max

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Amess, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Amos, Alan

      Durant, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evennett, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Favell, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Ashby, David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Atkins, Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bendall, Vivian

      Franks, Cecil

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gow, Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Gregory, Conal

      Butcher, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Butler, Chris

      Grist, Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cash, William

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayward, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heddle, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hill, James

      Day, Stephen

      Hind, Kenneth

      Devlin, Tim

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Howard, Michael

      770

      Howarth, Alan (Stratd-on-A)

      Renton, Tim

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Irvine, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Irving, Charles

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jack, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Janman, Tim

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Speller, Tony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lightbown, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Th urn ham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Tracey, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tredinnick, David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Trippier, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Walden, George

      Mudd, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Neubert, Michael

      Ward, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wheeler, John

      Norris, Steve

      Whitney, Ray

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wood, Timothy

      Portillo, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Price, Sir David

      Raffan, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr. Michael Fallon and

      Redwood, John

      Mr. David Maclean.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 6 in page 2, line 5, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I regard the amendment, which would replace "may" with "shall", as a Willie Ross amendment. As Opposition Members have pointed out, Lord Ross of Marnock frequently tabled such amendments. It is also fair to say of Lord Ross that he was almost always able to say no to such amendments, although on one occasion I persuaded him to say yes. If hon. Members wish to know the example, let me say that a pop group wished to apply for a licence to practise in America, and they had to get the licence from the Bow street magistrates court in London. I suggested that it would be better if they could acquire it in Scotland and he replied that he would lay an order so that they would have to go to the stipendiary magisrates in Glasgow.
      I have to tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that I have considered the amendment carefully. I explained in Committee that I did not think that the amendment was necessary and that it was our

      771
      intention to include in the disposal programme a statement of the general approach which the Secretary of State intends that the group should adopt in carrying out the disposals in the programme, including the intended timetable for implementing the programme. As it is our intention that the disposal programme should contain a statement of the general approach which the Secretary of State intends that the group should adopt, I am prepared to accept the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to do that.
      I am therefore happy to accept the amendment. I hope that this is helpful, although it is far from being the case that I wish to tread in the inimitable footsteps of the late Willie Ross.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Wilson: I do not want to let the amendment pass without some acknowledgement. This is the first crumb that we have been given in the entire passage of the Bill and I should accept it gracefully. Perhaps if I keep my speeches short on the amendments we shall receive more concessions.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      TRANSFER OF SHIPPING COMPANIES
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 3, after 'in', insert 'and remain with'.
      I shall adopt the same formula for this small amendment, which takes us on to the part of the Bill dealing with Caledonian MacBrayne. At present, the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne rests with the Secretary of State and that should be perpetuated in another form under the Bill. It is not necessary to say more than that.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The aim of the amendment is to require the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to remain with the Secretary of State.
      It might be helpful if I set out our policy towards shipping services to the Western Isles. We are committed to maintaining at least the present standard of service. This is a standard which has been substantially improved since we came to office. Our manifesto commitment was
      "to continue the substantially increased financial support for the provision and upgrading of ferries and terminals which are so vital to the islands".
      The evidence of that commitment is in the new ships and piers and substantially improved facilities.
      In the light of the dissolution of the transport group, of which Caledonian MacBrayne is part, the Secretary of State decided, having examined the options carefully, that the best arrangement was for Caledonian MacBrayne to become a company owned, in the first instance, by the Secretary of State. He will be appointing a new board for the company, which will be asked to examine carefully existing practices in order to find more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering the present standard of service. The Secretary of State said that no options for the longer term would be excluded, subject of course to the overriding proviso that they must ensure at least the present quality of service to the islands.
      Having set out the background and our commitment to services, it would be odd to specify in statute that a company transferred to the Secretary of State should
      772
      remain with him in perpetuity. Within the context of looking for better value for money, we do not know what arrangements might be proposed by the board, always subject to the overriding proviso of maintaining at least the present quality of service. We want to avoid limitations on arrangements which might be in the best interests of the islands, which will always remain the touchstone of any change which is considered. An amendment of this kind would limit the range of options which the new board might want to consider.
      In all this it is, of course, the service to the islands which is vitally important, and our commitment to it is clear. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Wilson: I only partially stated what the amendment was about and the Minister is right that, in addition to recognising the reality that control rests with the Secretary of State, it looks into the future. It seeks to legislate against the possibility of a change of ownership. On those grounds, the Opposition are disappointed that the Minister will not accept the amendment. Perhaps that gives something away about the Government's long-term thinking. However, we have seen off threats to Caledonian MacBrayne before and we shall see them off again.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 11, at end insert—
      '(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the interests of travellers, local people and employees are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the Board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.'.
      We now come to a more substantial debate on Caledonian MacBrayne and the shipping aspects of the Bill. We have centred the debate round the composition of the board. Although we suspect that the Government would like to do much to Caledonian MacBrayne, the only substantial aspect of the Bill that identifies that company's prospects deals with the creation and composition of a board.
      We propose—one might think eminently reasonably—that the interests of travellers, local people and employees should be given equal representation with commercial and management interests on the board. Put in another way, we might call this the NTS amendment. While considering the Bill, we have had to put up with a great many initials such as STG and SDG, and abbreviations such as CalMac. NTS stands, quite simply, for "no Tory sinecures."
      We are concerned that the board, which will be crucial to the future of Caledonian MacBrayne and the shipping services on the west coast of Scotland, will be perverted from the start by the sort of political appointments that are increasingly permeating and corrupting public life in Scotland. People with no qualifications, other than a party-political allegiance to Scotland's minority party—the Tory party—are appointed to every board and quango in sight. If that happens with Caledonian MacBrayne's new board, it is certain that the wishes of the people of the west coast communities served by the company will not be respected.
      I pointed out in Committee the extraordinary fact that it is now possible to travel from Muckle Flugga to the Mull of Kintyre—the length of the highlands and islands of

      773
      Scotland—without encountering territory that is represented by a Tory Member. On the 28 routes covered by Caledonian MacBrayne, at no time does one of its vessels call at a port represented by a Tory Member of Parliament.
      The reality of politics in Scotland and, more recently, in the areas that this company has served is that the Tories are completely unelectable at local or national level in the west coast areas of Scotland. That is a remarkable fact and, even within my relatively short political lifetime, it represents a remarkable change. Some of the people who have helped to bring it about are here this evening. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) for having put the last piece in the jigsaw to make the highlands and islands a Tory-free zone—and all the better for it. We do not want any of these rejected people or their allies to be brought back to life in a new form.
      As was noted in earlier debates, the former Member of this House who represented the constituency of Cunninghame, North before I was elected in June 1987 has already been found a nice little earner as chairman of the Scottish transport users consultative committee. That precedent makes us suspicious about what sort of clapped-out Tory rejects will be put on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne.
      Shortly before Christmas, when the privatisation threat still hung over Caledonian MacBrayne, there was a meeting in Oban at which genuine, concerned representatives of our communities came together from all over the west coast. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I were both in attendance, as were about 80 people, united in their opposition to privatisation, because they knew what it would mean for the shipping services on which they depended. They were excellent people who were very representative of our communities and any number of them would have made good members of Caledonian MacBrayne's new board.
      For the record, at that meeting just two voices were raised in favour of privatisation. One was that of a Tory councillor from West Kilbride, which, as I pointed out in Committee, is not one of the great nautical centres of the west coast. The other was a British publican from Port Askaig who gave the strong impression of being his own best customer. That was the level of support for privatisation within the community that is served by Caledonian MacBrayne. However, there is no guarantee that those two people, and the other 78 people, will not end up on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne. We shall watch events extremely closely. Again we shall make the Tories pay the political penalty if they try any such tricks.
      An arrogance is abroad—led, I think, by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—that makes Scottish Office Tories believe that they can do literally what they like. There is a real touch of the gauleiter about them. They have no electoral base, but they believe that they can carry on as though elections had never taken place and as though they will never take place again. Their cockiness might be justified for the time being, but elections will take place again—assuming that the hon. Member for Stirling does not gain even more influence. At that time, for each of these actions against the wishes and interests of the Scottish people, the Tories will again be made to pay the electoral price. At the moment they nurse the hope of regaining some of the lost lands of the highlands and
      774
      islands, so in their own political self-interest, as well as in the interests of the people of the highlands and islands, the last thing that they ought to do is to make appointments that would grossly offend those people.
      Control of Caledonian MacBrayne is now in the hands of the board of the Scottish Transport Group, which is primarily concerned with bus operations. The board has adopted a hands-off attitude, but that will change. When a board is appointed for the new company, Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., the question of who the board members are will become relevant.
      Lip service has been paid to the notion of islanders being appointed to the board, but I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are islanders and islanders. There are people who have committed their life's work to the island communities that are served by Caledonian MacBrayne and there are others who regard the islands as places to which to go for the occasional highland gathering and the subsequent ball. For instance, they have given Mull the nickname "the officers' mess". We do not want a retired colonel who has set himself up as a mini-laird on one of the islands to be appointed to the board. We do not recognise such people as islanders. What is even more important, the people who live on the islands do not recognise them as islanders.
      I know that the Minister has family experience of the kind of appointment that I am talking about. I am sure that he realises that people on the islands are well able to differentiate between those who have a long-term commitment to the islands and those who regard them as an outpost of empire where, preferably, the peasantry ought to be treated as the peasantry of the outposts of empire were once treated. We want those who genuinely represent the folk who travel on the ferries, live in the island communities and work on the ferry services to sit on the board. They would make sound, rational decisions that were motivated by social concern for the communities and by knowledge of local needs.
      We have noted at each stage of the Bill that the composition of the board of CalMac will be particularly important early in its life. It has been given two immediate remits by the Secretary of State. We have been told that the new board will be asked to decide on the location of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne. I am pleased to say that in recent weeks the Opposition's views on this matter have become quite clear. We have considered the question of the transfer of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne and we do not like it one little bit. We believe that relocation is a ridiculous requirement to impose on an area where unemployment stands at 27 per cent. It would be an unnecessary burden on the public purse if a new headquarters had to be built in Oban, or anywhere else.
      Folk should not be uprooted and disturbed in that way, particularly when no ostensible benefit to the travelling public would be gained. The majority of the travelling public will be at the end of a long-distance telephone call, irrespective of where the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne is located. I speak only for my own party when I say that we are firmly against the removal of the CalMac headquarters from Gourock to anywhere else.
      7.45 pm
      To hark back to the days when David MacBrayne Ltd. was privatised, it is worth remembering that there was an even more complex MacBrayne network of ferry services on the west coast of Scotland. The headquarters of David

      775
      MacBrayne Ltd. was not in the community that was served by the company. It was in Robertson street, Glasgow. There is a lot of sense in saying that the headquarters of a widely dispersed shipping company should be close to the centre from which many of the services and many of the passengers emanate.
      What we as politicians say about that is not the most important aspect. What the people who live in the island communities and who work for the company say is much more important. We do not want a board to be set up that has been told by the Secretary of State to go down a certain road. We want that board to be representative of the communities, to participate in rational debate, to look sympathetically at the interests of employees—as well as at a political wheeze from the Secretary of State—and come to a rational decision.
      We have also been told that the new board will be asked to adjudicate at an early stage on the selling off of two routes on the Clyde—Dunoon to Gourock and Wemyss bay to Rothesay. The location of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters is more a matter of judgment than politics, but there is no doubt that there is a political aspect to the question of whether those two routes should be sold off.
      The experience of the last nine years while this has been a matter of live debate has shown that it will be very difficult to get any CalMac board that has any contact with the communities served by the company to assent to such a proposition.. If the Secretary of State is to obtain the sell-offs that he hankers after, he will achieve them only by putting on the board the placemen and Tory lackeys whom we fear so much. All the power of argument is against the break-up of the network and the selling off of these routes. The economic argument is against it.
      If routes are taken out of a subsidised network, the last ones to be taken out are the ones that are the most economically viable—as the Clyde routes are. In that case, either one increases the need for public subsidy of the remaining routes or one reduces the level of services on the remaining routes; they will not have the weighting factor of the relatively good financial performance on the more profitable routes. The economic argument for taking these two routes away from CalMac is completely discredited.
      As for the integration of routes and services, the great strength of Caledonian MacBrayne on the west coast of Scotland is its ability to move vessels from one route to another to cover breakdowns, annual overhauls and refits. It is able to co-ordinate timetables and everything else that is connected with the complex Caledonian MacBrayne operation. The strength of integration extends to the booking system. People who are visiting the area can book their way through the Hebrides, across the Clyde, back into Argyll and out again to the Inner Hebrides. All of that is possible with the sophisticated computer-based booking network operated from Gourock. If the Government start playing about by taking loops out of the network and handing them over to some other operator they will lose that advantage as well.
      Once again the big argument against privatising these routes is that the people who live in the communities served by them do not want them to be privatised. They made that clear in 1981, when the Government had to retreat in a state of some disarray from the proposal to privatise the Gourock to Dunoon route. I have no evidence to suggest that opinion in Gourock and Dunoon
      776
      has changed. Equally, I have no doubt that the Government would meet with equally fierce opposition in Wemyss bay and Rothesay.
      I might say that both Renfrew, West and In% erclyde and Argyll and Bute, the two constituencies affected by these proposals, are Labour-held marginals. If the Minister wants to ensure larger Labour majorities, I suppose that is one good reason for proceeding with these proposals. But we do not look at these things from a short-term, narrow political standpoint; we look at them from the point of view of the public good. No one wants the Minister's lousy privatisation ideas, and he really should accept that.
      The Government have been messing about with this for eight years—confusing and annoying people. They really should go away and do something useful. Their dreadful persistence is an obsession, I think. There must be somewhere in Scotland, some subscriber to Tory funds who is obsessed with the idea of taking over the Clyde shipping services. That is the only possible explanation of the Government's preoccupation with such a relatively minor matter. We do not want these people on the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne either.
      There is a clear warning here. Make it a board that is representative of local interests, make it a board that is sensitive to the wishes of the travelling public, and we will welcome it, the people of the communities served will welcome it, and there will be no dispute. But make it another of these nasty little coteries of Tories, appointed on the basis of an old boys' or old girls' network, and further opprobrium will be heaped upon the Scottish Tories—and I should have thought they had enough opprobrium to be going on with without inviting more.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a continuing constituency interest in Caledonian MacBrayne in terms of both direct and indirect employment. I take it that the reference in the amendment to employees includes those currently employed by the company. That being the case, may I make a plea on behalf of my constituents who find their employment by way of Caledonian MacBrayne. Incidentally, in this context the Lord of the Isles, a Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, is to be launched from Fergusons in Port Glasgow on 7 March. I believe that the vessel will be launched into the Clyde by a lady by the name of Mrs. Edith Rifkind. I have certainly got the good lady's surname right, if not her first name, though I think that, too, is correct.
      The object of this amendment is to
      "ensure that the interests of travellers, local people and employees are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd."
      In my view, representatives of local people, present employees and travellers will be most anxious to ensure that orders for new vessels are placed with Scottish shipyards.
      I make no apology for making a special plea here in the context of the purchasing power that this new board will have, especially for ferries. Scotland's merchant shipbuilding capability has been considerably reduced. We now have, on the merchant shipbuilding side, Fergusons, Hall Russell of Aberdeen, which, I believe, has finally been purchased in the past few days, the Norwegian firm on the upper Clyde, Kvaerner, and Caledonian MacBrayne.
      The new board that is to be set up will need to order upwards of a dozen vessels over the next decade. That may

      777
      be within one or two of the figure currently in the company's estimates. I think I am right in saying that the plum order will be the replacement vessel for the Suilven, which plies between Ullapool and Stornoway. The present vessel is very old as ships go. It is not up to the job, although it is crewed and officered magnificently. It has to be replaced within the next three years. I sincerely hope that the new board—made up, as it would be if this amendment were accepted, of, amongst others, representatives of local people, travellers and present-day employees—will ensure that that contract is awarded to a certain yard on the lower Clyde, Fergusons of Port Glasgow.
      Local employment in Inverclyde would be helped immeasurably by such contracts. It would be tragic locally if the Scottish shipbuilding dimension were ignored in the scheme of things by this new company. The kind of board that my hon. Friends envisage would ensure that Scottish shipyards, in their present parlous condition, were not ignored.
      To move the headquarters of this company from Gourock, if it were not a local disaster, would at least cause dismay amongst many of my constituents, who either work directly for the company or obtain their work by way of the company.
      On 3 March the Secretary of State will formally initiate the Inverclyde enterprise zone. I think the ceremony is to be conducted in the municipal buildings in Greenock. I have been invited to the ceremony, and I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew and Inverclyde, West (Mr. Graham) has also been invited.
      Mr. Graham: No.
      Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend says that he has not been invited. I find that utterly surprising, and not right or proper.
      If, the Inverclyde enterprise zone having been set up, the headquarters is to be transferred to Oban, the people I represent will be deeply unhappy. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the good people of Oban, but it seems sensible, in the light of the setting up of the Inverclyde initiative, that the headquarters of this company should remain in Gourock. I understand that in Oban there are few houses for rent or sale. I am told also that there is a major problem in acquiring suitable premises and that there are certain skill shortages in the area.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I should be most interested if the hon. Gentleman could tell the House from where he got his information.
      Dr. Godman: I shall be perfectly happy to tell the hon. Lady, who, of course, has a deep interest in this matter. I think that she welcomes the transfer of this headquarters—and there we part company. I have been told by employees of the company—
      Mrs. Michie: In Gourock?
      Dr. Godman: Yes, of course. I have been told by employees of the company that that may well be the case in Oban and its surrounding areas.
      Mr. Graham: I have received letters from constituents who work at the CalMac headquarters who have found
      778
      that there is a problem with, for example, housing and education provision for the mentally handicapped. I am sure that my hon. Friend has similar information.
      Dr. Godman: I do not see why the lives of the fine, decent and honourable employees at Gourock should be disrupted so dreadfully by the move, or why they should be dismissed and receive paltry redundancy pay. It is essential that CalMac retains its headquarters at Gourock. It is essential that the new board has the composition which the amendment envisages and that it accepts the need to protect the interests of travellers, employees and those who work in Hall Russell and Fergusons in Port Glasgow.
      In view of the establishment of an Inverclyde enterprise zone, it makes sense for the new board of the new company to place orders for vessels with those two local shipyards. I do not want orders to be placed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and certainly not overseas. Orders should go to Scottish shipyards. The Minister should give employees at Gourock an assurance that the headquarters will stay in Gourock and that their employment opportunities will not be threatened. The Minister is an honourable man: he should accept this honourable amendment.
      8 pm
      Mr. Graham: The Minister knows my feelings about the Government's proposals. I fully support the amendment. I am extremely worried by what the Secretary of State for Scotland said on Second Reading. Introducing the Bill, he said:
      "I intend to appoint a new board for the company, which will contain persons with commercial expertise, including some with first—hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. That is vital to ensure the responsiveness of the company to its customers. As a matter of priority, I would look to the new board to examine the possibilities of relocating the headquarters nearer the centre of the area which it serves. Oban seems likely to prove a suitable place for this purpose. I shall also ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes."—[Official Report, 14 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 980.]
      It is imperative that any board should be able to do its job and not have the Secretary of State's hammer at its head and be told that it must consider moving from Gourock to Oban.
      What type of board are the Government setting up? Is it a board of donkeys which nods in the direction of what the Secretary of State requires? That would be disgraceful. A board should be able to look at the books and enhance the company's operations. It is incredible that the Government should tell it to privatise the Gourock-Dunoon route. That is nonsense. It is a profit-making run which could make more profit if the company was allowed to run as a free commercial enterprise like companies up the road. The Government put restrictions on CalMac's operations. Allowed to operate freely, the company would produce far more profit.
      The same can be said of the Wemyss bay-Rothesay route. Restrictions imposed by the Government ensure that CalMac does not produce profit sufficient to reduce its subsidy. It is lamentable that the Secretary of State made an announcement about the board without describing the CalMac operation.
      The review of accounts says:

      779
      "Caledonian MacBrayne continue to go from strength to strength. There has been a remarkable growth of traffic over the years reaching record levels in 1987 and more than justifying a sustained substantial programme of investment in ships, piers and passenger facilities generally. The Company's contribution to the prosperity and well-being of the island communities is further secured and strengthened by an aggressive marketing policy which is targeted successfully."
      Mr. Ian Irwin, CBE, chairman and chief executive of the Scottish Transport Group, has said:
      "Caledonian MacBrayne is now bearing the fruits of the careful planning, investment and aggressive marketing of the last decade. The company has had its best year ever with record passenger carryings and a refund of subsidy to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the second year running (£1·3 million in 1987 and £0·7 million in 1986)."
      Dr. Godman: May I observe that I have some criticisms of the present board, one of which is that too often it has ordered ships furth of Scotland?
      Mr. Graham: A board has to examine books and make value judgments. I can show clearly that CalMac has worked hard for the people of the islands and its customers.
      The headquarters in Gourock has one of the finest staff. They can be held up as an example of workers who have dedicated themselves to the company for which they work. Their record is one of the finest. They are not working in a Para Handy outfit. They work for a shipping company with 28 ships. In the headquarters, the company has one of the largest computer operations in the west of Scotland. It is served by trained, knowledgeable and dedicated staff. There are engineering workshops and bakeries, for example, adjacent to the headquarters—they help to keep costs down.
      The company owns the headquarters and the workshops. It is based on the Clyde. The managing director has said quite clearly—and the Minister knows it—that he thinks that a move to Oban would be commercially unsound. He has done an assessment of the work force, 90 per cent. of whom say that they do not want to move to Oban.
      I have spoken to the workers and they are extremely unhappy. The board has to be caring. It should consider the views of the workers and the islanders.
      I have shown, through the people who have been operating the company successfully, that the workers are an excellent band of people who will continue to strive to enable the company to grow from strength to strength. The board must face the possibility that, because of the Secretary of State's hammer hanging over the company, 90 people could be thrown on to the scrap heap. That might happen in an area with one of the highest unemployment records, not just in Scotland, but in Britain. Why should they be thrown on the scrap heap simply because the Secretary of State wishes to move the headquarters to Oban?
      Moving to Oban is not commercially sound. It will not help to reduce costs; it will probably increase them. A burden will he imposed on Oban if the workers decide to move. Will the poor be given homes? Will the 18-year-old girl who has written to me be guaranteed a house? Will the woman who has written to me and who has a mentally handicapped son receive the same services as she receives in my constituency? I do not believe so. With the best will in the world, the services cannot be provided.
      The Oban area has its own housing problems and homeless people. I am not an expert on Oban, but I know
      780
      my constituency. I know the workers in Gourock who work for Caledonian MacBrayne. I have met them. They want to continue to work. They do not want to go on the dole. They want to continue to work for CalMac, as they have done for many years.
      Dr. Godman: There is another element to the proposed transfer to Oban, and it relates to the objectives of the Inverclyde initiative and, presumably, the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Those objectives are concerned with reviving the largely dying waterfront of Greenock and Port Glasgow. In that context, would it not be absurd to dampen down Gourock by such a transfer?
      Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is right. The board must look at the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Businesses could be set up in the area to help reduce the subsidies. It would help ensure that CalMac continued to grow from strength to strength.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will not continue to dangle the sword of Damocles over the head of the workers. This is a blatant act of piracy, not on the high seas but in high places. Decisions will be made by people who are remote from the workers. I hope that the board will reflect the views of the workers and that it will not consist of people in remote high places.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the fact that those workers have worked to ensure that the 28 ships remain at sea and that there is adequate clerical and administrative back-up. More than 800 people are employed by CalMac and the 100 workers in question wish to continue to be employed there. I plead with the Minister to allow them the right to work in Gourock. They should not be thrown on the dole queues. He should give them that right. Through their work they have allowed CalMac to sail the seas and service the islands. He should allow them to continue to work and he should stand up and fight for the CalMac workers.
      8.15 pm
      Mrs. Ray Michie: The amendment is similar to one I tabled in Committee which was rejected by the Minister. I hope that he will accept this amendment, which I support. I have reiterated on many occasions how important it is that the new board reflects the wishes of local people and employees. The membershitp should consist of people mainly from the islands and the mainland ports from which CalMac sails. It is important to have a membership representing Dunoon and Rothesay. Those are the two routes that the Government have, unwisely, put under threat. It is essential that the views of the people in those areas be properly reflected.
      I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) say that the Labour party is in favour of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters remaining in Gourock. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is not present because he never said whether he would be in favour of the headquarters moving to the Western Isles, which is the wish of his council. Therefore, perhaps the Labour party is not in full agreement on that subject.
      I can fully understand the wish of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) to defend his constituents and their jobs. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the local Social and Liberal Democrats on the council are concerned about the people in the area. I

      781
      have also said that, should there be a move, "hope that the Secretary of State will give every possible help to anybody who has to move. However, I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would turn down the opportunity of jobs coming to his or her constituency.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mrs. Michie: I will not give way. I want to develop this point a little further.
      Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already told the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that I have no wish to take jobs from her constituents.
      Mrs. Michie: Hon. Members should understand that no hon. Member lifted a finger to stop Argyll and Bute losing jobs. We have lost a considerable number of jobs in the Health Service and in the social work department, which has been removed from my constituency and centralised in places such as Dumbarton and Paisley. Nobody said how terrible that was. They said that it was great that the department should move to somewhere such as Paisley. I am interested to know also how often the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mrs. Michie: I am interested to know how often the hon. Gentleman has travelled on Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and where he goes when he travels on them.
      Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Michie: Yes, I shall be interested to hear the answer.
      Mr. Graham: I have travelled frequently on Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and on many of its routes. I have travelled from Gourock to Wemyss bay, from Gourock to Dunoon and from Wemyss Bay to Bute. I have travelled on nearly all the Shetland ferries.
      Mrs. Michie: I am interested to hear that. There are ferries to Gourock, Wemyss Bay, and Rothesay. What about Coll, Tiree, Colonsay Stornoway and other ports?
      I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he does Oban a gross disservice when he talks about the lack of facilities there and most especially when he talks about the lack of facilities for mentally handicapped children and adults in the area. It is quite wrong that he should say such things without any knowledge of the excellent facilities available in the Oban area.
      Much has been made of the great computer that works so efficiently in Gourock. I am sure that it does work reasonably efficiently.
      Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Michie: No, because I want to develop my argument about the computer in Gourock. Some hon. Members should speak to constituents outwith Gourock and ask them how many times the computer has double-booked them, how many times they have received their first-choice railings and how many times what is said on the computer in Gourock is the same as is said on a
      782
      computer in another part of Caledonian MacBrayne. They are often saying completely different things, so we must find out just how wonderful this computer is.
      I say to the Minister again that we must have not just an assurance, but words written into the Bill that will ensure that the people of the islands and the mainland ports are given majority representation so that they can reflect the needs of the islanders especially.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall first answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who raised an important point about orders with Scottish shipyards. I am glad to confirm that the last two ships built for CalMac—the Isle of Mull and one to be launched next week—were both built in Scottish yards. CalMac places orders where it obtains the best value for money and, obviously, it is extremely happy to place orders in Scottish yards. That has been a policy in the past, and will, no doubt, continue to be its policy.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked about the profitability of the Gourock-Dunoon route. That route is not profitable as it is operated at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spelt out the anomaly of an unsubsidised private sector crossing competing with a subsidised private sector crossing on similar routes and he chose his words carefully on Second Reading when he said that the board would look at the possibilities in this connection.
      Dr. Godman: In relation to the Ullapool and Stornoway service, has the Minister any idea when an order is likely to be placed for a replacement vessel for the Suilven?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are having a wide debate, but we must have some regard for the terms of the amendment.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      On relief vessels, it was suggested that if the three ships that operate the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bayRothesay services were transferred to the private sector, CalMac would not be able to provide relief vessels in cases of breakdown. I can assure the House that that is not the case. The three ships concerned cannot operate outside the Clyde, and relief arrangements for the Western Isles will be unaffected. The island service can, at present, draw on the Jupiter or the main CalMac relief vessel in case of breakdown. The capacity of the Jupiter, however, is significantly less than that of the Isle of Arran and of the main relief vessel the Glen Sannox, which will still be available.
      I understand the passions that the siting of the headquarters has raised and I listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I respect the representations made on behalf of their constituents. The reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be asking that the new board should consider the best location for its headquarters is that he believes that it is right that the headquarters should be nearer the centre of the area that they serve. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he thought Oban would be likely to prove the most suitable place. Obviously, the new board will look at the issue

      783
      carefully and will take into account the interest of employees. It is worth considering carefully whether moving the headquarters would improve the service to the islands.
      Mr. Graham: The logic of the Minister's remarks does not meet the eye. Does he mean that everything will be moved into Glasgow because it is the centre of population in Scotland? I cannot understand his logic because in that case, all kinds of businesses should settle in Glasgow. Surely the Minister is not saying that that is how businesses should operate. The managing director has said that there is nothing the matter with the CalMac operation in Gourock, so to move to Oban makes commercial nonsense. Surely the Minister must listen to the man in the driving seat.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the headquarters move to Oban, they will be nearer to the centre of operations for the lifeline services to the islands concerned. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents and the workshops and the other evidence that he puts forward will, of course, be taken into account. But it is important to bear in mind the commercial aspects of CalMac's operations and the fact that the jobs in question will be relocated, not lost to Scotland.
      The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked me about members on the CalMac board from Rothesay and Dunoon. The Clyde shipping services advisory committee has two members from Rothesay and a member from Dunoon. That shows how the shipping services advisory committees are the best way in which interests can be involved. When my right hon. and learned Friend announced that a new board would be appointed for CalMac, he said that it would contain people with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the island and their needs. We discussed the composition of the board in greater detail in Committee and I gave an undertaking that we would look for persons with first-hand knowledge of the islands among those who are resident in the islands. We should not see the new board of CalMac as divided into those who have commercial or shipping experience and those who know about the islands. I hope that the persons appointed will combine as many qualifications as possible. We do not want the board to be divided into two camps. Our aim is to have a board that has both the necessary expertise and is responsive to the needs of the travellers who use the service.
      Amendment No. 16 suggests that those on board should in some way be there to represent a single interest or qualification. Under the amendment, persons would have to be appointed in relation to a particular interest. That might make the task of appointment more difficult, especially with a small board. For those reasons I ask the House to reject the amendment. In doing so, I remind hon. Members of the other arrangments that exist to represent consumers' interests, such as the transport users consultative committee for Scotland which will continue to have a remit covering CalMac. The committee contains two island residents from Arran, and one from Lewis. The shipping services advisory committees will also continue. Each of the three advisory committees contains substantial representation from the islands and the travelling public.
      784
      With those three committees, it is possible to have much more extensive island representation than on a small board.
      The advisory committees will continue to be consulted by the board of CalMac as before and I hope that that demonstrates to the House the machinery that will continue to exist for responding to the views of the travelling public and those residents in the islands. In the light of that and my description of how we shall approach board appointments, I hope that I have reassured the House that the new board will be responsive to local needs. I therefore ask the House to reject amendment No. 16.
      Mr. Wilson: I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Opposition Members when I say that we are not reassured. Indeed, we shall be reassured only when we see the names of the people who have been appointed to the new board and when we have had a little time to study their biographies.
      8.30 pm
      I object to the distinction that the Minister just drew when he suggested that the natives can travel steerage on the consultative committees while a different breed of person will be appointed to the bridge and be members of the small board. That happens at present in other organisations, especially in the Highlands and Islands development board. It is almost unique for anyone who comes from or lives or works within its area, to be appointed to that board. The other organisation is the Highlands and Islands development consultative council, which is where the local representatives are herded and, supposedly, consulted.
      The amendment calls for local people to be represented at first-class rather than third-class level. We are concerned about the board and we shall be keeping a close eye on its membership. Although we cannot take this further tonight, I warn the Minister that if he refuses to take heed of what is said and if he appoints people only because they can be relied on to represent the Tory interest, this will be another little problem that will dog him for the rest of this Parliament.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) suggested bringing back Mrs. McCurley. As has already been said, Mr. Corrie has already been brought back in a closely related role. One of my colleagues in Committee suggested that Mr. J. J. MacKay of blessed memory, whom the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) replaced, might fancy a nice little earner as chairman of the CalMac board, which would keep his connections with Argyll and Bute. I am sure that the work of organising the small band of Scottish Tories cannot be so onerous that he would not have the time to do that on the side. All those names have been bandied around, and I have mentioned one or two possibilities. They will be queuing up already because in such circles they know when jobs for the boys are being handed out, and there will be a few applicants for this one.
      Dr. Godman: We can hardly blame those Tory discards for their interest. Mrs. McCurley, for example, has been given a part-time appointment with the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The new board may well be made up largely of Tory discards.
      Mr. Wilson: That is the risk that we are trying to spotlight. I am sure that Mrs. McCurley will be as much an expert on horse racing and levies as most of the possible contenders for this board are on ferries.
      People in the areas served by the ferries can see through what is happening. I have no doubt that if the Government appoint political nominees, they will continue to pay the political price.
      I shall deal briefly with the two central questions raised by the Minister—the Gourock-Dunoon service and the location of the headquarters. I can assure the Minister that I know that the Gourock-Dunoon route is not profitable. Indeed, I did not say that it was profitable, but that it is less unprofitable than most other routes and that is a significant difference, especially in a company that is based on subsidy. If one takes out the less loss-making routes, one must increase the subsidy to those that make greater losses otherwise they will suffer a diminution of service. That is the straightforward economic argument against privatising the Clyde routes.
      The Minister is also wrong in his rebuttal of my point about the movement of vessels among the various routes. It is true that the three ships that serve the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay routes cannot operate outside the Clyde, but if called upon ships that operate outside the Clyde can operate on the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay routes, as can ships that operate on the other Clyde routes. If one takes those two routes away from the CalMac network, that degree of flexibility will be lost.
      I have absolutely no difficulty with the position of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute on the question of moving the headquarters. She was offered what appeared to be something on a plate for one part of her constituency. She is entitled to fight for that and to support it. However, I thought at the start that she was a little incautious to do so because other parts of her constituency will be less well served. As she recognised in Committee, the idea of moving the headquarters from Gourock to Oban is predicated on the assumption that the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes would be taken out of the CalMac network. As I do not intend that to happen, I do not think that the proposal about moving the headquarters gets past first base.
      Although I cannot answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is not in the Chamber tonight, I do not think that the idea of moving to Stornoway is particularly sound, if only because there might be some difficulty about Sunday bookings.
      Those arguments lie ahead. The main thing now is to get the board right. Although we can take that no further tonight, we shall press our amendment to the vote because we believe that it is essential to put clearly on the record our belief that the board should be representative of the island interest, committed to the extension and development of Caledonian MacBrayne, and not a pathetic cipher, hand picked by the Tories to serve the Tory interest.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 173.

      Division No. 105]

      [8.36 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Alton, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      786

      Blunkett, David

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Bradley, Keith

      Lamond, James

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Lewis, Terry

      Buchan, Norman

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Buckley, George J.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Caborn, Richard

      McAllion, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McCartney, Ian

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McFall, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKelvey, William

      Clay, Bob

      McTaggart, Bob

      Clelland, David

      McWilliam, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Madden, Max

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Corbett, Robin

      Marek, Dr John

      Cox, Tom

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cryer, Bob

      Martlew, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Maxton, John

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dixon, Don

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Doran, Frank

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Murphy, Paul

      Eastham, Ken

      Patchett, Terry

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Pike, Peter L.

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fisher, Mark

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Flynn, Paul

      Reid, Dr John

      Foster, Derek

      Short, Clare

      Fyfe, Maria

      Skinner, Dennis

      Galbraith, Sam

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Galloway, George

      Strang, Gavin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wall, Pat

      Graham, Thomas

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hood, Jimmy

      Wilson, Brian

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Mr. Nigel Griffiths and

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Amos, Alan

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Atkins, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Day, Stephen

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Den

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evennett, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Brazier, Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Favell, Tony

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

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Butcher, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Butler, Chris

      Freeman, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      787

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Norris, Steve

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Gow, Ian

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Page, Richard

      Gregory, Conal

      Paice, James

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Patnick, Irvine

      Grist, Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Price, Sir David

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

      Raffan, Keith

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harris, David

      Redwood, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Heddle, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hill, James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Howard, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

      Speller, Tony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Stern, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Summerson, Hugo

      Irvine, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jack, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Janman, Tim

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Johnson Smith. Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Tracey, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Tredinnick, David

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Trippier, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Walden, George

      Lightbown, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Ward, John

      Lord, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wheeler, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wilkinson, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wood, Timothy

      Mudd, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 13

      FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
      Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) It shall be a condition of sale of any undertaking or part of an undertaking under the Act that there be no diminution of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—

      (a) any person who is or has been employed by the Group (or any subsidiary of theirs); or

      (b) a member or such a person's family.'.

      Clause 13(3) states that
      "the disposal programme may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, include provision—
      788

      (a) for the maintenance to any extent of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—

      (i) any person who is or has been employed by the Group …; or

      (ii) a member of such a person's family; or

      (b) for the making of arty payment or the provision of any other concession, benefit or privilege in compensation for the loss, reduction or limitation of that concession, benefit or privilege".

      Our amendment would take out that wishy-washy provision.
      There is a simple but revealing difference in approach between Opposition Members and Conservative Members. Opposition Members simply say that some folk have concessionary travel, principally because they, their husbands or fathers have worked for the Scottish Bus Group for many years and it should not be taken away as a result of privatisation. It is not they who are privatising, and it is not they who should lose as a result. Let us keep it simple. Part of the deal of selling the company to the private sector is that such concessions are continued. Our approach is nice and simple, honest and decent.
      This clause is hedged by caveats under which the Secretary of State may see fit to include concessions as a condition of sale. If some hard-nosed man of the City says, "We do not want all these pensioners cluttering up our microbuses," that concession could disappear overnight. I should be surprised if the Secretary of State is losing any sleep over that.
      It is as simple as that. There is no point in spinning out the debate. We do not want the Government to take concessions from people or their relations who have worked for the Scottish Bus Group. If he leaves the amendment intact, the Minister will earn a little respect from the Opposition. Unless it is written into the Bill, as the companies change hands and asset-strippers and speculators get their hands on them, there will be no place for concessions. There will be places only for what passes for business.
      Dr. Godman: This is an important amendment. My constitituents who worked for Clydeside and Western are anxious to ensure that their interests, privileges and so on are respected in the same way as those of the employees at Clark Kincaid in the deal which was signed by British Shipbuilders and its buyers. My busmen constituents want the same sort of fairness shown to them as was shown by the management buy-out just down the road in East Hamilton street in Greenock when Clark Kincaid was taken over by Mr. Bill Scott and his colleagues. The negotiations were fair. I spoke to senior shop stewards, councillor Robert Jackson and John Quigley at Clark Kincaid, and they thought that they had negotiated a reasonable deal for the work force.
      Employees of Clydeside and Western, whom I have met recently, are seeking the provision that is contained in the amendment. It states that there should be
      "no diminution of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—
      (a) any person who is or has been employed by the Group."
      That is what they seek if and when negotiations for the purchase of their particular bus company take place. They would prefer to follow that route than the tortuous path that seems to have been followed by the employees at Ferguson in Port Glasgow vis-a-vis the would-be

      789
      take-over by the Perth-based Ailsa company of that yard. In that case the would-be buyer is arguing for a diminution of benefits, pensions and so on.
      I hope that the interests of the Clydeside and Western employees, who provide a fine transport service for the people of Inverclyde, will be honoured, as were those of my constituents employed at Clark Kincaid by those who acquired that company.
      Mr. McAllion: These concessions, benefits and privileges are essentially free travel for employees and either free or cut price travel for their families. In Committee the Minister said:
      "These concessions are not a right, but a privilege."
      The use of the word "privilege" presaged the Minister's intention not to stand up on behalf of the employees who insist that these privileges be maintained after privatisation. He showed that he was prepared to accept that the concessions would be conceded, at least in part, by the STG and through it by the Government in the negotiations with the new private operators.
      It is important to recognise that although each subsidiary, for example Strathtay, arranges the free concessions for its employees, the concessions apply to the whole of the STG. Therefore, it is possible for an employee of Strathtay to have a cheap busman's holiday with his family which could take him from Dundee to Perth on a Strathtay coach, on a Citylink coach to Gourock, on a CalMac ferry to the Western Isles and as far as Stornoway without any charge to him and only a part charge to his family. We are dealing with substantial concessions and rights which workers enjoy by custom and practice.
      When the Minister was asked what the value of the concessions was, he admitted that they had not been costed and said that he would ask the STG for an estimate. Can he tell us the cost of these concessions?
      In Committee the Minister said that the STG had the power
      "to enter into arrangements regarding the continuation of any concession"
      with the new owners of the privatised subsidiaries. Failing agreement in the negotiations, the STG would have the power to make compensation payments for the loss of any such concession. That reveals that the Minister expects the negotiations to fail. In the expectation of that failure he has built into the Bill the provision that the STG can make some sort of pecuniary compensation to those who lose out as a result of privatisation. What sort of financial compensation will be available for people who lose these concessions as a result of privatisation?
      The Minister went on to say:
      "I wish to make it clear … that the provision of any concessions for employees and their families of the privatised companies will be a matter for those companies."
      In other words, he conceded that the Government would not impose on the new privatised companies the condition that they pick up the concessions, but would leave it to the companies. He said that the Government
      "would expect them to provide concessions for their employees and their families."
      He may expect them to do that, but what steps is he taking to make them do so? That is the key question that he must answer tonight. So far he has not said how he can do that.
      790
      The Minister said that the Government would make provision in the disposal programme for bidders for any SBG subsidiary to be asked
      "what their intentions are with respect to travel concessions."
      If Stagecoach said that there would be no concession scheme for its employees, would that statement veto the bid or would the Minister accept the bid because of its other merits? Would he allow a bid to be successful although no concessionary arrangements were made?
      The Minister pointed to the National Bus Company experience and said:
      "in some cases arrangements regarding concessions were included in sale agreements."
      For the life of me, that seems to be what amendment No. 18 is suggesting. If the Government were prepared in the sale of NBC subsidiaries to concede that the continuation of these concessions should be part of the sale agreement, the Minister will have to put up a convincing argument why that cannot be included in the sale of the SBG subsidiaries.
      In Committee the Minister said that he would give
      "special consideration to the future arrangements for concessionary travel for retired employees of the bus companies"
      and that he would
      "anticipate that it will be possible to make suitable arrangements within the disposal programme, though necessarily covering the full extent of existing concessions."
      The Minister seems to be prepared to accept the precedent set by the National Bus Company privatisation and to include in the sale agreements the condition that retired employees should continue to enjoy concessions. But he also seems to be arguing that he would accept watered-down concessions by the private companies. He must say clearly whether that is the case.
      The Minister also said in Committee:
      "It remains to be decided whether STG employees other than CalMac employees at the date of transfer would remain eligible for CalMac concessions."
      Has the Minister decided whether any of the employees in the privatised subsidiaries will continue to enjoy the concessions which allow them free travel on CalMac ferries? The same applies to CalMac employees and retired employees. Will they be able to use the privatised buses, as they use the STG buses, free of charge?
      The Minister ended in Committee by saying:
      "It may not be possible to make arrangements for the full extent of existing concessions to continue, because, except for CalMac, the arrangements will depend on what is made available by the new companies."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 14 February 1989, c. 384–85.]
      That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed. These valuable concessions have been enjoyed by custom and practice in the transport industry sinced the second world war. The Minister seems to be washing his hands of responsibility for ensuring that the concessions continue and is leaving the matter entirely to the private operators. He will speak to them and try to reach agreement on including concessions in the new private operations, but he will do nothing to make the private companies accept those concessions. In the end, it seems that he is prepared to back down.
      I ask the Minister to remember what he said in Committee and to give now the answers that he did not give then.
      9 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Opposition Members have made several important points. I am not yet in a position to give a figure on the cost of concessions. It is probably difficult to calculate. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned compensation. Whether it will be paid in respect of the loss of concessions will be decided once the extent of the continuing concessions is known. Such compensation will not necessarily be provided, although the Bill would enable payments to be made if appropriate.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked whether the lack of a concessionary scheme would veto a bid. It would not necessarily veto a bid, but it would be seriously taken into account in evaluating a bid.
      Mr. Wilson: If the would-be private buyers of those companies buy their copies of Hansard tomorrow and see that the Government will take such matters into account and that it might lead to a veto, instead of telling the Government what they plan to do when making the bid might they not simply do it a fortnight later?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall give special consideration to the future arrangements for concessionary travel for retired STG employees. I would expect those matters to be covered fully in the disposal programme and, if necessary, for provision to be made in sale agreements. However, the arrangements may not provide for the full extent of existing provisions covering the STG network.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East used the National Bus Company as a precedent. I understand that in that privatisation not all the existing concessions were continued, but that the sale agreements provided for some concessions for retired employees.
      The STG grants its employees and retired employees travel concessions on STG services for themselves and members of their families. Employees enjoy free travel on STG and Caledonian MacBrayne services within Scotland. Half-fare concessions are given to employees' spouses and children under 16. Employees also receive half-fare concessions on services such as Citylink cross-border services that are not covered by full-fare concessions. Retired employees and their spouses, widows or widowers are entitled to free travel.
      As the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, I said that the concessions are not a right but a privilege. But I make it clear to the House that they are of long standing and that it is customary to provide such concessions in the transport industry. The provision of concessions for employees and their families by the privatised companies will be a matter for those companies, but we would expect them to provide concessions. When they submit bids, prospective purchasers will be asked what their intentions are with respect to travel concessions, and that information will be taken into account when assessing bids.
      Dr. Godman: Concessions, benefits and privileges enjoyed by employees would come under the rubric of terms and conditions of employment. If that is the case, will employees be allowed—as with the privatisation of British shipbuilding yards—the right to exercise a veto by way of secret ballot over any bid other than that of a preferred bidder? That is what happened at Kvaerner, and
      792
      it has happened at all the other British shipbuilding yard privatisations for the past few years. It happened most recently at Clark Kincaid—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not see how that can arise under this amendment.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The position is clearly different when there are a number of different subsidiaries. It would not be appropriate to make it a condition of sale that all existing concessions should continue. I expect that privatised companies at least will wish to offer some concessions to their own employees for travel on their own services. If privatised companies are willing to go further and to make reciprocal arrangements for concessions on their services for employees of other bus companies, that will be for them to arrange.
      We shall consider with the STG what provisions, if any, should be made in sale agreements with regard to concessions for employees and their families, but I do not anticipate that any such provision will go as far as the amendment would require. To do that would be very complicated and would impose conditions on sale that might inhibit bids, including bids from management-employee buy-out teams.
      Dr. Godman: My question relates to concessions and privileges. Will negotiations for acquisition follow a similar pattern to that established by the present Government for the sale of British shipyards?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, the circumstances are entirely different.
      Dr. Godman: No, they are not.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is different when there is a single employer. It is likely, indeed inevitable, in this instance that a series of different companies will emerge. I should also point out that travel concessions do not form part of STG contracts of employment, although it will be open to any company to offer concessionary schemes within the area in which employees and pensioners live. Companies will be at liberty to work out reciprocal arrangements if they wish.
      Mr. Wilson: I would not say that the Minister had explained the position clearly; I would say that he had explained it with his usual clarity. Certainly my question went unanswered. I remember that in Committee someone suggested that our proceedings should be called "Carry On Buses", but in the Minister's case they should be called "Carry On Reading", because no matter what he is asked he simply goes on with his brief without pausing to attempt an answer if the question is at all tricky.
      I asked the $64,000 question: what if the bidders for the subsidiary companies do not declare at the time that they are going to abandon employees' rights, but subsequently do so? What sanction does the Minister retain in the Bill? If he does not retain a sanction, will he tell us honestly that there is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the concessionary travel rights of the present Scottish Bus Group employees? That is the truth of the matter.
      I find it despicable that rights which, although the Minister may consider them a privilege, are clearly understood to be built into the remuneration of transport workers are to be put up for auction along with everything else.
      Amendment negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.8 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a full and interesting series of debates today. In those debates and in Committee we have discussed thoroughly the issues raised by the Bill and have clarified many points.
      At the start of the Committee stage the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said:
      "we want to make the best of the Bill, particularly by encouraging the idea of worker-management buy-outs."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 January 1989; c. 10]
      I am glad that the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in such terms at an early stage, as it is the Government's objective also to ensure that the Bill is entirely satisfactory and to encourage management-employee buy-outs.
      The Bill falls into two main parts. The first deals with the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, and the second with the transfer of Caledonian MacBrayne to the ownership of the Secretary of State.
      In privatising the Scottish Bus Group we have a number of important objectives. First, we want to increase the amount of competition in the bus industry. Competition increases efficiency and choice: the busy bus routes which have attracted extra services since deregulation, holding the fares down and increasing choice, are evidence of its benefits. Secondly, we want to widen share ownership and encourage management and employees to participate in the ownership of the firms in which they work. That objective has received widespread support. Thirdly, we want to replace a large dominant provider of bus services, which is centrally controlled, with locally based Scottish companies in touch with their local markets. I am sure that the Opposition subscribe to those objectives.
      The second part of the Bill transfers the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to the Secretary of State. That is an essential consequence of the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group. Our objective in doing so is to ensure the continuance of lifeline services to the islands off the west coast of Scotland, given the unprofitable nature of the majority of those services. Our first priority with CalMac is always to guarantee the lifeline services which it provides to the islands. The Government's commitment to the services is plain. Since 1979 we have approved £22 million for new vessels and £6 million for new piers. In a fortnight's time a further new vessel will be launched at Port Glasgow, making it the fourth major new vessel to be launched in the past five years. Roll-on roll-off facilities are now available across a great part of the network. The transfer of CalMac to the Secretary of State will allow that commitment to the services to continue. The Secretary of State will be appointing a new board for the company, and I have given a clear undertaking that, although we want a wide spread of experience of commercial and shipping matters on the board, we would look for such persons among those who are resident in the islands.
      We are anxious to ensure that CalMac is responsive to its customers. As part of this process the Secretary of State has said that he would like the new board to look at the possibility of moving the headquarters of CalMac nearer
      794
      to the centre of the area which it serves. He has suggested that Oban would prove a suitable place for this purpose. I am aware from the substantial discussion in Committee and in the House that this suggestion is strongly opposed, particularly by Members whose constituencies would be affected by the transfer of jobs. However, as I have made clear, I am sure that when considering the best arrangements for its headquarters, the new board of CalMac will take careful account of the views of management and employees and will consult them fully before deciding what solution is best in terms of CalMac's overall responsibilities to provide shipping services to the Western Isles.
      The Bill offers the prospect of exciting new developments in the organisation of a major part of Scotland's public transport system. It offers the prospect of new bus companies which are locally based and locally responsive. It offers the prospect of CalMac, with its own board, taking a fresh look at how it can continue to serve the islands in a more cost effective way.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.12 pm
      Mr.Wilson: I thank my colleagues for their support. Without exception, the Opposition Members who served on the Committee have also been present today. The contrast with the turnout and contributions from the Conservative Benches is even more striking than usual. What we are faced with is government by decree, not by discussion or debate, and certainly not by amendment. At this stage in our proceedings the sum total of our achievement has been to turn one "may" into "shall". That is the only amendment that the Minister has accepted.
      It is clearly understood that one result of the Bill will be that the STG will be done away with. Therefore, in the past few days I was surprised to read that two new members of the STG board have been appointed for two years. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what they will do for two years. I hope, in particular, that the Minister will assure us that they are not being appointed now to be transferred to the board of CalMac when it is the successor company. As far as I can tell, reither individual has had any dealings with the operation of ferries. I find it extremely odd that, at this juncture, two new appointments to the board for two years have been announced by the Government.
      The Bill is unnecessary, unasked for and unwanted. It is not the stuff from which great political excitement is made. For most people it is fairly mundane and for most hon. Members it is one of the less spectacular pieces of legislation that will be considered in the lifetime of this Parliament. But for the people who work for the Scottish Transport Group it is a major piece of legislation because it disturbs their lives, upsets their security and puts their jobs at risk. For those reasons it is important to those people even if it is not important to Conservative Members who have shown their disinterest by their conspicuous absence from the debate.
      To an extent to which many people do not yet realise the Bill is also important to the travelling public, because the level of service will be affected. The incantations by the Minister are insufficient to persuade anyone that services will be affected in a beneficial way. I am reminded of the adolescent Maoists of the late 1960s, who went round with little red books chanting slogans. The equivalent chants

      795
      from the Minister are, "Competition increases efficiency and choice. We want to widen share ownership. These are exciting new developments." Those are empty slogans and bear no relationship to the consequences of deregulation or privatisation in England and Wales.
      As the Minister rightly said at the start of our deliberations on the details of the Bill, I said that I wanted to make the best of it—especially in relation to the disposal of the individual companies in the Scottish Bus Group. I wanted to write into the Bill amendments that would make likely the success of buy-outs. I was not doctrinaire about the form of buy-outs because they are many and varied. As a decentralist, I believe that it is up to the people who work in the group to make their own arrangements and to compete if necessary to establish the best of these arrangements in their own interests and in the interests of the service that they provide. After that has been done my approach would be, "May the best scheme win."
      On that issue and as the Minister is aware, I am puzzled and disappointed that he has precluded the possibility of competition in the advancement of buy-out options by a quite absurd adherence to his determination that there will be only one buy-out option eligible for Government support. Therefore, in a completely unjust way, other attempts at buy-outs from within the work force will be disqualified. They will not he allowed to get past first base or to develop to a stage at which they can be judged on their merits. That is the antithesis of competition and choice and all the other wonders that the Minister sought to attribute to the Bill.
      It is a quite unnecessary and unreasonable element in the Bill that only one of these buy-out bids will have the opportunity even to be considered. There will be few prizes for guessing that the bids that will be disqualified will be those that have most participation by those who work on the shop floor of the bus industry. The Minister is on record as saying that the only bids that will attract support are management-employee bids. That is disappointing and I still hope that the Government will think again about it.
      When I said that we sought to make the best of the Bill I meant that we wanted something in writing setting out the terms on which buy-outs would be encouraged and made to succeed. Not one word of the Bill makes it likely that buy-outs will succeed, whatever format they may take. The Minister has resisted every attempt to strengthen the Bill in support of buy-outs by the existing employees of the bus companies. At the end of the day all that we are left with is his assurance of good will towards them. He tells us that that is what the Government want. We will not have any idea for some months about whether that will become reality, but we know that the private sector does not see it that way. It is not convinced that the Minister will support buy-outs or that this is a matter of transferring the bus holdings to the two buy-outs consisting of management and workers. The private sector knows very well that it is in at least as good a position to succeed with its bids. That is why the private sector—in some cases the exploitive and asset-stripping private sector—will be queuing at St. Andrew's house to put in its bids as well.
      I find it extraordinary that at this particular juncture the Scottish Development Agency should have chosen to invest £500,000 in Stagecoach for the specific purpose of strengthening its ability to compete against the buy-out bids to which the Government pay lip service. Until now there has been nothing to strengthen the likelihood of buy-outs succeeding, and everyone who works within
      796
      Scottish Bus Group, everyone who has followed the Committee's deliberations, and everyone who is interested in a reasonable solution being found to the ownership of bus services in Scotland will watch carefully in the months ahead to see whether the Government's words are turned into action. If they are not, that will be another stick with which to beat the Tories in Scotland.
      I am interested, as, I am sure, is the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in what happens to the attempted buy-out in the Western and Clydeside areas which are to be merged into one big company. Three Tory Members represent the Western area, and if the buy-out bid is treated with contempt and one of the big private operators is favoured in the disposal, I have no doubt that that will inflict a political cost on the Government in that part of Scotland.
      Another matter that I have mentioned today and that dominated our debate in Committee is the attempt in the Bill to protect the assets and the interests of the public purse. I am appalled that the Bill contains nothing to protect the interests of the public purse. I place on record again the experience of Hampshire Bus as an illustration of what can and will happen unless protective steps are taken. Hampshire Bus was sold to Stagecoach for £2 million. Two bus stations were then sold, leaving the travelling public in Southampton with no bus stations. One of those bus stations was sold relatively uncontroversially for an undisclosed price, the other was sold for £4·1 million. Part of the bus operation of Hampshire Bus was then sold by Stagecoach for a further f 1 million producing for Stagecoach a net profit of at least £3·1 million on those transactions, and left it still owning the remaining half of the operation. It beats me how anyone in any corner of the House can claim that the public purse did anything other than extremely badly, as the price of disposal clearly did not reflect the value of the asset being sold. It did not take account of the potential profit through the realisation of the assets if they were transferred from the purpose for which they were sold to another purpose—development.
      As I pointed out, the public purse in another form—the ratepayers of Southampton—was left to pick up the tab to build a new bus station at a cost of £138,000. Thal is an illustration of the relative values that can be placed on the same piece of property if the use is different. It costs £138,000 to build a bus station in Southampton, vet another bus station can be sold for £4·1 million. Which value will be reflected in the calculations on which the assets of the Scottish Bus Group are sold? Will it be the value of the bus station or the development value? All the Minister can say is that experts are advising on the matter. But there was expert advice in Southampton and in every other part of England and Wales where similar rip-offs have occurred.
      I make it clear that my criticism is not of Stagecoach. If Stagecoach can make £2·1 million, then another ·1 million and then another few hundred thousand pounds by selling the assets that it brought cheaply, that is business, from the point of view of Stagecoach. But I am interested to know who advised the Government to sell for £2 million and whether similar people are advising them on this sale. The Minister must tell us that.
      In Scotland, we are dealing with capital property assets. at least as valuable as—if not more valuable than—those in Southampton and other parts of England where similar asset stripping has occurred. I am advised that the Buchanan street bus station in Glasgow has a capital value

      797
      for development purposes of at least £4 million and the St. Andrews square bus station in Edinburgh has a development value of at least £15 million. Are they to be sold at their asset value as bus stations or for their development value?
      If the buyers of these companies say that the want to use the properties as bus stations and then—as happened in Southampton—a fortnight later sell them at their development value, will there be any redress for the public interest and the public purse? From what we have heard so far from the Minister tonight, the answer appears to be that there will be no protection and the Bill will be an asset-stripper's charter. If the Minister has any other thoughts on that he should tell us now. He must recognise that his pathetic answer that professional advice is being taken is wholly inadequate.
      I turn briefly to the major part of the Bill which deals with Caledonian MacBrayne. I shall not go over all the arguments again, but when the Minister talks about the new board deciding this and that, he merely highlights and confirms what we have said, which is that the composition of the new board is all-important. I should like an answer to the question that I asked at the outset—is there any connection between the new members of the Scottish Transport Group board and the proposed new board of Caledonian MacBrayne? If the Minister can bring himself to do so, let him speak the words and say that posts on the Caledonian MacBrayne board will not be politically motivated appointments of out-of-work Tories, but will genuinely reflect the interests and values of the communities that Caledonian MacBrayne uniquely serves.
      The Bill's main feature is unnecessary: nobody demonstrated in the streets of Scotland for a Scottish transport Bill to privatise the bus services. By and large, the Scottish people are reasonably satisfied with the services provided by the Scottish Bus Group. As every survey since deregulation has shown, people are in the main less satisfied with bus services now than they were pre-deregulation. I know that that will be denied by those who choose to believe in the myth that competition increases efficiency and choice.
      In many parts of Scotland the Bill could result not in greater competition and choice, but in more monopoly and lack of choice. However, I do not think the Government are concerned about that, because they are really interested in a doctrinaire determination to hand public assets to the private sector without regard to the interests of the public purse, the employees of the public sector or the public who are served by it.
      9.23 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on bringing the Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on taking it through Committee so effectively and efficiently. I should add that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) also played a constructive part in getting the Bill through Committee. The passage of the Bill shows that with good will from hon. Members on both sides it is possible to
      798
      complete a Committee stage without having to impose a timetable, so that all parts of the Bill receive adequate scrutiny, which is what should happen.
      I am a great believer in voluntarily timetabling legislation beforehand to avoid the guillotine, which results in the latter parts of Bills never receiving proper discussion. I felt that the Bill proceeded through Committee properly and there was plenty of time for all of it to receive proper discussion.
      The principal objective of the Bill is to achieve better bus services in Scotland and we shall achieve that. I know that the Opposition dislike any form of change, but I think that the Bill brings a change for the better. We shall have better bus services and more buses of varying sizes, including the minibus services that are so effective. There will be just as much, if not more, employment, with bus services being run effectively for the public and for school children in rural constituencies.
      The bus operators and staff of Western in south-west Scotland are looking forward to the opportunity to participate in management buy-outs. That is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend hopes will happen. I take the point that in buy-outs, of whatever kind, great value is placed on the capital assets and that vast profits are sometimes made, due to the arrangements for the original sale. I hope, however, that lessons have been learnt from other disposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North that the capital value of the bus stations in Edinburgh and Glasgow is enormous. At a more humble level, so, too, is the capital value of garages in Dumfries and elsewhere in Scotland.
      The bus services that are about to be deregulated enjoy the use of valuable capital assets. I am sure that those who advise my right hon. and learned Friend about the sale of capital assets will bear their value in mind. City centre developments are very big business. It would be unacceptable if bus companies sold their capital assets for redevelopment as shopping centres or office accommodation. Their capital value ought to be borne in mind when they are sold.
      I am disappointed that the Opposition have not welcomed entrepreneurs such as Stagecoach which has been highly successful. The services that it has provided in both the south and the north of England and in Scotland demonstrate that it is able to provide excellent services at reasonable fares. We are after good bus services and cheap fares.
      Despite the Opposition's arguments, the Bill provides that the pensions of those who work for the Scottish Transport Group will be protected. The employees have nothing to fear from the Bill.
      The Government's attitude towards CalMac and the islands is right. The islands need better services. Most Scottish Members have visited the islands, and we want to be able to visit them in future from time to time. The ferry services leave much to be desired, especially in their frequency. Those who wish to visit Rhum because they are interested in nature conservancy—the service also serves Eigg and Canna as well—find that it is difficult to make the round trip during the tourist season. They have insufficient time on the island if they want to return to Mallaig the same day, or even the next day. The better the services that we can provide for the islands, the better the opportunity that we shall have to develop the tourist industry.

      799
      All in all, I certainly welcome the Bill. As I have said before, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has taken it through this House, and I wish it well in another place.
      9.35 pm
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be brief because I know that many of hon. Friends wish to speak, but it would be uncivil of me if I did not thank the Minister for having acceped my amendment to delete "may" and "insert" shall". It is the only amendment that has been accepted. Indeed, in Committee I spent hours trying to persuade the Minister. Lo and behold, in my absence, without my having offered a word, he accepted it. That must say something about the power of my advocacy. Perhaps I had better not set out to seek my living in the law.
      I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Minister will reflect on some things we have argued about—the need to protect property rights; the need for consumer protection; and the right of workers to some say in the control of their own destiny, which, patently, the Bill, as it leaves this place, does not provide. I hope that the Amendment Paper in another place will not be flooded with amendments that might properly have been tabled for discussion here.
      One of the difficulties that we have had with the Bill is that it is an enabling measure. There is little of substance in it very little detail by which we can judge how it is going to work. It seems to me that the absolute, prime points of inconsistency occur in clause 4, subsection (1) of which says:
      "Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by or under any other enactment, the Group shall have power to do, in such manner as they think fit, any thing required in pursuance of the disposal programme."—
      blanket power for the Scottish Transport Group to do as it likes. Then we look with some astonishment at clause 4(2):
      "The Group shall not exercise their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to any disposal required in pursuance of the disposal programme except with the consent of the Secretary of State"—
      exactly the opposite. It is worth repeating what I quoted in Committee:
      "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away".
      This shows the difficulty we have, so far as the future is concerned, in trying to deal with this legislation.
      We are very seriously concerned about the issue of property stripping. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) voiced our concerns very eloquently and in some detail. The Minister gave a hint that he might seriously think again. He said that there was an option available to the Government that would have to be considered. The option is to have in the contract a clause to the effect that if money were made as a result of the sale of property for development—for speculative purposes—a proportion of it would accrue to the Secretary of State. That is not entirely satisfactory. It would be much better if any development moneys made in that way were to go to the people who work in the industry. If the Minister is looking at options, he should consider making a proportion of any speculative gain available, in the form of a bonus payment, to those who have worked in the industry all their lives. That would not satisfy us entirely, but it would at least be a move in the right direction and
      800
      would be a means of giving some credence to the people who built up these companies and created the possibility of their becoming viable concerns.
      No Opposition Member likes the idea of privatisation. We do not think that the Bill will succeed in its aims and intentions. We think that the service will suffer as a result. But I certainly hope that the employee buy-outs—the different employee participation schemes—will succeed, and I hope that they will be widespread. That would be some saving grace. I would certainly give those a fair wind. A lot rests on them—the interests of the employees, and the interests of the consumers—and I hope that the Minister will look very seriously before the Bill proceeds further at the very strong points that we have made and that he will accept more than one amendment.
      9.39 pm
      Dr.Godman: It seems from part I that employee buy-outs will get short shrift, and that we will have a choice between a management buy-out and a company which has been encouraged to buy out a bus company. In other spheres of privatisation, employees of public utilities or state-owned organisations have been given an opportunity to negotiate with the potential buyer. The Norwegian firm, Kvaerner, was encouraged to negotiate with the work force at Govan before it acquired that yard. The Government encouraged it to negotiate. The work force decided democratically to accept the Norwegian bid, and it went ahead.
      With the sale of Clark Kincaid by British Shipbuilders at East Hamilton street, Greenock, the work force, following negotiations with the would-be purchaser—Mr. Bill Scott—voted overwhelmingly to accept the terms and conditions of employment offered by the new owner. I am simply asking that a similar pattern of negotiation be adopted in part I. Following negotiations, which were led on the employees' side by Councillor Robert Jackson and John Quigley, the work force at Clark Kincaid accepted, with few dissentients, the deal that they negotiated with the new owners.
      At the moment, there are negotiations involving the privatisation of Fergusons at Port Glasgow. The would-be purchaser is Ailsa-Perth of Troon. When put to the work force, the initial offer was overwhelmingly rejected in a most democratic way—by a secret ballot which conformed in every way to the Government's legislative provisions. Almost 400 men and women voted on the initial offer, and only five voted to accept it. The would-be buyer has been told by British Shipbuilders to make a fresh offer which presumably must include an improved package of terms and conditions of employment.
      Before bus companies such as that in my constituency are sold, employees should be consulted. Employees should be treated as employees of British Shipbuilders in Scotland and south of the border have been treated.
      I sincerely hope that the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne will place orders with Scottish shipyards. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in his place. I said earlier that a CalMac ferry is to be launched from the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow in about two weeks' time by a member of the right hoe. and learned Gentleman's family. I hope to be at the launch and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be there, too. I have no doubt that there will be employees at the yard who are anxious to say a thing or two to him—in a most courteous way

      801
      —about the sale of CalMac. They are a very courteous lot on the lower Clyde, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
      I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State orders and launches a series of ships built for Caledonian MacBrayne by the work force in Port Glasgow and the equally skilled work force in Aberdeen.
      9.44 pm
      Mr. Tony Worthington: The theme behind the Bill was uttered by the Minister earlier. It is the belief that competition, which is what the Bill is said to be about, leads to efficiency. That is sometimes true. Opposition Members recognise that there are occasions when competition leads to efficiency. However, it does not inevitably do so. This weekend, Mr. Frank Bruno and Mr. Mike Tyson will be joined in competition but it will certainly not lead to efficiency. It will lead to one or the other being in a comatose state. In fact, some Conservative Members seem to be previewing the Tyson-Bruno fight.
      As I said in Committee, the weakness of the Government's argument is that in order to stimulate competition they bring into play actors whose sole aim is to eliminate competition and to ensure a monopoly for themselves. By and large, that is what has occurred. The consequence of bus deregulation is that there is less competition this year than last year and there will be less competition next year than this year.
      The method by which those who are involved in the alleged competition seek to achieve profits is by eliminating competition. There may be economy or efficiency for a while, but the aim is to eliminate competition, particularly in large parts of Scotland where the traffic on the routes is not such as to be able to sustain competition and where there is enough business only for one supplier. It would be far better for that supplier to be a public provider than a private one.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
      Mr.Worthington: My words have reached Billericay.
      Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although competition might not breed efficiency, monopoly, particularly state monopoly, almost inevitably breeds inefficiency?
      Mr. Worthington: I am delighted to hear the assurance from the hon. Lady that competition does not automatically lead to efficiency. Those wise words have been signally absent from the Minister's contribution. It is something we have to take into account.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other hon. Members have pointed to the contribution that has been made by minibuses since deregulation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries has acquired a minibus only in the past couple of years. Under the regionally provided services in Strathclyde, all the innovations that have been attributed to deregulation have been present for a number of years. I cannot think of any innovation that has occurred within the region since deregulation.
      Competition is often followed by a neglect of those things that are crucial to the public provision of transport,
      802
      such as safety. We should have perhaps spent more time on the consequences of deregulation in terms of the standard of buses, which has visibly declined. There is no longer the same commitment to a modern fleet and one wonders what the breakdown rates are. Therefore, as I have said, competition does not inevitably lead to efficiency.
      What has been missing from the Government's perception is that transport is not simply a means of travelling from A to B. Transport is a means by which communities are linked, families are linked and friendships are allowed to occur. That consideration has been missing and the Government have shown collectively over the past few years a great dishonesty about transport. They have said that it is always open to regional councils to provide transport where it is socially necessary.
      There are two problems about that. The Government say that it is up to the regional council to provide the subsidy but the Government also say that regional councils are spending too much on all their services, including transport. The Minister should acknowledge that it is the view of the Scottish Office that far too much money is spent by regional authorities on the maintenance of concessionary fares. It would be honest of the Government if the Minister said that it is their intention and hope that regional councils will lessen their commitment to concessionary fares. We hope for such honesty. The Government have been saying dishonestly that regional councils should support socially necessary fares. In recent years, the Government have introduced the poll tax and in doing so they have taken control of 80 per cent. of local government expenditure. That will make it increasingly more difficult for regional councils to sustain socially necessary services.
      I hope that, although so many powers will be given to the Secretary of State by this enabling legislation, a means will be found by which we can keep an eye on what happens. I do not share the Minister's optimism that employee-management buy-outs will figure commonly. I do not share the Minister's optimism that locally based companies will be formed and will survive. What will occur over the next 10 years is a process whereby private monopoly establishes an inefficient stranglehold on route after route in Scotland.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: First, I must apologise for not being here earlier. I was at a funeral in my constituency. I understand that earlier the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that I might be in favour of moving the headquarters of CalMac from Gourock to Stornoway. As I made clear in Committee, I would not be in favour of such a move if it led to the removal of jobs and to upheaval of the community in Gourock, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I want to put that on record.
      I realise that time is marching on, but I want to pick up one point from the Minister's remarks. He described the Government as being absolutely committed to the lifeline services to the islands. I recall in Committee the Minister extolling the proud and historic name of Caledonian MacBrayne. I asked then why, in that case, it was ever in the Government's mind to change the historic name to that of Sealink or P and 0. There is no doubt that that was the Government's intention earlier this year. They

      803
      intended to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne. Opposition Members pointed out something that the Government had not yet realised—that to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne would be to lose vast sums of investment and subsidies coming from the EEC. When the Opposition pointed that out, the Government had to go back and look again at their plans. Although they had been trying for some months to find a way round the obstacle of most of the money coming from the EEC, they could not do so. That is why Caledonian MacBrayne has not been privatised under the Bill. It is not because of the Government's commitment to those lifeline services but simply because they could not find a way around the problem of the potential loss of money from the EEC.
      The great danger presented by the Bill is that it still holds the potential for further—creeping—privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne services. We fear that, should the EEC become less generous to the lifeline services to the islands, the Government will take that as a cue to proceed with their preferred option of privatisation. Any such move would be fiercely resisted, not just by myself but by local councils and communities throughout the highlands and islands which rely on those ferry services.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that there had been no demonstrations in the streets demanding a Scottish transport Bill, and indeed there were not. However, there were demonstrations in the islands against any potential privatisations and there would be again if the threat of the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne recurred. The Minister should take heed of that and abandon now any intention of reintroducing the privatisation of the ferry services.
      9.56 pm
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I shall comment briefly on some of the comments made by Opposition Members. First, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his masterly conduct of the Bill.
      The Opposition have said that the present system of nationalised bus routes is a source of community spirit and a method of sustaining friendship. A variety of other phrases were also used. If there is one thing of which we are certain in the rural communities of Scotland, it is that the bus routes as organised by the regional authorities under their present structure do the opposite.
      It has been interesting that the Opposition have consistently had to shift their ground because they could not accommodate the desires of those who work in organisations such as Strathtay. Those people have been actively pursuing a policy of attempting to take over and run the organisations themselves to the extent that they have been shedding their wages and putting them into an account in order to bid for and take over the services which they are anxious to see serving people and which at present they recognise are not serving people. What could be a better litmus test of public feeling than that?
      Opposition Members have had to retreat from what they would like to call the "workers'" interest to the consumers' interest. Those who want to take over the buses and who presently drive the buses or run the service are interested in the passengers. I assume that in Labour terms passengers are consumers, but I call them passengers because I do not know anybody who consumes buses. It is important that the people who work on the buses, who run the buses and who know the people who travel on them
      804
      want to take over the buses in private organisations for the benefit of those who travel on them. That seems an argument on which the Opposition have been completely defeated. Now that the people of Scotland are to be able to take over their own buses, the Opposition's argument is thoroughly defeated.
      Mr. Wilson: Before the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) works himself up into a too satanic and demonic condition, in view of his certainty about the wishes of the people who work in the bus industry in Scotland, would he advise the Government to conduct a ballot of workers within the Scottish Bus Group on whether they want to retain the status quo or opt for the Bill?
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Transport (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

      Transport (Scotland) Bill
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am disappointed by the Bill and the Government's handling of it. Even the most arrogant and self-assured Government must surely concede that somewhere, sometime, something that the Opposition have said must be of some relevance to the Government's operations—but not this Government. They and they alone decide what they want and push through their measures. They have listened to nothing that Opposition Members have said, apart from on one tiny amendment. In so doing, the Government have rejected a series of amendments designed to protect consumers and transport users, ensure employee-management buy-outs with guaranteed rights for employees and passengers, create an integrated transport system, ensure that services are maintained, protect the needs of individuals and groups, including the handicapped and women, and protect people in remoter parts of Scotland. All the amendments have been swept to one side by the Government. Without exception, all those amendments, which were fair and desirable, were turned down. That is disappointing.
      The Government have always used their English majority, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House, to force legislation on Scotland. If we had any choice about it, the Scots would never accept it. Scotland has rejected the Government's measures. The Government have no mandate to put them forward. If this measure were discussed in a purely Scottish forum, it would be rejected.
      The Government have shown a closed mind in promoting the legislation. They are lumping English legislation—matters which are designed purely for England—on to Scotland without any real thought. We have had yuppie education, yuppie health and now we are getting yuppie transport. [Interruption.] Some of the yuppies have just arrived. The Legislation was not designed with Scotland in mind.
      I am glad to see some English Members present. They have not been present for any part of the debate, but they

      805
      have turned up at the last minute to vote. That proves the point that I am trying to make. The Government are using their English majority to force the legislation through. They have again refused to understand the needs of Scottish transport users. We expect no better from the Government. We have received various reassurances from the Minister. I hope that the future does not prove him wrong, but I suspect that it will prove him and the legislation to be misguided.
      10.4 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the Bill and the Third Reading debate, and I do so on a special day for me. This is my 60th birthday. I will long remember the Third Reading debate, having had the opportunity to serve on two Standing Committees at the same time and the challenges that that presents, particularly when one has moved amendments and wishes to speak in both Committees. It is quite challenging.
      That is why I welcome this opportunity to say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that, contrary to some of the views expressed by the Opposition, there is no question but that employees of Strathtay are keen to become shareholders in the company where they work. I have no doubt that they represent a changing view. It is one of the Government's successes that we have made ordinary working people realise the value of having shares in the company where they work. That has been made possible by the sort of legislation that the Government have been putting through. Employee-management buy-outs are popular, and even the trade unions have had to accept that.
      In addition, the Bill provides the opportunity for the control and ownership of the SBG to be transferred to Scotland. I am optimistic that not only will management-employee buy-outs be successful, but that other Scottish companies in the bus and coach industry will have the opportunities to acquire parts of it.
      All that means that Scotland can look forward to owning and running the buses that we have, knowing full well that the people working on them are probably shareholders and will have the interests of the passengers at heart. That is what this is all about.
      10.6 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the strong representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on behalf of employees working for Strathtay.
      I wish to answer the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who said that one point has not been answered. He asked what the position was of a company which says in its bid that it will operate a concessionary fares scheme, but fails to do so in practice. While there is no statutory sanction, there could well be a contractual obligation and commitment in the sale agreement. I shall certainly look into that point further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro) spoke about better bus services and the Bill being a change for the better. He stressed the importance and value of bus stations, and we shall bear that in mind.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked whether Kenneth Ryden was involved in Southampton.
      806
      To the best of our knowledge, it was not, but we shall check up on that. He asked who the two new appointees were to the board. One is David Erdal who is chairman of Tullis Russell, the paper makers in Fife. He has introduced an employee share ownership plan to his company. It is the first in Scotland and his contribution to the board will be invaluable, especially on the issue of employee participation. The second appointee is Mr. Robert Temple, formerly finance director of Distillers.
      It has been pointed out that only one amendment has been granted.
      Mr. Wilson: Before the Minister moves on, we should have more information about those appointments. The first sounds reasonable, but the second is mysterious to say the least. One hopes that the connection between Distillers and bus operating is limited. Since the STG will probably disappear well within two years, why were those gentlemen appointed for two years? Will there be any follow-on into the membership of the CalMac board?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Names have not yet been considered, so I cannot say who will be appointed to the CalMac board. The former finance director of Distillers will have expert knowledge on what bids and mergers are about. That and his financial expertise will be useful.
      A considerable number of commitments—
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have told the hon. Gentleman that names for the CalMac board have not yet been considered.
      Commitments have been given to consult the Scottish Consumer Council and the Rural Forum. That has been arranged and there will be a meeting with them on 27 February. There have been comments about further meetings with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and I have offered to meet Mr. Stevenson of the Transport and General Workers Union. I said that I would try to obtain information about the action taken by bus operators to implement the recommended bus specifications, and I reported to the Committee on the information that I had obtained. I made it clear that I had followed up with the Scottish Development Agency the need for management-employee buy-out teams to receive the same treatment as any other applicant for assistance from the SDA.
      We gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to look for candidates for the CalMac board among residents of the islands, and we shall of course do that.
      The Bill offers significant opportunities to those involved in the bus industry in Scotland. It will provide the opportunity for more competition. It will offer the opportunity for management-employee buy-outs, for management and employees to own the companies in which they work. It will offer the chance of greater local responsiveness. There will be a new board for CalMac and a fresh look at the company's operations against the background of our continuing commitment to the present quality of services to the islands.

      807
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 113.

      Division No. 106]

      [10.10 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Amess, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Amos, Alan

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hannam, John

      Ashby, David

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

      Atkins, Robert

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Harris, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hayward, Robert

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Benyon, W.

      Heddle, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hill, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howard, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

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

      Bright, Graham

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butcher, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Jack, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Janman, Tim

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cash, William

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knowles, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Lang, Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lightbown, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Lord, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mans, Keith

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Day, Stephen

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Devlin, Tim

      Mills, Iain

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Dunn, Bob

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Favell, Tony

      Mudd, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Neubert, Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Forth, Eric

      Norris, Steve

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Franks, Cecil

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Freeman, Roger

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Patnick, Irvine

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gow, Ian

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Price, Sir David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Raff an, Keith

      Gregory, Conal

      Rathbone, Tim

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Alton, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Ingram, Adam

      Bradley, Keith

      Janner, Greville

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Buchan, Norman

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Buckley, George J.

      Lamond, James

      Caborn, Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McAllion, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clay, Bob

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clelland, David

      McFall, John

      Cohen, Harry

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McKelvey, William

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      McTaggart, Bob

      Crowther, Stan

      McWilliam, John

      Cummings, John

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Martlew, Eric

      Doran, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fearn, Ronald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Patchett, Terry

      Flynn, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Reid, Dr John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Robertson, George

      Galloway, George

      Short, Clare

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Graham, Thomas

      Strang, Gavin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wall, Pat

      Redwood, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Renton, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Trippier, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walden, George

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Speller, Tony

      Wheeler, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stern, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wilshire. David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Summerson, Hugo

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Woltson, Mark

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilson, Brian

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      Worthington, Tony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time,and passed.

  Blind Persons (Pelican Crossings)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter that is serious and grave not just to my constituents and the people of Edinburgh and Scotland, but to blind, visually handicapped and disabled people the length and breadth of the country. It is the failure of the Department of Transport to approve a system that will enable blind people to have much better and freer mobility. That system has been available in Scotland for nine years, but for obstinate reasons that I shall enlarge upon later, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have refused to endorse it in England and Wales.
  The debate is about the attempt by blind people in Britain to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister to provide safe pelican crossings for blind and disabled pedestrians. It reveals how the Department has dragged its feet on providing any system and how the Minister has saved millions of pounds at the expense of disabled people. It is about a catalogue of misinformation and untrue statements worthy of an Orwellian novel that have been deployed by the Minister to prevent blind people from obtaining a crossing because it is not the one that he wanted them to have.
  Fifteen years ago investigations began into a "sweep-and-beep" pelican crossing that would solve the problem facing blind people trying to cross a busy road where the traffic is stopped in only one direction at any one time. Standard audible crossings that can be heard from both sides of a road can unwittingly lure a blind or partially sighted person out in front of a moving vehicle because he does not know which side the beep indicates is clear.
  For 15 years the Department of Transport in England has been trying to find an audible crossing with a beep that can be heard from one side of the road only. Nine years ago a Scottish company invented a crossing with a tape that advised pedestrians when the traffic had been instructed to stop in one direction. That crossing was installed at the west end of one of the busiest streets in Britain—the main shopping street below Edinburgh castle on the main Glasgow road. It is just next to the headquarters of the Society for the Welfare and Teaching of the Blind in Scotland. I attended a meeting there this morning and Mr. Bob Mackie, the secretary, Mr. Jim McCafferty of the National League of the Blind and Disabled and Mr. Denis Wilson of the Royal National Institute for the Blind confirmed how much they as blind people, and everyone they represent, value the talking crossing. Provisional approval for this system was given by the Department of Transport in Scotland and some talking pelican crossings were installed. In February 1987 the Department of Transport in Scotland gave the crossing full approval and 14 of these crossings have been ordered by highways departments in Scotland.
  In England there has been no such progress. The Minister's Department has sunk taxpayers' money into a different system, the "sweep-and-beep" or "cone-ofsound" system which he told the Royal National Institute for the Blind in June would be available now. This morning the RNIB again checked on delivery in London

  811
  and told me that the system is not yet available and nor is any date of expected delivery known. Organisations comprising and representing blind people have been pressing the Minister for two years to approve the talking crossing for use in England and Wales. All that is needed is for the Government to say that the testing and certification procedures of the Department of Transport in Scotland, which have proved satisfactory in Scotland, should be accepted in England and Wales.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland wrote dismissing the three reservations that the Department of Transport had about the talking crossing. On 15 June 1988 he wrote to me saying:
  "we in Scotland do not share the reservations held by the Department of Transport and that is why we have authorised the use of speaking pelican equipment at several sites in Scotland.
  The Minister put his three objections to the RNIB at a meeting on 16 June last year, but the deputation led by Mr. Tom Parker OBE countered the Minister's criticisms and reiterated the record of the talking crossing—a record of faultless and safe operation since 1980 of a system that was approved by the Department in Scotland. Following that meeting, the Minister spoke to the BBC and his account was so strange to the truth that the RNIB executive member who attended the meeting complained about it. After the meeting the Minister said:
  "Generally in the discussion people recognised that ours"—
  that is the Department's
  "is probably a better way."
  That is simply untrue. That was not the first time that the Minister resorted to these tactics. A catalogue of lies, mistakes, distorted information and contempt for the wishes of blind people emanating from the Minister and his Department—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not alleging that the Minister lied.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Minister's Department.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would spell out what he believes I or the Department may have said that is factually incorrect.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to spell that out. I have a verbatim transcript of the BBC "In-touch" programme that followed our meeeting. In that programme the Minister said:
  "Generally in the discussion people recognised that ours is probably a better way."
  There was no such recognition and if the Minister cares to check with the RNIB member who attended, Mr. Tom Parker, or with Mr. Jim McCafferty, an RNIB executive member who is also a member of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, he will see that his statement is thoroughly and completely repudiated. He made other misleading statements and I am prepared to quote them as well. I invite the Minister to reply to what I have just said.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that it might be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman finished what he believes to be his catalogue and then perhaps we could get on to the positive points. If the hon. Gentleman makes accusations he needs to substantiate them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I have substantiated them and I will substantiate the next item. David Tarrant of Hampshire county council asked the Department of Transport for permission to install a talking crossing to help blind pedestrians in the county. He was told that the manufacturers had not sought the Department's approval for the product. That was a lie.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes constant accusations about lies. Who said what to whom and when? Was it oral or was it on paper? That would be easy to check. The hon. Gentleman should try to avoid using the word "lie", although he may want to use that word. He should put forward issues on which he thinks we have been wrong or misleading or point to things that we have said whlich turned out not to be true. It would be helpful if he would do that directly.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I say to him that he should not impute any dishonour to the Minister—or, of course, to any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Griffiths: I note that, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have been factually accurate; and if the Minister cares to ask his civil servants to contact Mr. Tarrant on 0962841841, extension 7179, he can verify what I say.
  I know that the Minister realises that I feel strongly about the issue. In the eight years before I came to the House I worked closely with disabled people, and I also know from my meetings over the past year with the RNIB—culminating in a meeting in Edinburgh this morning—how strongly that organisation feels about it, and how strongly blind people wish me to communicate to the Minister their dissatisfaction about how the matter has been handled.
  The Minister's Department has sought throughout to discredit the talking crossing. On 31 January I received a letter from Mr. Hugo Sprinz, who lives in Hull. He wrote:
  "I understand that you too are interested in achieving safer crossings for pedestrians. I am registered as a blind person and have the same objective in mind."
  Mr. Sprinz enclosed letters from the Department of Transport. Like many blind people, he had expressed support for the talking crossing. The Department, however, wrote back on 17 November:
  "Unfortunately none of these are available for use by the Local Highway Authorities at present."
  The talking crossing is certainly available, and the Department knows that. It has simply refused to give the approval that is available in England and Wales.
  The letter—on the Department's headed paper—went on to say:
  "there has also been a recent fatality at one of these talking crossings and the Scottish Office are reviewing their use of the equipment."
  That is quite untrue, and I have the correspondence to back up what I have said. There have been no such fatalities—yet for the past three months organisations representing the blind have been subject to hundreds of inquiries about the safety of the talking crossing, all as a result of the misinformation emanating from the Minister's Department. To date, neither the manufacturers nor the inventor of the crossing—nor, more important, organisations representing the blind—have received an apology for the Department's actions.

  813
  The irony is that, while there has been no fatality in nine years related to the talking crossing, the Department has discovered a fault in the audible crossing which it approved and has switched 1,000 of them off. Those concerned with the welfare of the blind will know that the crossings are often a lifeline enabling visually handicapped people to get about. Yet, although the malfunction of his approved crossing was detected on 26 September, the Minister—who professes to be so concerned about the disabled—did not inform the RNIB about this vital problem during September, October, November, December or January.
  The RNIB's head office in London told me this morning that it heard about the problem only when the press alerted it on 27 January. Eventually on 3 February a fax arrived from the Minister—after 1,000 crossings had been disconnected. He must explain to the House why he failed to ensure that the RNIB and other organisations representing disabled people were not alerted at the earliest opportunity to a dangerous problem and to the shutdown of 1,000 of his Department's crossings.
  The Dcpdrtment has said that blind people do not want the talking crossing, but in December 1987 the European Blind Union unanimously endorsed it. Item 4 of the minutes dated 4 December 1987 records:
  "Pedestrian crossings should give an audible signal and, where there is a double crossing involved, it is better for such a signal to be the spoken voice".
  In January 1988 the RNIB decided that talking crossings were its preferred choice for staggered crossings. On 25 May 1988 the institute wrote to me. The letter said:
  "May I on behalf of RNIB express our appreciation of your help and interest in what we believe to be a very important aspect of safety and mobility for blind people in the increasingly difficult traffic conditions which prevail".
  The Bristol Royal Society for the Blind has endorsed the crossing; the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association wrote that this
  "excellent device … could contribute to the safe travel of blind people in England and Wales as well as in Scotland."
  Notwithstanding all the support that I have already quoted, I know that the Minister will claim tonight that the RNIB has now fallen in with his "sweep-and-beep" system—but for one reason only. He has told the RNIB that any attempts to obtain Ministry support for the Scottish talking pelican crossing would be futile.
  Lastly, I want to read from a letter that I received this morning:
  "I, along with a number of other Blind people am firmly of the belief that the Department is holding a pistol to the heads of blind People … in order that they accept their system."
  That letter comes from a blind man who is an executive of the RNIB. His grave charge, substantiated by the facts, is one which the Minister must answer.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on expressing his deep concern for the problems of blind and disabled people and on raising the subject of the absence of pelican crossings.
  In August last year, the Leicestershire county council approved the installation of a pelican crossing on New Parks way, New Parks estate, in my constituency. It said that it did not have the money to put in the crossing. I
  814
  warned the council that there would be a tragedy. Two weeks ago, there was a tragedy, and Kelly Allen, aged eight, was killed. Had there been a pelican crossing at the spot, as had been provided for, that child would be alive today.
  The county council says that it has no money to put in the 19 or so crossings that have been approved on spots at which it acknowledges there is great danger. The Leicester Mercury is pressing the council as part of its campaign, and I have been pressing it for years. Now the council says that it has almost £600,000 in the gritting fund because of the benevolent winter. It says that it cannot use that money for crossings because it is in the revenue account, and crossings can be paid for only from the capital account.
  The Government have the power to stop this monumental bureaucratic wickedness. They must insist on pelican crossings being installed where they are needed to save lives. They must not preside over the unnecessary deaths of blind, disabled or elderly people, or of children such as Kelly Allen.
  10.38 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has again raised a point that he brought up in transport questions.
  It is worth acknowledging that, even with the 10 per cent. of pelican crossings that might conceivably have suffered from the fault experienced in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) should first have thought of asking for information about the one failure from the Scottish highway authorities, rather than throwing accusations at me. Even with the 10 per cent. we are talking about—1,000 out of up to 10,000—if most of those pelican crossings have gone in since 1983, the rate of installation has been accelerating. I hope that it will accelerate still more and that all highway authorities will make funds available. If we can help in general terms we shall, and although we do not make decisions for the 107 highway authorities in England—there are more in Scotland—we hope that they will reach high priority sites and make decisions to go on providing better safety for the vulnerable road users, the pedestrians. I know that the family concerned appreciate the concern shown by their Member of Parliament, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South asked a question on 8 February about the number of injuries at bleeping pelican crossings in the past 12 months. I answered:
  "The total of 37 casualties should be compared with total pedestrian casualties in 1987 of 57,453. Of these 2,170 occurred on pelican crossings, and a further 2,470 occurred within 50 m of such a crossing. More than 7,000 pelican crossings were in operation during 1987."—[Official Report, 8 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 705.]
  People—not only the blind—may be concerned about malfunctions from listening to the debate. There are few recorded cases of pedestrian casualties at malfunctioning pelican crossings. In such cases, we do not know whether the accidents were caused by the defective crossings as we do not collect the causes of road accidents.
  Over the past week or so the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has asked a fair number of questions about these crossings. I am sorry that he has not chosen in this debate to give out much of the information that he has received. He has argued his case rather badly.

  815
  The hon. Gentleman made some accusations about the Department. A letter was written by one of the Department's regional offices that mistakenly referred to a fatality. Within four weeks the Department had written again to correct the mistake. Nobody who reads the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech will realise that. He said that people laboured under a misapprehension for three months.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman took up a fair amount of time, and time was also allowed to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West.
  Mr. Griffiths: I gave way earlier to the Minister.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark, I shall be happy to give way to him.
  Mr Griffiths: The switchboard of the office for blind people that I visited this morning was jammed with calls from people who were inquiring about a fatality on a talking crossing. Why did the Minister not make sure that that statement was repudiated, not in four weeks, but in four days?
  Mr. Bottomley: Partly because I was not aware of it. I should have done; I am one of those people who find it quite easy to apologise. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not. He has given the impression that the Department did not correct the mistake. I did. I am perfectly willing to apologise again on behalf of the Department and to take responsibility for it.
  The hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his own remarks. I intend to quote from the transcript of the radio interview that I gave after the meeting. I said:
  "It's not England versus Scotland, although obviously the talking Pelican got approved in Scotland, and I accept that the blind people were happy with it."
  When the hon. Gentleman suggested that I said the reverse, he got it wrong. It was a mistake on his part. I said that I accepted that blind people were happy with it. I went on to say:
  "They'd be just as happy with the cone of noise, and the cone of noise has a number of advantages over using speech."
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in the Oxford Mail of Tuesday 31 January and to an article in Auto Express of 10 February. The article in the Oxford Mail is headed
  "Residents' fury over talking pelican crossing."
  The article in Auto Express is headed
  "Cross words over talking pelican."
  When I said in the radio interview that the cone of noise had a number of advantages over using speech and that
  "I think most people accept that—not everyone—but most people will accept that"
  I was not claiming unanimity. Then I said:
  "Certainly the physics are in its favour. What is the best way of providing guidance at divided crossings in Great Britain, and also what will help blind people abroad, and quite frankly if you've got a hundred and seven highway authorities in England, it's rather better to ask people to hang on for a few more months to get it right, when the best is not the enemy of the good, if you've got a better product that's going to be available, and more people will benefit."
  I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to 14 installations of what we might refer to in shorthand as the Scottish crossing with the tape-recorded voice. I went on to say in that radio interview:
  816
  "In a year or so's time people will be saying 'We were happy with the talking Pelican, but we think that what we're getting now is better, is going to be spread more widely, and provide more advantage, more safely'".
  The interviewer asked:
  "And is that the time scale do you think, about a year for seeing some solution to the problem?"
  I said: "I hope so."
  Some of that is inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman said, but as presumably we are working from the same transcript I think that he will accept that as I have read out all my quoted remarks in that transcript I have provided more illumination than he did.
  The Department has received recently a letter from the joint committee on mobility of blind and partially sighted people. It tries to act—and it succeeds—as a co-ordinating body. It believes that "bleep-and-sweep" audible signals at staggered dual carriageway pedestrian crossings are better. That is not disputed.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues with me. It might be thought from what he has said—probably inadvertently—that the Department's new sound unit is dangerous and has had to be withdrawn. It is worth saying that the fault was not in the new sound units; it was in the controllers that were made between 1977 and the early 1980s. A talking pelican is equally at risk if it is connected to one of the faulty controllers.
  It might be suggested that the Department was slow to act when a pelican fault condition occurred. That is not so. One crossing out of 7,000 pelican crossings was faulty and it was dealt with quickly. The fault was found on 26 September and the Department was notified on 27 September. The Department wrote to the manufacturer on 30 September. On 19 October the manufacturer replied that the fault had been rectified. On 24 November the Department received a formal request to approve a design modification. It was approved on 21 December. On 3 January regional officers were asked to switch off audible units, and 1,000 out of the 7,000 were affected.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of notification. With hindsight, I think that it would have been better to say that 1,000 out of 7,000 were likely to be switched off. I think that my willingness to say so indicates that much of the rest of what the hon. Gentleman was saying was not up to scratch. The purpose of the press notice was to clarify the situation rather than actually to announce that action was being taken.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to an incorrect letter sent on 17 November. It dealt with the question of the fatality. The writer of the letter had been misinformed, and he sent the letter in good faith. But that was corrected—on December 12, I think. It would have been more helpful if the hon. Gentleman had been able to say so in his speech—on the assumption that he knew about it.
  The issue that we are facing is really whether, in the long term, it is better to have an audible voice than to have the cone of sound.
  I have indicated to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that the cross words and the residents' fury over the talking pelican crossing suggest that there is a difficulty.
  As to the disadvantages of the talking pelican, I am not saying that it should not have been approved in Scotland. Where there are separate jurisdictions it is obviously up to each to make its own decisions. That is one of the advantages, or one of the disadvantages if one were to look at it in a very rigorous way—but I prefer not to.

  817
  It annoys local residents—and I have given examples from the Oxford Mail and the Auto Express. It wastes green time while people listen to the message. Obviously, people could say that the three-and-half seconds that it may take for the tape-recorded message to be broadcast is wasted only to a stranger, and not to a local, who may set off as he hears the voice, let alone the bleep. If people do not wait to hear the message, that indicates that the spoken message is not necessary.
  A spoken message also presupposes local knowledge, that a stranger coming to the pelican crossing and hearing a voice refer to traffic, to the town hall or away from the town hall, or to Oxford or away from Oxford, or to Edinburgh or away from Edinburgh, has some local knowledge already. Almost by definition, if someone is using a crossing for the first time he may not have that detailed local knowledge. Pedestrians, other than the blind, could be misled if they were not local.
  The male and female voices units interlocked cannot talk together. This would limit its use in computer-controlled schemes, where full flexibility might be required. I would accept—if the hon. Gentleman had made this point—that the talking pelican crossing does not meet the pelican crossing regulations. However, the hon. Gentleman may regard that as a legalistic matter and beside the point.
  I turn to the advantages of the Department's new sound unit if I may refer to it in that way. It overcomes all the problems that I have referred to. The new sound has been selected to be distinctive in relation to traffic noise. The level of sound is varied, depending on the level of the traffic noise. The distinctive nature of the sound allows it to be operated at a relatively low volume compared with the talking pelican, and it does not cause annoyance to local residents.
  To put this in perspective, I should say that there are approximately 7,000 pelican crossings in England. About 6,000 are single crossings with bleeper sound units, and about 1,000 are staggered crossings. There are six trial sites with tactile knobs and six trial sites with the new sound units, and 25 trunk road sites will be equipped later this year with the new sound unit.
  818
  Let me turn again to the hon. Member's speech, which, on reflection, I hope he will regard as one that he should have modified before he made it or when he was making it. I hope that he feels—I was going to say "ashamed of it" but I will not put it that way—that he got it wrong.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the Department as wasting, or not spending, millions of pounds. We did not hear much justification for that remark. He said that taxpayers' money had been sunk.
  I regard expenditure on meeting the needs of people with disabilities as an investment. We are spending money on the provision of textured pavements, dropped kerbs, conventional sound units at single crossings, tactile devices and devices for the deaf at dual-carriageway roads, and the new sound units at dual carriageway roads.
  All that we are doing for the disabled is an investment, not sinking taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman will probably want to withdraw or explain away what he said when he talks to groups which represent people with disabilities.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of things which are strange to the truth, and of tactics, as though I, the Department, its disability unit, the Baldwin committee, which is a statutory committee that represents the needs of the disabled, or the joint committee on the mobility of blind or partially sighted people, are in some way to be disparaged because he, the hon. Gentleman, is the only one who has got it right.
  I shall pass over the hon. Gentleman's reference to lies. He said that I said that blind people do not want the crossing, but the transcript says the exact opposite.
  He said that I have told the RNIB this, that or the other. It is not so. It was not so—and the hon. Gentleman knew it. We want to get the cone-of-sound system into operation.
  I, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West want more pelican crossings which are useful to the blind and partially sighted. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South would like to work with us, we would welcome that, and we will put behind us his intemperate and often inaccurate remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Anti-missile Defence System
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received a report on the practicability of a strategic anti-missile defence system for the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 26 January 1989 at column 754.

  Queen's Flight
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when renewals of aircraft in the Queen's Flight will be required; if he will make it his policy to purchase such aircraft from British manufacturers; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Replacement dates for aircraft in the Queen's Flight are kept under review. Our procurement policy for such aircraft, as for other equipment, is aimed at meeting the requirement in the most cost-effective way.

  Service Children's Education Authorities
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts are being made to ensure that teachers working for the service children's education authorities and who have separate contracts employing them to undertake lunchtime supervision are paid(a) the back-pay due to them and (b) regularly in the future on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Neubert
  Arrangements for the payment of senior lunch-time supervisory duties in respect of United Kingdom-based teachers employed with the service children's education authorities have been established effective from 1 December 1988. Payment will be paid on a termly basis. We expect to resolve the question of back-pay for hours worked prior to this date shortly.

  Lance Missile Replacement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if has received any notification from the United States Defence Department on the replacement of Lance missiles with the multiple-launch rocket system missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamiliton
  The United States announced its choice of the M270 multiple-launch rocket system (mlrs) as a launcher for a successor missile to Lance to NATO's high level group on 5 December, publicly confirming this decision the following day. A nuclear missile for the launcher has not yet been selected. The choice of launcher and missile are national United States decisions; NATO has not yet agreed to the deployment of a Lance successor.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the role of the Armilla patrol.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Armilla patrol is continuing to provide reassurance to British merchant shipping in the Gulf by independently patrolling international waters and remaining immediately available to go to their protection if necessary. Royal Navy ships will remain in the Gulf for as long as we judge that there remains a job to be done upholding freedom of navigation there.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kampuchea
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he has done to bring about substantial reconstruction and development aid for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  We do not give Government-to-Government aid to the regime in Phnom Penh. We have, however, contributed £100,000 to the FAO appeal for Cambodia and £250,000 to the UNICEF programme there. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has announced an increase of £500,000 to support projects, including humanitarian projects in Cambodia, proposed by British voluntary agencies for assistance under the joint funding scheme.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 13 February,Official Report, column 14, how the study referred to defines exceptional demographic change as a result of AIDS; and what evidence he has of such exceptional demographic change in sub-Saharan African countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  Data are insufficient at this stage to assess accurately the long-term impact of AIDS on populations. The objective of this research project is to obtain information on how communities have coped in the past with disease and disasters which have had an impact on their populations. This will assist policy-makers establish appropriate ways of fostering and supporting community self-help methods of alleviating the potential impact of AIDS.

  Amazonia (Dams)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the proposals of Electronorte for financing projects such as the Tucurui and Balbina dams in Amazonia, the United Kingdom executive director to the World Bank was instructed to support any electric power sector loan requested by Brazil

  Mr. Eggar
  The Tucurui and Balbina dams were constructed without World Bank loans. The World Bank has stated that it has financed no hydroelectric power schemes in Amazonia and has no plans to do so. I t is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to disclose instructions given to our executive directors in international financial institutions.
  443
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Brazil about World Bank finance, and British private finance for Plan 2010, with regard to the proposals to build dams in Amazonia.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Zambia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what promises of aid were made by the United Kingdom to Zambia at the meeting of the World Bank consultative group held on 25 and 26 June 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The World Bank consultative group on Zambia did not meet in 1988 although an informal meeting among donors to Zambia was held under World Bank auspices in June. No promises of aid were sought or given.

  Brazil (Dam Projects)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's embassy in Brasilia has given in support of British consultants seeking the consultancy for dams on the Xingu river near Altamira, and for the Grande Carajas project; and what steps the Overseas Development Administrations permanent delegation to the World Bank is taking to monitor the progress of these projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  No approaches have been made by United Kingdom consultants to the British Embassy in Brasilia on either of these projects. I understand that original proposals for hydroelectric power development on the Xingu river near Altamira are being reconsidered. Work on the Carajas iron ore mine project, which was financed in part by a World Bank loan, was completed some time ago.

  Amazonia (Indebtedness)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the development committee of the World Bank has taken to deal with the chronic indebtedness of countries in the Amazonian basin to private banks and international institutions and with what results; and what further action is proposed.

  Mr. Eggar
  The development committee has repeatedly endorsed the current case-by-case growth-oriented strategy. This approach has encouraged a number of Latin American countries to embark on the economic reforms required to overcome their debt difficulties and led creditor Governments to provide financial assistance in support of adjustment programmes. The committee has called on debtors and banks further to broaden the choice of market-based options for use in voluntarily negotiated arrangements.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make available the World Bank's staff appraisal reports for all projects covered by the electric power sector loan requested by Brazil.
  444
  Mr. Eggar
  The proposed second power sector loan will not be for specific projects. The World Bank specifies that appraisal reports may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties; and their contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorisation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest arrangements that the United Kingdom director has agreed to in relation to the indebtedness of Brazil and its ability to meet its obligations to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association.

  Mr. Eggar
  The executive board of the IMF agreed a loan of $1·4 billion in July 1988; the executive board of the IBRD agreed a loan of $300 million for the agriculture sector in June 1988 (Brazil is not eligible for IDA lending). These loans are designed to support the economic reforms necessary if Brazil is to overcome its debt difficulties. Debt owed to the IMF and World Bank is only a small part of Brazil's debt.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the human rights record of the Brazilian Government in relation to the Amerindians of Amazonia; and how Her Majesty's Government propose to vote in the light of such considerations on the World Bank structural adjustment loan for Brazil.

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been widespread concern in the United Kingdom at the constitutional provision for Amerindian landholding. We watch this closely and are in touch with interested groups. The Brazilian authorities are well aware of our concern at reports of Amerindian deaths at the hands of gold panners and settlers. Our embassy in Brasilia is monitoring developments closely. We will take account of environmental and social considerations in forming a view of the proposed second power sector loan.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what were the projects for which loans were sought from the World Bank by Brazil during each of the last five years; what was the outcome; and how Her Majesty's Government instructed their representative on the World Bank executive board to vote;

  (2) what was the value of the loans made by the World Bank for each of the last five years to Brazil.

  Mr. Eggar
  Loans brought to the World Bank's executive board and approved in the past five years are listed in the table. It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to disclose instructions to our executive director.

  World Bank loans to Brazil: 1984–88

  Fiscal year ended 30 June

  Amount of loan $ million

  Purpose

  1984

  303

  Agricultural credit.

  65·2

  Agricultural development in north west Brazil.

  22·8

  Agricultural development and Environment Project.

  7·7

  Irrigation development project in north east Brazil.

  40

  Basic education in north and central west Brazil.

  445

  Fiscal year ended 30 June

  Amount of loan $ million

  Purpose

  20

  Technician training.

  250·6

  Power distribution systems in north east and north west Brazil, and in low income metropolitan areas of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.

  222·8

  Rural electrification.

  57·5

  Primary health care programme in Sao Paulo, strengthening health planning in federal government.

  352

  Expansion of small scale, export oriented manufacturing industries.

  210

  Highway rehabilitation and technical assistance.

  52·7

  Urban development in Parana.

  1,604·3

  1985

  100

  National Land Administration Programme.

  122·7

  Rural development in north east Brazil (2 loans).

  72

  Science and Technology education.

  400

  Electricity transmission.

  312

  Electricity distribution in highly industrialised areas.

  300

  Third development banking project for small-scale enterprises.

  200

  Financial rehabilitation of Federal Railway.

  16·3

  Water supply and sanitation in rural areas.

  1,523

  1986

  500

  Restructuring agricultural credit system.

  155

  Second agricultural extension project for small scale farmers.

  92

  North east rural development programme.

  57

  Irrigation project in north east Brazil.

  48

  Irrigation survey project in north east Brazil.

  500

  Power sector rehabilitation project.

  59·5

  Health project in north east Brazil.

  29

  Public sector management project.

  100

  Rehabilitation of flood damaged urban areas in the north east region.

  55

  Urban development in Salvador metropolitan region.

  24·5

  Urban development in state of Santa Catarina.

  1,620

  1987

  612

  7 loans for agricultural development in the states of Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, Piau, Paraiba, Minas Gerais and Alagoas respectively.

  51

  Veterinary services.

  50

  Reduction of industrial pollution in Sao Paulo.

  74·5

  Strengthening the National Vocational Training System.

  174

  Highway rehabilitation in Sao Paulo.

  100

  Rehabilitation of Sao Paulo Railway Company.

  200

  Urban transport improvement in Brazil's nine largest cities.

  1,261·5

  1988

  300

  Agroindustry development.

  300

  Agriculture credit.

  195

  Infrastructure for irrigation development.

  446

  Fiscal year ended 30 June

  Amount of loan $ million

  Purpose

  132

  Mitigation of human cost of resettling families displaced by Itaparica reservoir.

  48·5

  Support for programme of planting of up to 165,000 hectares of forest and charcoal manufacturing infrastructure in Minas Gerais.

  109

  Health programme in north east Brazil, and help in developing an AIDS programme.

  20

  Technical assistance to improve efficiency of ports.

  175

  Reconstruction and rehabilitation following floods in Rio de Janeiro.

  80

  Water and sewerage to poor areas of urban centres.

  1,359·5

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure that adequate funds are available to Brazil to undertake structural adjustment programmes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The World Bank has lent substantial sums to support the process of structural adjustment in Brazil, and the International Monetary Fund has lent in support of stabilisation policies. An effective response by international financial institutions is dependent on the Brazilian Government promoting an adequate macro economic framework that will re-establish stability and permit the resumption of sustainable growth.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the World Bank methods of ensuring that Brazil repays its international debt on reasonable terms.

  Mr. Eggar
  As a member of the World Bank we participate in regular discussion of the World Bank 's lending programme in Brazil. These discussions cover Brazil's ability to meet its obligations to the World Bank. Paris Club creditors agreed last July to reschedule Brazil's official debt. Official creditors are agreed that Brazil's commercial debts are a matter for Brazil to negotiate with the banks themselves. We and the World Bank have both welcomed the elements of debt reduction in the innovative menu agreement reached between Brazil and the banks last year.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that the World Bank does not make loans for projects which, if carried out, would be likely to cause environmental or rain forest damage in Amazonia.

  Mr. Eggar
  Environmental concerns now receive considerable attention in the World Bank, due in part to the efforts of the United Kingdom and several other members. The reorganisation of the bank in 1987 strengthened its capacity to ensure that environmental costs and benefits are systematically addressed in project appraisal.

  Brazil and Colombia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental and cultural policy guidelines govern project lending by the World Bank and the intergovernmental group on Brazil and Colombia.

  Mr. Eggar
  The World Bank incorporates environmental and sociological considerations as an overall part of project design. Projects and programmes are required to meet economic and social objectives based on the most efficient and sustainable use of environmental resources. Projects which might affect indigenous groups or wildlands must incorporate components to mitigate any possible adverse effects. The bank can offer help to strengthen the local implementing agencies if this is necessary to ensure the successful design and implementation of the components.

  I have no information about any intergovernmental group on Brazil and Colomnbia.

  Rain Forests, Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken as a result of the acceptance of the FAO tropical forest action plan; what was the response from the president of the World Bank to representations stressing Her Majesty's Government's belief in the importance of environmental factors in respect of other aid programmes; and what discussions he has had with fellow donors on means of donor co-ordination in protecting rain forests in Amazonia.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the tropical forestry action plan more than 50 developing countries have asked for help over the formulation and co-ordination of their national forestry policies. The plan has already led to seven forestry sector reviews being completed, and another 36 are under way.

  The World Bank shares our view that the environmental aspects of development must be properly taken into account.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has not had any formal discussions with other donors specifically about protecting the Amazon rain forests; but when I visited Brazil last year I made clear to the Brazilian President the concern felt in Britain about the environmental effects of deforestation in the Amazon and that season's disastrous fires. As signatories of the international tropical timber agreement, the United Kingdom and Brazil and other donor and developing countries are pledged to encourage the development of international policies aimed at the sustainable use and conservation of tropical forests.

  Amazonian Indians (Gathering)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he sent to the invitation to attend the gathering of Amazonian Indians at Altamira on 21 to 25 February.

  Mr. Eggar
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development told the organisers that he was unable to accept the invitation because of earlier commitments but that he hoped to receive a report on the outcome of the meeting.

  Kayapo Tribe Homelands, Brazil
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has of the destruction of Kayapo tribe homelands in Brazil; and what representations he has received on that subject.

  Mr. Eggar
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met Chief Paulinho Paiakan of the Kayapo last November to hear his concerns for the future of his people if proposed hydroelectric power developments on the Xingu river, which would inundate a large area of rain forest, were to proceed. We understand that the Brazilian authorities are re-appraising the sites originally proposed.

  St. Helena Ferry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the completion for the St. Helena ferry now that the Hall Russell company has gone into receivership; and what opportunities now exist for other British shipbuilding companies to be involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  It remains Her Majesty's Government's intention to complete the construction of the ship in the Hall Russell shipyard at Aberdeen if possible.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make an up-to-date statement giving a breakdown, by project, of the resources reallocated to development projects resulting from the savings arising from the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the financial year 1987–88 the money saved by our withdrawal from UNESCO was re-allocated and spent as follows:

  Re-allocation of UNESCO savings final expenditure 1987–88

  £ Committed

  £ Spent

  Overseas Development Administration(ODA) technical co-operation training programme

  1,872,000

  1,772,848

  English language training courses

  799,000

  600,300

  ODA shared scholarship schemes

  320,000

  320,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO) scholarships and awards scheme

  640,000

  640,000

  ODA cultural projects

  100,000

  100,000

  Public expenditure survey transfer to FCO for cultural projects

  100,000

  100,000

  Chinese student scholarships in the United Kingdom

  950,000

  950,000

  Distance learning project in Commonwealth countries

  100,000

  100,000

  Nassau fellowships

  500,000

  650,131

  Commonwealth media development fund

  150,000

  150,000

  Royal Society

  112,000

  112,000

  Research in arid Commonwealth Africa

  300,000

  300,000

  Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission

  96,000

  80,864

  Man and the Biosphere/International Hydrological Programme/ International Association of Hydrological Sciences

  200,000

  200,000

  Dissemination of results of research

  200,000

  200,000

  449

  £ Committed

  £ Spent

  Total

  6,439,000

  6,276,143

  Allocations for this financial year are similar.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was done with the £1,710,448 committed but not spent as referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West on 29 July 1988,Official Report, columns 624–26, on savings arising from the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Underspending in the year in question permitted expenditure on other aid programmes. The cash limit for the year was virtually fully spent. It is not practical to identify the specific use to which these rather than other savings were put.

WALES

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new local authority dwellings were completed in Wales in 1988; and if he will give comparable figures for 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Provisional returns for 1988 show that 789 local authority dwellings were completed. Comparable figures for 1974 and 1979 are 3,046 and 3,010 dwellings respectively.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 12 January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 6,173, 18,614 and 116,245 respectively, Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the continuing downward trend in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales, which fell by 25,800 in the last 12 months and by 62,000 in the last 34 months.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people there were in employment in(a) Wales, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) the travel-to-work area in which Bridgend is situated in June 1979 and the latest month for which figures are available; and how many of these jobs were part-time.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There were 1,157,000 people in employment or self-employed in Wales in June 1979. The comparable figure for June 1988 was 1,029,000. Of these, 165,000 and 190,000 respectively were female part-time employees. Figures for male part-time employees, and for Mid Glamorgan and the Bridgend travel-to-work area, are not available for the dates requested.

  Housing for Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Housing for Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I have met the chairman of Housing for Wales on a number of occasions recently to discuss matters relevant to the setting up of the new body.

  Place Names Advisory Committee
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the place names advisory committee last met; and what it discussed.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The work of the place names advisory committee is carried out entirely by correspondence.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The figures were £909 (in 1986–87), and £747 (in 1978–79). This represents a real terms increase of 21·7 per cent.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to achieve his targets for maximum time on a waiting list for(a) operations and (b) out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Grist
  Health Authorities are not yet in a position to predict when all lists will meet the targets. However, officials of the Welsh Office will be keeping a close watch on the position through six-monthly reports from authorities.

  "Working for Patients"
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he had received in response to the Welsh Office booklet entitled "Working for Patients", as to the continuance of local government representation on the reconstructed health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  None.

  Road Communications
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve road communications in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Outline plans will be announced in the Welsh Office commentary on the public expenditure White Paper and the detail will be provided in the forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales."

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings of the Council of Ministers a Welsh Office Minister has attended since 1979; and which Councils they were.
  451
  Mr. Peter Walker
  It has not been the normal practice of Welsh Office Ministers to attend meetings of the European Council of Ministers since or before 1979. They have, of course, frequently met members of the European Commission since 1979 to discuss issues of importance to Wales.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of appeals against refusals of planning permission by local authorities have been upheld by his Department during the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Thirty-seven per cent.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people listed as homeless in each of the Welsh districts, at the latest count.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of persons in households accepted as homeless during the third quarter of 1988 (July-September) are shown in the table:

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless, July-September 1988

  Number

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  131

  Colwyn

  25

  Delyn

  175

  Glyndwr

  9

  Rhuddlan

  49

  Wrexham Maelor

  310

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen

  54

  Ceredigion

  57

  Dinefwr

  40

  Llanelli

  88

  Preseli

  50

  South Pembrokeshire

  76

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  152

  Islwyn

  55

  Monmouth

  161

  Newport

  398

  Torfaen

  268

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  14

  Arfon

  28

  Dwyfor

  29

  Meirionnydd

  45

  Ynys Môn

  40

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  153

  Merthyr Tydfil

  47

  Ogwr

  319

  Rhondda

  98

  Rhymney Valley

  143

  Taff Ely

  75

  Powys

  Brecknock

  40

  Montgomery

  44

  Radnor

  6

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  706

  Vale of Glamorgan

  247

  452

  Number

  West Glamorgan

  Lliw Valley

  38

  Neath

  169

  Port Talbot/Afan

  70

  Swansea

  125

  Wales total

  4,534

  British Steel (Job Losses)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he personally has had with British Steel about the impending job losses in Wales and the closure of Velindre.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I maintain regular contact with the company about matters of mutual interest, and I have discussed the rationalisation of tinplate production in south Wales with British Steel management. I discussed this specific closure and the prospects for dealing with job losses two weeks ago.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give in full the terms of his communication to the European Commission seeking clearance for limiting to 15 per cent, the maximum single holding in Welsh Water after privatisation and the complete text of the European Community's reply.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Commission Vice President, Sir Leon Brittan, on 7 February in which he said:"The proposed 15 per cent, limit on a single share holding presents no difficulty under community law so long as its application is non-discriminatory".

  Higher Education
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the institutions of higher education in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I met the vice-chancellor of the university of Wales and the director of the polytechnic of Wales, together with a number of industrialists, on 25 July 1988. The topic of discussion was the interaction between higher education and industry.

  Historic Monuments
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the future relationship between Cadw—Welsh Historic Monuments—and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The relationship between the Royal Commission (RCAHM(W) and Cadw—Welsh historic monuments—has been looked at in the context of a policy review of the activities and functions of the commission and the equivalent bodies for Scotland and England. This review is being conducted jointly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We shall be announcing conclusions in due course.
  453
  Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has decided that certain issues of principle can be settled now in advance of the completion of the policy review. There is the question whether RCAHM(W) should be merged with Cadw and the suggestion in a consultancy report by Peat Marwick McLintock that consideration should be given to the transfer of some functions from Cadw to the Welsh Commission. Peats recommended that the Royal Commission should be retained as a separate body responsible for maintaining the national archive of heritage information and manage the NMR. My right hon. Friend and I are persuaded by this analysis and take the view that the Royal Commission should continue as a separate body.

  Peats emphasised that the arguments for and against the transfer of functions were finely balanced. We have decided that the Royal Commission should in future be recognised as the lead national body for oversight of the system of local sites and monuments records. In exercising this responsibility the commission would need to ensure proper liaison with Cadw regarding local decision-making and conservation of the built heritage of Wales generally.

  On the matter of transferring listing and scheduling to the Commission, we have concluded that as its purpose is to identify buildings and monuments which should be given special consideration in the planning and development control process, listing and scheduling should be linked to considerations of conservation, rather than record, and for that reason my right hon. Friend and I have concluded that it is more appropriate for Cadw to continue to provide advice to us on these issues.

  We do believe, however, that the Royal Commission should be more formally involved in this function and that a mechanism should be established that encourages Royal Commission staff to advise Cadw on sites they may visit. We have asked Cadw to consider this and recommend as appropriate. Provided the RCAHM(W)'s input to advice on listing and scheduling is formulated in such a way we take the view that the duty placed on the Royal Commission in 1908 to make its own direct recommendations to Government on buildings "worthy of preservation" should be regarded as overtaken by the development of the statutory framework of listing and scheduling and dropped from its responsibilities.

  Peats comment that as experts on heritage information, the Royal Commission is best placed to judge priorities and to deal with the rescue archaeology grant system. However, we consider that there are good policy and practical arguments for the same organisation handling all aspects of archaelogical casework—scheduled monument consent, negotiations with developers and rescue archaeology if that proves necessary. Accordingly, we feel that it is best for Cadw to continue to deal with rescue archaeology.

  Whatever the future dispositions of functions may be, there will always be areas where both Cadw's and the Royal Commission's expertise and concerns need to be taken into account by each other.

  With these issues of principle resolved, we consider that there is now a very satisfactory basis for a supportive and constructive future relationship between the Royal Commission and Cadw. I have written to the commission's chairman to inform him of our conclusions.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training (Expenditure)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent on training programmes in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector, in each EEC country and the United States of America, Japan and Sweden (i) including the cost of training allowances, and (ii) excluding the cost of training allowances, in real terms at 1989 prices and as a percentage of annual gross domestic product for each year that information is available since 1980.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  YTS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the average weekly take-home pay for YTS leavers in the economic region of Yorkshire and Humberside; and what steps he is currently taking to review this.

  Mr. Cope
  Estimates from the youth cohort study for England and Wales, covering those young people who reached minimum school leaving age in the academic year 1984–85 and were surveyed in spring 1988, show that the average weekly take-home pay for those in a job in the economic region of Yorkshire and Humberside who said that they had had YTS experience within the previous three years was £71·27.

  The Government are continuing to fund the youth cohort study to establish information on this and other areas in the education, training and employment of young people.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the titles and code numbers of the 10 most issued leaflets published by his Department and indicate which of these leaflets has been issued in translation and in which languages.

  Mr. Cope
  The 10 most issued leaflets are as follows:

  Title

  Code Number

  1. Responsibilities of Claimants While Unemployed

  UBL 18

  2. Jobclub leaflet

  JCL 12

  3. Availability For Work (Tear-off slip)

  UBL 671

  4. Put you In The Picture

  REST L1

  5. Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  EAS 102

  6. Get into Training

  TA M66

  7. Better Off In Work

  BOI W 1

  8. Employment Training Action Plan

  M64

  9. How Unemployment Benefit Entitlement Is Decided

  UBL 48

  10. Be Your Own Boss

  EAS 113

  Publication 3 "Availability For Work" (UBL 671) is presently being prepared in the following 14 languages:
  Arabic; Bengali; Cantonese; French; German; Gujarati; Hindi; Italian; Punjabi; Somali; Spanish; Urdu; Vietnamese; Welsh.

  Leaflet 4 "Put You In The Picture" (REST L1) is produced in the following 12 languages:
  Arabic; Bengali; Cantonese; Gujarati; Hindi; Italian; Punjabi; Somali; Spanish; Urdu; Vietnamese; Welsh.
  455
  Leaflets 5 "Enterprise Allowance Scheme" (EAS 102) and 10 "Be Your Own Boss" (EAS 113) are at present only available in English, but editions are being prepared in the following eight other languages:
  Gujarati; Hindi; Bengali; Urdu; Punjabi; Cantonese; Vietnamese; Welsh.

  Leaflet 8 "Employment Training Action Plan" (M64) is produced in the following seven ethnic minority languages:
  Urdu; Punjabi; Chinese; Bengali; Gujarati; Hindi; Vietnamese.

  Retail Prices
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which years since 1959 the annual rate of increase in retail prices was lower than in the previous year.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1963, 1966, 1967, 1972, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1986.

  Press Notices
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many press notices his Department, including the Manpower Services Commission and Training Agency, issued in each 12-month period since 1979.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  425

  1980

  385

  1981

  415

  1982

  398

  1983

  464

  1984

  416

  1985

  496

  1986

  484

  1987

  402

  1988

  386

  Note: These figures do not include press notices issued on behalf of the Department of Employment, the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Agency through the Central Office of Information regional offices.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of people unemployed for more than five years in each of the travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for more than five years in October 1988, the latest available date, for each of the travel-to-work areas in Great Britain.

  Number of claimants unemployed for more than five years in each travel-to-work area in Great Britain

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Andover

  57

  Ashford

  196

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  270

  Banbury

  148

  Basingstoke and Alton

  156

  456

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Bedford

  231

  Bicester

  34

  Brighton

  1,184

  Canterbury

  171

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  229

  Chichester

  120

  Clacton

  202

  Colchester

  332

  Crawley

  200

  Dover and Deal

  155

  Eastbourne

  200

  Folkestone

  213

  Gosport and Fareham

  234

  Guildford and Aldershot

  335

  Harwich

  69

  Hastings

  277

  Hertford and Harlow

  632

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  193

  Isle of Wight

  330

  Medway and Maidstone

  1,282

  Milton Keynes

  308

  Newbury

  46

  Oxford

  525

  Portsmouth

  1,151

  Reading

  297

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  349

  Slough

  390

  Southampton

  1,064

  Southend

  1,705

  Thanet

  420

  Tunbridge Wells

  195

  Watford and Luton

  1,245

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  122

  Worthing

  234

  Beetles and Halesworth

  72

  Bury St. Edmonds

  63

  Cambridge

  259

  Cromer and North Walsham

  107

  Diss

  49

  Fakenham

  58

  Great Yarmouth

  396

  Haverhill

  37

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  113

  Ipswich

  474

  King's Lynn and Hunstanton

  340

  Lowestoft

  241

  Newmarket

  112

  Norwich

  876

  Peterborough

  590

  Sudbury

  59

  Thetford

  124

  Wisbech

  182

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  71

  Heathrow

  1,744

  London

  23,676

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  149

  Bath

  299

  Bideford

  75

  Blandford

  21

  Bodmin and Liskeard

  133

  Bournemouth

  480

  Bridgwater

  188

  Bridport

  30

  Bristol

  2,056

  Bude

  43

  Chard

  41

  Cheltenham

  274

  Chippenham

  99

  Cinderford and Ross on Wye

  248

  Cirencester

  47

  Dartmouth and Kingsbridge

  38

  Devizes

  30

  Dorchester and Weymouth

  120

  Exeter

  398

  Falmouth

  109

  Gloucester

  413

  457

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Helston

  85

  Honiton and Axminster

  78

  Launceston

  49

  Minehead

  42

  Newquay

  30

  Newton Abbot

  109

  Okehampton

  25

  Penzance and St. Ives

  142

  Plymouth

  1,208

  Poole

  207

  Redruth and Camborne

  291

  Salisbury

  141

  Shaftesbury

  51

  South Molton

  18

  St. Austell

  157

  Stroud

  182

  Swindon

  478

  Taunton

  211

  Tiverton

  55

  Torbay

  330

  Torrington

  30

  Totnes

  32

  Trowbridge and Frome

  186

  Truro

  114

  Wareham and Swanage

  27

  Warminster

  20

  Wells

  104

  Weston super Mare

  254

  Yeovil

  152

  Birmingham

  12,398

  Burton-on-Trent

  374

  Coventry and Hinckley

  3,412

  Dudley and Sandwell

  5,458

  Evesham

  105

  Hereford and Leominster

  316

  Kidderminster

  390

  Leek

  47

  Ludlow

  87

  Malvern and Ledbury

  129

  Oswestry

  80

  Rugby and Daventry

  235

  Shrewsbury

  291

  Stafford

  287

  Stoke

  1,700

  Telford and Bridgnorth

  1,066

  Uttoxeter and Ashbourne

  55

  Walsall

  2,718

  Warwick

  386

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  119

  Wolverhampton

  2,895

  Worcester

  457

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  435

  Boston

  164

  Buxton

  87

  Chesterfield

  1,010

  Corby

  216

  Derby

  1,494

  Gainsborough

  127

  Grantham

  143

  Horncastle and Market Rasen

  75

  Kettering and Market Harborough

  160

  Leicester

  1,806

  Lincoln

  683

  Loughborough and Coalville

  226

  Louth and Mablethorpe

  89

  Mansfield

  533

  Matlock

  68

  Melton Mowbray

  86

  Newark

  220

  Northampton

  465

  Nottingham

  3,802

  Retford

  155

  Skegness

  87

  Sleaford

  70

  458

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Spalding and Holbeach

  104

  Stamford

  69

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  189

  Worksop

  311

  Barnsley

  1,274

  Bradford

  2,548

  Bridlington and Driffield

  131

  Calderdale

  612

  Castleford and Pontefract

  591

  Doncaster

  1,626

  Goole and Selby

  202

  Grimsby

  902

  Harrogate

  103

  Huddersfield

  548

  Hull

  3,135

  Keighley

  148

  Leeds

  2,872

  Malton

  25

  Northallerton

  48

  Pickering and Helmsley

  19

  Richmondshire

  52

  Ripon

  23

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  1,978

  Scarborough and Filey

  162

  Scunthorpe

  594

  Settle

  18

  Sheffield

  4,692

  Skipton

  36

  Thirsk

  18

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  1,044

  Whitby

  82

  York

  459

  Accrington and Rossendale

  316

  Blackburn

  622

  Blackpool

  876

  Bolton and Bury

  1,982

  Burnley

  429

  Clitheroe

  31

  Crewe

  332

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  358

  Liverpool

  14,312

  Macclesfield

  170

  Manchester

  9,176

  Northwich

  363

  Oldham

  805

  Pendle

  198

  Preston

  1,153

  Rochdale

  679

  Warrington

  605

  Widnes and Runcorn

  1,049

  Wigan and St. Helens

  3,683

  Wirral and Chester

  3,661

  Barrow in Furness

  261

  Carlisle

  372

  Kendal

  41

  Keswick

  22

  Penrith

  52

  Whitehaven

  268

  Windermere

  7

  Workington

  411

  Alnwick and Amble

  108

  Berwick-on-Tweed

  42

  Bishop Auckland

  651

  Darlington

  519

  Durham

  643

  Hartlepool

  965

  Hexham

  66

  Middlesbrough

  3,628

  Morpeth and Ashington

  585

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  6,654

  South Tyneside

  1,411

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,661

  Sunderland

  4,173

  Aberdare

  372

  Aberystwyth

  47

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  421

  459

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  646

  Brecon

  39

  Bridgend

  539

  Cardiff

  2,413

  Cardigan

  73

  Carmarthen

  88

  Conwy and Colwyn

  147

  Denbigh

  56

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  35

  Fishguard

  41

  Haverfordwest

  247

  Holyhead

  333

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  47

  Llandeilo

  22

  Llandrindod Wells

  32

  Llanelli

  350

  Machynlleth

  15

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  804

  Monmouth

  59

  Neath and Port Talbot

  352

  Newport

  994

  Newtown

  38

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  466

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  1,008

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  38

  Pwllheli

  48

  Shotton Flint and Rhyl

  761

  South Pembrokeshire

  114

  Swansea

  1,434

  Welshpool

  32

  Wrexham

  549

  Aberdeen

  522

  Alloa

  291

  Annan

  72

  Arbroath

  86

  Ayr

  572

  Badenoch

  27

  Banff

  69

  Bathgate

  600

  Berwickshire

  29

  Blairgowrie and Pitlochry

  73

  Brechin and Montrose

  78

  Buckie

  34

  Campbel town

  86

  Crieff

  16

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  502

  Dumbarton

  471

  Dumfries

  182

  Dundee

  1,630

  Dunfermline

  414

  Dunoon and Bute

  92

  Edinburgh

  2,335

  Elgin

  86

  Falkirk

  709

  Forfar

  76

  Forres

  28

  Fraserburgh

  63

  Galashiels

  59

  Girvan

  75

  Glasgow

  12,713

  Greenock

  974

  Haddington

  65

  Hawick

  44

  Huntly

  21

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  142

  Inverness

  255

  Irvine

  1,092

  Islay/Mid Argyll

  36

  Keith

  35

  Kelso and Jedburgh

  21

  Kilmarnock

  479

  Lanarkshire

  3,145

  Lochaber

  76

  Lockerbie

  25

  Newton Stewart

  48

  460

  Travel-to-work area

  Number of unemployed claimants

  North East Fife

  103

  Oban

  53

  Orkney Islands

  81

  Peebles

  23

  Perth

  180

  Peterhead

  74

  Shetland Islands

  25

  Skye and Wester Ross

  53

  Stewartry

  51

  Stirling

  300

  Stranraer

  117

  Sutherland

  56

  Thurso

  58

  Western Isles

  96

  Wick

  93

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest estimate of the numbers, location and cost of the jobs created by the loan guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  A review in 1988 of the loan guarantee scheme undertaken by National Economic and Research Associates for the Department of Employment found that in a sample of 106 firms that had used the scheme, 310 full-time additional jobs were created in the first year. The net Exchequer cost of the LGS per person leaving the unemployment count is estimated at £450. Statistics are not collected by my Department on the actual numbers or locations of jobs created by the loan guarantee scheme.

  Shipyard Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take following the number of successful appeals by former shipyard workers who had been denied unemployment benefit for 13 weeks, in respect of workers in other trades who have been made redundant under similar circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The decision of the independent adjudicating authorities in relation to a redundant shipyard worker relates specifically to that particular worker and his terms of redundancy. Where applicable, British Shipbuilders workers whose circumstances were identical can have their benefit position reviewed. The decision has no direct effect on workers made redundant in other industries.

  Cigarettes (Cost of Living Index)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what machinery exists to register appropriate changes to the weighting of components in the cost of living index to relate to changes in normal household consumption of different items; and if he will list those as applied to cigarettes in the last 30 years;

  (2) what weighting is given at the present time and 10, 20 and 30 years ago or at suitable convenient dates to cigarettes in the retail prices index or its predecessor.

  Mr. Lee
  The weighting of the retail prices index is updated at the beginning of each year. Since 1962 the weight for each component has been revised in the light of the latest available information on household consumption from the family expenditure survey. In the case of a
  461
  few items (including cigarettes) allowance is made for under-recording of expenditure in the survey, by supplementing its results with more comprehensive information from the consumers' expenditure estimates in the national accounts. As they are introduced the new weights are published in Employment Gazette. Those for cigaretes have been as follows:

  Weight for cigarettes in general RPI (parts per thousand)

  Date

  Weight

  1959–61

  70

  1962

  70

  1963

  69

  1964

  66

  1965

  67

  1966

  68

  1967

  64

  1968

  59

  1969

  60

  1970

  57

  1971

  53

  1972

  48

  1973

  44

  1974

  39

  1975

  42

  1976

  42

  1977

  42

  1978

  44

  1979

  40

  1980

  37

  1981

  33

  1982

  37

  1983

  36

  1984

  33

  1985

  34

  1986

  35

  1987

  33

  1988

  32

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the United Kingdom market share of footwear produced in Taiwan and Korea for each of the last five years; and what are the corresponding figures for the home share of the same market.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom Footwear Market (SIC 4510) Percentage (by value) taken by United Kingdom production for the home market and by imports from South Korea and Taiwan

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  United Kingdom

  55·5

  52·8

  54·5

  54·6

  52·9

  South Korea

  2·2

  2·1

  1·9

  2·0

  3·0

  Taiwan

  3·2

  3·8

  3·3

  2·9

  4·0

  Furniture (Foam Filling)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received from retailers requesting Government compensation for loss of retail value of suites made from foam to the new standards but without the white label and therefore needing to be sold by 1 March.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received a small number of suggestions from furniture retailers that compensation should be paid to them for furniture which they are legally 462
  unable to sell after 28 February 1989 because it does not meet the requirements of the new regulations. Only one or two of these representations have referred to the temporary problem of furniture lacking the prescribed label but otherwise conforming. Any retailers placed in that position should make arrangements with the furniture manufacturer to obtain new permanent labels for furniture which otherwise meets the requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulation 1988.

  Sanitary Towels and Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to encourage the sanitary tampon industry to standardise absorbency ratings.

  Mr. Forth
  No. This is primarily a matter for the industry to consider in the light of consumer demands. If a request were made to the British Standards Institution for work to be undertaken in this field, it would be considered on its merits.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will take steps to impose restrictions on the use of chemicals in the manufacture of sanitary tampons;

  (2) what information he has as to what chemical traces remain in sanitary towels after manufacture.

  Mr. Forth
  I have asked the industry what chemicals they add to tampons and sanitary towels and what checks they run on residues of pesticides and biocides in the cotton used. When I have this information our toxicologists will advise the Government on whether they pose any hazard.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will introduce legislation requiring manufacturers to label clearly packets with a comprehensive list of the contents of sanitary towels;

  (2) if he will introduce stricter controls on the manufacture of sanitary goods in respect of safety standards and sterile procedures for the manufacture of these goods.

  Mr. Forth
  No. 1 am satisfied that the existing voluntary prior approval scheme for tampons adequately ensures the safety of the public.

  Disposable Nappies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to end the use of synthetic chemicals in the manufacture of disposable nappies which are similar to those used in sanitary tampons removed from sale in the United States of America because of their association with toxic shock syndrome in consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Toxic shock syndrome is not a problem with babies. However, I will ask the industry which chemicals are added to disposable nappies and this information will be considered by our toxicologists.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department will actively promote the use of chlorine-free paper pulp in the manufacture of disposable nappies.
  463
  Mr. Forth
  The brand leaders have gone over to unbleached disposable nappies and the remainder of the industry is likely to follow. It is a good example of the market responding to consumer preferences.

  Paper Industry (Bleaches)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consult the paper industry on ways to encourage the use of different methods of bleaching.

  Mr. Forth
  I understand that no pulp mills in the United Kingdom bleach with chlorine. However I have asked the paper industry to provide unbleached alternatives to bleached paper products so that the consumer can have a choice.

  Wood Pulp
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual United Kingdom requirement for wood pulp.

  Mr. Forth
  Precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that in 1987 the United Kingdom requirements of wood pulp amounted to between 2 and 2½ million tonnes.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will make public the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of beer to the United Kingdom; and if it is his intention to make a statement on the report at the same time.

  Mr. Maude
  The report will be published as soon as possible. It is customary for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to announce his response to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report at the time of its publication.

  Consumer Credit
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, having regard to the proposals published in December 1988 for review of the consumer credit licensing system, he will consider extending the proposed powers to require information not only to those holding or seeking licences but also to anyone suspected on reasonable grounds of carrying out unlicensed consumer credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Department's proposals for the consumer credit licensing system were contained in a consultation letter dated 26 October 1988. The proposed power for the Director General of Fair Trading to seek information would not be confined only to those seeking or holding licences, but would also extend to those suspected on reasonable grounds of carrying on any form of consumer credit business.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of his proposals outlined in the White Paper on "Broadcasting in the 90s", he has plans to seek to amend or repeal the Marine Offences (Broadcasting) Act 1967.
  464
  Mr. Atkins
  Yes, we are considering strengthening the enforcement powers in the Act. The exciting proposals outlined in the White Paper reinforce the need for vigorous action against all unlicensed broadcasting.

  Sanitary Towels
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to encourage sanitary towel manufacturers to substitute biodegradeable plastics for non-biodegradeable plastics in their products.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to do so, but I understand that the industry has approached higher educational establishments with a view to their carrying out relevant investigations.

  Paper Mills (Pollution)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the Paper Industries Research Association to discuss question of organochlorine pollution from pulp and paper mills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have not held any meeting with the Paper Industries Research Association but my Department is in touch with the association about its studies in this field.

  Newspapers (Takeovers)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in how many of the 15 daily newspapers circulating in Northern Ireland the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inserted a notice inviting representations in connection with the proposed takeover of Belfast Newsletter and Sunday News by Thomson Regional Newspapers; what was the size of the notice in the press; and what is the normal size for similar notices published by the commission.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which will be writing to the right hon. Member.

  Unigate (Dairy Crest Purchase)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will refer the purchase of part of Unigate's liquid milk business by Dairy Crest to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 17 February 1989] : The proposed acquisition is currently being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading who has a duty to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether the proposed acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposed merger in anticipation of the director general's advice.

  Textiles and Clothing (Silberston Report)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will extend the time for receiving the report from Professor Aubrey Silberston into the effects on the United Kingdom economy of international trading policies on textiles and clothing, to allow Professor Silberston more time to consult widely and to ensure any
  465
  recommendations he makes are widely supported by United Kingdom textile and clothing interests; if he will consider inviting Professor Silberston to circulate his main conclusions before his study is finalised and presented to Ministers; and if he will arrange for Professor Silberston's report to be published when available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The commissioning of the study was announced last September and the textile and clothing, and other interests have been given ample opportunity to let Professor Silberston know their views before the report is completed. Professor Silberston expects the report to be published in the summer.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many deputations of hon. Members he saw on takeover bids in 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: Department of Trade and Industry Ministers saw approximately 10 such deputations in 1988.

ENERGY

  Market Research
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what market research he proposes to undertake in 1989 as part of his Department's programme to promote awareness of, and research in, technology transfer and renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Market research is an esential part of our renewable energy research and development programme, both in determining the most appropriate methods of informing and influencing the future market for renewable sources of energy, and in gauging the success or otherwise of publications that flow from the programme.

  Technology transfer plans are being developed for each technology classed as economically attractive. During 1989 a number of market research studies are planned in order to obtain a better understanding of technical transfer processes and the characteristics of those market sectors relevant to the renewable technologies.

  Over the next weeks the first of these studies will be undertaken to provide detailed information on the size and scope of the market that needs to be addressed. The results will be used to develop and target the most appropriate promotion material in support of our technology transfer activities. Recently completed market research has shown that our publications have been well received by the general public, industry and professionals.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the rate of return achieved by the electricity supply industry for the last year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1979–80.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, the industry's current cost rate of return on average net assets was 2·42 per cent. In 1979–80 the figure was 0·5 per cent.

  Electricity Distribution Boards (Chairmen)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next be meeting the chairmen of distribution boards; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the area board chairmen regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest.

  British Coal (Engineering Workshops)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the British Coal national engineering workshops closed since July 1985; together with the number of redundancies declared with each workshop closure; and the number of redundancies declared in other British Coal national engineering workshops since July 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  BNFL
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made with the implementation of the integrated dry route kiln (IDR) process to convert uranium hexafluoride into ceramic uranium dioxide at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Springfields.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuel plc and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  BNFL (Uranium Imports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to refuse permission for British Nuclear Fuels plc to import natural uranium from South Africa for processing and re-export.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 23 May 1988 at column 8.

  Pressurised Water Reactor (Construction)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a study of the net energy consumed and resultant carbon dioxide gas release from fossil fuels used in the manufacturing and construction of a 1300 Mw pressurised water reactor and in the manufacture, storage and processing of its fuel and resultant radioactive wastes; and if he will publish a table giving comparable information for a coal-fired station of the same net output and fitted with flue gas desulphurisation technology.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I do not consider that such a study would be worthwhile.

  Efficiency (Appliances)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a departmental study to compare the volume decrease in carbon dioxide emissions that could be achieved by introducing a policy of energy efficient light
  467
  bulbs and energy efficient labelling on refrigerators, water heaters and stoves, instead of building the equivalent number of power plant to provide the electricity saved.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No. It has always been the policy of the energy efficiency office that energy-efficient lamps should be used wherever they are cost effective and appropriate.

  Under a recently concluded agreement by the European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Domestic Equipment, appliance manufacturers present the energy consumption data of major energy using domestic appliances in the same form. This allows comparisons by consumers no matter where in western Europe the appliances come from or are sold.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Properties (Rate Arrears)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 585, he will list the rate arrears for individual diplomatic properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Rates owed by missions on properties accepted by Her Majesty's Government as being in diplomatic use, and on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are taking action with the missions concerned are:

  £

  Burkina

  6,456·00

  France

  107,479·02

  Costa Rica

  758·37

  Iran

  12,123·47

  Iraq

  134,504·91

  Laos

  2,215·91

  Libya

  24,486·95

  Morocco

  15,100·40

  Nigeria

  9,242·97

  Paraguay

  2,680·11

  Somalia

  10,677·84

  Sudan

  113,800·00

  Uganda

  33,051·17

  In certain cases the arrears are in dispute and under discussion between the mission and rating of Government property department.

  The following amounts are owed by diplomatic missions on properties which are not accepted as being in diplomatic use on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is similarly taking action:

  £

  Grenada

  2,452·83

  Iran

  32,595·52

  Libya

  371,026·32

  Nigeria

  33,942·01

  Rail Ozhegov
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians about the fate of Rail Ozhegov.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Rail Ozhegov has only very recently come to our attention. We shall underline our concern 468
  about this case to the Soviet authorities at the next suitable opportunity, and shall continue to press the Russians until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Kampuchea
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to seek to produce an international peace settlement on Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 8 February at columns 739–40.

  South Africa (Hunger Strikes)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made known to the South African Government the concern felt by British people for the hunger strikers in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have repeatedly urged the South African authorities to release all those detained without trial, and have done so again recently. We welcome the reported commitment by the South African Minister for Law and Order to give urgent personal consideration to the case of each detainee.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any specific representations to his counterparts in France and the People's Republic of China in regard to their respective joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty before the 1990 NPT review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  British Ministers and officials take advantage of every appropriate opportunity to urge all non-members (including France and China) of the non-proliferation treaty to accede, and will continue to do so. We attach great importance to securing the widest possible adherence to this treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the date and venue for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, scheduled for 1990, have yet been set.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference will probably take place in Geneva during August/September 1990. The precise dates and venue will be discussed and confirmed with other state parties at the first preparatory committee in New York on 1–5 May.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations on Iraqi use of chemical weapons the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) made to the Government of Iraq on his recent visit to that country; and what was the response.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I repeated to the Iraqi Foreign Minister the serious view we take of use of chemical
  469
  weapons and the great importance we continue to attach to repeated Iraqi undertakings not to make further use of these weapons.

  Brussels Treaty
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects Her Majesty's Government to ratify the protocol dated 14 November in respect of the accession of Portugal and Spain to the modified Brussels treaty of 23 October 1954.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The protocol of accession of Portugal and Spain to the modified Brussels treaty was laid before the House on 2 February. It should therefore be possible to ratify the protocol early in March.

  Mr. Moshe Arens
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his meeting on 15 February with Mr. Moshe Arens, Foreign Minister of Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend had an important and constructive first exchange of views on Arab/Israel and other international issues. He looks forward to continuing the dialogue.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what evidence he has of any increased take-up in community care grants as against loans within the social fund budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Take up of community care grants has increased steadily over recent months. Expenditure in December 1988 was £3·9 million representing 79 per cent. of monthly profiled expenditure. Provisional figures for January 1989 show that expenditure increased to £5·1 million, representing 109 per cent. of monthly profiled expenditure. Expenditure on loans was £12·1 million in December 1988, representing 103 per cent. of monthly

  1984–851

  1985–86

  1986–872

  1988–89

  Number of claimants paid

  Amount paid £

  Number of claimants paid

  Amount paid £

  Number of £5 payments made

  Amount paid £

  Number of claims refused

  Number of claims refused

  Doncaster East

  218

  2,0347·53

  477

  11,783·44

  4,286

  21,430

  1,075

  6

  Doncaster West

  509

  5,776·11

  764

  28,808·23

  4,321

  21,605

  2,068

  —

  Wath-on-Dearne

  180

  1,890·61

  567

  14,368·33

  3,207

  16,035

  868

  —

  Total

  907

  9,701·25

  1,808

  54,960·00

  11,814

  59,070

  4,011

  6

  1 Details of the number of claims refused in 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1987–88 are not available

  2 It is estimated that 6,000 claimants received payments.

  Medical Boards
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is available to members of medical boards concerning cases involving their own patients or former patients.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance on the subject is contained in handbooks which are issued to all adjudicating medical practitioners (medical boarding doctors). These are, "The 470
  profiled expenditure and was provisionally £10·6 million in January 1989 representing 96 per cent. of monthly profiled expenditure.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he proposes to give to local offices about exceeding nominal monthly social fund allocations in the light of the shortfall in spending evident in the early months of the financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance relating to the management of social fund budgets is contained in paragraphs 2000–2056 of the social fund manual. The Department has recently written to local office managers drawing attention to this guidance and reminding them that the objective is for payments to approach the year's budget as closely as possible while maintaining so far as possible consistency of priority-setting and decision-making throughout the year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will revise the guidance contained in the social fund manual in order to ensure that the full budget is spent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to amend the existing guidance in the social fund manual regarding management of the social fund budget. The guidance relating to community care grants is currently being revised.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire were paid under the cold weather payments scheme for the last five years; how much benefit has been paid in each of the last five years; and how many claims were refused.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the information requested for the Department's local offices covering the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire. These offices made no cold weather payments in the winter of 1987–88.

  Handbook for Industrial Injuries Medical Boards" and "The Severe Disablement Allowance Handbook for Adjudicating Medical Authorities."

  Supported Lodgings
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on entitlement to(a) income support and (b) housing benefit for those in supported lodgings from April 1989.
  471
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From April 1989, those people in supported lodgings who are entitled to income support will receive housing benefit to help with their accommodation costs and normal income support (including any appropriate premiums) for other expenses. This change will mean that many supported lodgers will be better off, after meeting charges for accommodation and the provision of care, than under existing benefit arrangements. As at present, those in supported lodgings who are not eligible for income support, but who have low incomes, will be able to claim housing benefit to help with their accommodation costs.

  Mr. N. Scott
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the reason for the delay in the case of the appeal to the social security appeal tribunal of Mr. N. Scott of 17 Elysdon drive, Gorton, Manchester, between the receipt of the adjudication officer's submission from his Department on 3 November 1988 and the receipt of Mr. Scott's letter of appeal by the tribunal on June 1988; and if he will take steps to ensure that no such delays occur in the future.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: Mr. Scott's appeal was one of a considerable number of similar appeals prompted by a welfare rights take-up campaign. There was a delay in submitting the appeal to the social security appeal tribunal whilst the adjudication officer sought advice from the regional adjudication officer on how to prepare the appeal submission.

  The flow of appeal submissions from the Department to the social security appeal tribunal will be affected when numbers dramatically rise as in the case of take-up campaigns. There has, however, been an improvement nationally in the time taken to process appeals. Latest statistics show that the national average time taken from the date of lodgment to the date of submission to the social security appeal tribunal is 18 days.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received recent representations from the Confederation of British Industry about inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the CBI on economic priorities for 1989. His priority remains to bring inflation down, and the Government's policies will achieve this.

  Tax Concessions
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of tax concessions from his last Budget that have gone to each region.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that regional estimates of the effect of the changes in taxation announced in the 1988 Budget are not available.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he has any plans to promote wider share ownership.
  472
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend is always looking for ways in which further to promote wider share ownership.

  Capital Account
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the statistics produced by his Department give an indication of the current state, and changes in the state, of the capital account of the economy.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy on the collection and publication of statistics showing the state of the capital account of the economy.

  Mr. Major
  The only statistics relevant to the capital account for which the Treasury is directly responsible are the official reserves. Other data on the capital account of the balance of payments are collected by the CSO and published regularly in "Economic Trends."

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase the rate of detection and prosecution of tax avoiders.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue will continue its efforts to improve its effectiveness in counter-avoidance work, but tax avoidance itself is not a criminal offence.

  Relocation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Civil Service jobs will be transferred to(a) Nottingham and (b) the Chalfont drive site, Aspley, Nottingham as a result of the Government's recent announcement.

  Mr. Brooke
  As indicated in my answer on 9 February 1989, at columns 751–2, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), the policy is for Departments themselves to review the location of their work. They are well aware of the benefits for regional and urban policy of transferring work to such areas, and will take this into account where appropriate.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to relocate staff for which he is responsible to the north-east of England, particularly Teesside.

  Mr. Brooke
  Departments for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible have in hand the serious and substantial reviews of relocation opportunities referred to in the answer I gave on 9 February 1989, at columns 751–2, to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran). Areas which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as the north-east of England, will be considered where appropriate. Decisions will be announced once the essential processes of assessment, consultation and decision for each review have been completed.

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about his forthcoming Budget Statement.
  473
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received numerous representations from a variety of individuals and organisations.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the state-owned commercial sector in 1979 has now been transferred to the private sector.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 1979, around 45 per cent. of the state-owned sector of industry has been transferred to the private sector.

  Output per head (percentage change on year earlier)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  USA

  Japan

  Sweden

  (a) Whole economy

  1981

  2·2

  1·8

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  3·0

  -0·1

  1982

  4·3

  2·4

  1·1

  0·6

  -1·7

  1·8

  1·0

  1983

  4·2

  1·0

  3·1

  0·8

  2·6

  1·4

  2·3

  1984

  1·0

  2·2

  2·6

  2·8

  2·9

  4·4

  4·6

  1985

  2·0

  2·0

  1·3

  2·4

  1·7

  4·0

  1·5

  1986

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  2·4

  0·7

  1·6

  0·0

  1987

  2·9

  2·0

  1·2

  3·3

  0·9

  3·3

  0·8

  19881

  2·6

  3·0

  2·9

  2·4

  1·7

  4·2

  0·0

  Period average

  2·7

  2·0

  1·8

  2·0

  2·2

  3·0

  1·3

  (b) Manufacturing

  1981

  3·5

  1·3

  0·3

  2·7

  2·7

  -0·1

  1·9

  1982

  6·5

  1·5

  0·4

  -0·2

  -0·6

  -0·3

  2·5

  1983

  8·5

  1·1

  5·0

  1·3

  9·9

  3·6

  5·7

  1984

  5·8

  3·2

  4·2

  8·3

  6·8

  8·0

  4·3

  1985

  2·9

  3·3

  3·1

  2·3

  2·7

  1·8

  0·1

  1986

  3·0

  2·5

  0·5

  4·3

  3·8

  -0·9

  -0·2

  1987

  7·1

  4·8

  0·3

  4·7

  3·8

  5·2

  7·3

  19882

  7·5

  5·6

  6·3

  4·7

  2·9

  7·2

  2·0

  Period average

  5·6

  3·0

  2·5

  3·5

  4·0

  3·1

  3·0

  1 The figures for 1988 are based on the quarterly averages of OECD estimates of total output for the whole year and actual employment for the first three quarters (except for the United Kingdom, for which actual average productivity for the first three quarters is used). These figures for 1988 are compared with the average level of productivity in 1987.

  2 The estimates for 1988 compare the average level of manufacturing productivity in the first three quarters (except for France and the United Kingdom, for which data are available for the first half and the whole year respectively) with the average level in 1987 as a whole.

  Trade Exhibitions
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and Her Majesty's Stationery Office will not be attending the "Great North Meets the Buyer" exhibition on 4 and 5 April.

  Mr. Lilley
  CCTA and HMSO both decided not to participate in the "Great North Meets the Buyer" exhibition because experience of taking stands at such events has been disappointing, with a very low level of interest from potential suppliers.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often he and other Ministers in the Treasury have met the executive director of the World Bank appointed by the United Kingdom to discuss the policies or reports of the World Bank in relation to Amazonia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets our executive director at the World Bank from time to time, usually at the spring and annual meetings of the bank and the IMF; a wide range of issues are discussed.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the annual percentage increase in productivity in(a) the whole economy, and (b) the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the United States of America, Japan and Sweden, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  The information requested is set out:

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report details of tax reliefs which apply to the incomes and capital gains accruing to private occupational pension funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  If a pension scheme meets the conditions laid down for tax approval its investment income and gains are exempt from tax, but any trading profits or other forms of income are taxable.

  Hospital Radio Stations
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost per annum to the Treasury of exempting from the scope of value-added tax broadcasting and recording equipment used by hospital radio stations.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret this information is not available.

  VAT
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had about the effect of the imposition of value added tax on hospital radio equipment; and if he will make a statement.
  475
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989] : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 27 October at column 447.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 548, on value added tax zero rates, if he will list those matters still under discussion.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 16 February 1989] : The principal matter still under discussion with trade representatives is the question whether gas and electricity bills below a certain level should be eligible automatically for zero-rating, in the same way as is proposed for certain small scale deliveries of coal, oil and liquified petroleum gas. Interested trade and professional bodies have also been asked for technical comments on the draft legislation.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the organisations with which he is discussing his proposals for private medical insurance tax relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: Inland Revenue officials are holding detailed discussions on the relief with the Association of British Insurers, the British United Provident Association, Private Patients Plan, the Western Provident Association, the Bristol Contributory Welfare Association, the Exeter Hospital Aid Society and the Civil Service Medical Aid Association.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates on which his Department is meeting the private medical insurance industry to discuss tax reliefs for private medical insurance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: A meeting took place on 9 February, and there will be further meetings as and when needed.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is considering making it possible to gain tax relief for private medical insurance by extending family medical insurance policies to cover elderly patients;

  (2) if tax reliefs for nursing home care are to be included under pensioners' medical insurance tax relief proposals in his discussions with the private medical insurance industry;

  (3) when he will publish the results of his discussions with the private medical insurance industry on tax reliefs for medical insurance for pensioners.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The details will be published in the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the papers on which he is basing his discussions with private medical insurance companies on tax reliefs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: No.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will invite representations from health councils, health boards and health authorities to join his discussions on private medical insurance tax reliefs.
  476
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: If authorities wish to make representations to the Government on this subject I have no doubt that they will do so in the usual way.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has taken place into cost of private medical insurance tax reliefs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: Estimates of the cost of tax relief for private medical insurance for the elderly are being derived using information from various sources, including providers of private medical insurance.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Lloyd's in connection with the effect of recent financial legislation on the conduct of business in the London insurance market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: These matters have been raised at various meetings with Lloyd's. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend recently about the effects of legislation on Lloyd's business. I am placing a copy of my letter to my hon. Friend of 15 February 1989 in the House of Commons Library.

  Visible Trade Deficit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the non-oil visible trade deficit with(a) the EEC and (b) the rest of the world each year since 1970; and what percentage these represent of total non-oil visible trade in each year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table:

  United Kingdom non-oil trade1

  OTS basis

  Year

  Crude balance with

  As percentage of exports and imports with

  European Community

  Rest of the world

  European Community

  Rest of the world

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  1970

  +0·1

  -0·3

  +1·4

  -3·0

  1971

  -0·1

  +0·4

  -2·7

  +3·5

  1972

  -0·5

  -0·0

  -7·2

  -0·3

  1973

  -1·3

  -1·0

  -13·3

  -6·3

  1974

  -2·1

  -0·9

  -15·9

  -4·1

  1975

  -2·1

  +1·2

  -14·3

  +5·0

  1976

  -2·1

  +0·7

  -10·6

  +2·3

  1977

  -2·3

  +1·2

  -9·3

  +3·4

  1978

  -3·3

  +1·4

  -1·1

  +3·5

  1979

  -4·6

  -0·7

  -12·7

  -1·5

  1980

  -2·7

  +0·2

  -7·2

  +0·5

  1981

  -4·3

  +1·3

  -11·4

  +2·7

  1982

  -6·7

  +0·9

  -15·4

  +1·7

  1983

  -10·0

  -2·1

  -20·0

  -3·6

  1984

  -11·7

  -3·4

  -20·0

  -1·6

  1985

  -12·2

  -2·2

  -18·5

  -3·0

  1986

  -13·8

  -3·2

  -18·9

  -4·3

  1987

  -14·6

  -3·5

  -17·7

  -4·5

  1988

  -17·6

  -9·4

  -19·0

  -10·9

  1 Oil taken as Standard International Trade Classification Division 33.

  Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the net income after housing costs of a married man with children aged 13 and 16 years earning(a) £104 and (b) £105 per week;

  (2) what is the net income of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years paying average rent and rates as used in the tax/benefit model tables earning (a) £65 per week and (b) £80 per week;

  (3) what is the net income after benefits of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £60 per week gross and (b) £140 per week gross;

  (4) what is the net income under current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years with gross earnings of (i) £65 per week and (ii) £105 per week;

  (5) what is the net income under the current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £80 per week and (b) £90 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to table 1 of the tax/benefit model tables for April 1988, copies of which are in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Savings Bank
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has recived about the increase in the minimum deposit made by the National Savings Bank; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have received a number of representations. The average cost of each transaction is well over £1 in Post Office agency fees and National Savings bank running costs. It is not sensible to seek deposits so small that they are wholly or largely absorbed by the cost of processing. Deposits under £5 represent only 1 per cent. by value of all ordinary account deposits made in a year.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest figures available for gross average earnings in(a) Scotland, (b) rural Scotland and (c) Great Britain.

  The Prime Minister The information available from the Department of Employment's new earnings survey is given below. As the survey does not provide results for areas within the regions of Scotland, it is not possible to provide estimates for rural Scotland. The regions given below are mainly rural; other Scottish regions have rural areas but also include large urban areas.

  Average Gross Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Employees on Adult Rates Whose Pay for the Survey Pay-period Was Not Affected by Absence

  April 1988

  £ per week

  men

  women

  Scotland

  233·3

  152·2

  Borders Region

  n/a

  n/a

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  205·3

  n/a

  478

  April 1988

  £ per week

  men

  women

  Highland Region

  224·2

  137·3

  Island Authorities

  n/a

  n/a

  Great Britain

  245·8

  164·2

  As the survey covers a sample of about 1 per cent. of employees who are members of PAYE schemes for tax purposes, it does not cover, for example, the self-employed or those earning less than the PAYE limit, and cannot provide reliable estimates for every region of Scotland.

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will dismiss from the Government the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. for his statements relating to the alleged sympathy shown by certain solicitors in Northern Ireland for terrorist organisations.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if there have been any changes in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health and of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as a result of the establishment of the committee which she will chair, as announced by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, on Friday 10 February.

  The Prime Minister There has been no change in the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The plans to which the Chief Medical Officer referred on 10 February, and on which the Secretary of State for Health announced further details on 14 February at column 180, concern the establishment of an expert committee on the microbiological safety of food, under an independent chairman.

  Food Safety Group
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to ensure that all those who are invited to join the expert group set up to examine food-related issues have no commercial interests in the food industry.

  The Prime Minister
  On 14 February at column 180 my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the setting-up of an expert committee on the microbiological safety of food. The committee's membership and terms of reference and method of working are under consideration and will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will require the expert group, set up to examine food-related issues, to make recommendations on the suitability of cook-chill catering within hospitals;

  (2) if she will take steps to suspend the further introduction of cook-chill catering in hospitals until the expert group, set up to examine food-related issues, have had the opportunity to examine the incidence of listeria in pre-cooked, refrigerated foods.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1980 the Department of Health issued guidelines on cook-chill catering in the National
  479
  Health Service and elsewhere. We remain satisfied that provided these guidelines are followed food produced by this system is safe. The expert committee on microbiological safety of food will, of course, be free to examine any aspect of microbiological food safety.

  President Ershad
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she discussed human rights and democracy with President Ershad of Bangladesh; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I had a wide-ranging discussion with President Ershad, covering both bilateral and regional issues.

  Israeli Foreign Minister
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on her meeting on 15 February with Mr. Moshe Arens, Foreign Minister of Israel.

  The Prime Minister
  I had a very good discussion of Arab/Israel issues with Professor Arens. We agreed that negotiations should start as soon as possible, but will need careful preparation. We also discussed the position of Jews in the Soviet Union.

TRANSPORT

  Tyres
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles in each of the last three years failed the MOT test because of inadequate tyre tread; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Inadequate tread is one of the tyre defects that can lead to a test failure and is not separately recorded. Tyre failure figures during annual tests for the last three years, based on a 2 per cent. sample return from testing stations are:

  Number

  1985

  1,249,822

  1986

  1,525,449

  1987

  1,862,980

  In addition to inadequate tread, the tyre failure statistics include several other reasons for failure. These include lumps, bulges or tears caused by structural deterioration, a tyre with a cut which reaches the ply or cord, a tyre which is fouling on any part of the vehicle and a tyre which is of a different nominal size or structure type from the other which is on the same axle.

  British Rail and London Underground (Women Workers)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many women in total and in proportion to the total work force are currently employed by (i) British Rail and (ii) London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not have this information. As it relates to a matter within the management responsibility of the operators may I suggest that the question be addressed to them.

  Motorway Safety
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to encourage greater lane discipline in motorway driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year announced a package of measures to improve motorway safety with particular emphasis on improving driving standards. Since then, we have distributed over 2 million copies of the motorway leaflet containing advice on the correct use of lanes. The Department gave its full support and co-operation to the Association of British Insurers, which recently produced a video "Happens All The Time" aimed at 17 to 24-year-olds and concentrating on motorway driving skills.

  We are aware of the frustration and danger associated with poor lane discipline. We work hard to encourage safe and considerate use of motorways through the highway code, the manual "Driving", stuffer leaflets, posters and television filler films. We shall not relax our efforts.

  We would welcome national and regional television coverage of motorway driving which could raise awareness of good and bad or dangerous habits.

  BR and London Underground (Passenger Numbers)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce restrictions on the number of passengers permitted on board carriages on British Rail and London Underground trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I am not aware of any evidence that such measures are necessary.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the current rates of vehicle excise duty applicable to each category of vehicle in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is a large number of rates. Full information is contained in leaflet V149, "Rates of Vehicle Excise Duty" available from the House of Commons Library.

  Bicester Perimeter Road
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to be completed on the Bicester western and eastern perimeter road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is the responsibility of the Oxfordshire county council.

  Banbury Ring Road
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on stages II and III of the Banbury inner ring road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is the responsibility of the Oxfordshire county council.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the composition of the Disabled Persons Transport Committee and list the names and disablement links of its membership.
  481
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Disabled Persons Transport Committee was set up under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Sectary of State on matters relating to the needs of disabled people in connection with public passenger transport.

  The chairman and members are appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with relevant bodies. The Act specifies that, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least half of the membership of the committee should consist of people who are disabled.

  Current membership is as follows:

  Chairman: Sir Peter Baldwin KCB (Chairman, South East Thames Regional Health Authority)

  Mrs. Jill Allen-King MBE (Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People)

  Keith Brown (Board member, London Regional Transport

  W. Buchanan (Adviser on Disability, British Railways Board)

  Lewis Carter-Jones (Vice Chairman, Access to the Skies Committee)

  Clive Davis (Royal National Institute for the Deaf)

  John Dobinson (Transport and Disability Consultant)

  James Elder-Woodward (Strathclyde Regional Council)

  Mrs. Claudia Flanders (OBE) (Transport and Disability Consultant)

  Lady Greengross (Age Concern)

  Graham Stevenson (Transport and General Workers Union)

  John Hannan MP (All Party Disablement Group)

  Joe Hennessy (OBE) (Disabled Drivers Association)

  Peter Large (CBE (Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled)

  Bob Ley (South Wales Transport, retired)

  Bert Massie OBE (Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation)

  Brian McGinnis (MENCAP)

  Trevor Meadows (National Advisory Unit for Community Transport)

  Leslie Stephenson (P & O European Ferries)

  Dr. Adrian Stokes OBE (Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation)

  Robert Taylor MBE (Birmingham International Airport)

  Bottesford Bypass
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what traffic accidents have taken place on the A52 bypass around Bottesford, Leicestershire, since it opened recently; whether he will now reconsider his rejection of the traffic management proposals previously made to him by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and borough and parish councillors; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been only one reported accident on the A52 Bottesford bypass since it opened on 6 February. The police do not consider that it was caused by the junction layout. We have no proposals to alter the junctions. They are appropriate for the conditions and the volumes of traffic. We shall continue to monitor the situation. Motorists are asked to treat a new road with particular respect.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal and (b) serious accidents in 1987 involved heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987 there were 776 fatal accidents and 3,509 serious accidents which involved heavy goods vehicles.

  Roads (Maintenance)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the totals for maintenance from 1976 to 1987 on(a) motorways, (b) trunk roads, (c) local authority maintained A roads and (d) other roads used as lorry routes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available for all these categories. Capital expenditure on renewal of motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in England over the period was as follows:

  £ million

  1976–77

  29

  1977–78

  33

  1978–79

  45

  1979–80

  60

  1980–81

  64

  1981–82

  108

  1982–83

  144

  1983–84

  123

  1984–85

  147

  1985–86

  157

  1986–87

  181

  1987–88

  213

  Lorries (Noise Limits)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current maximum permitted noise limit for new lorries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The current limit for the heaviest lorries is 88 dB (A). From 1 October 1989 these vehicles will have to meet a limit of 84 dB (A). Britain took a lead in securing the limits set by European Community Directive 84/424/EEC, which we are implementing from the earliest dates permitted. This will mean that during the 1980s the noise from the heaviest lorries will almost have been halved.

  Lorry Action Areas
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lorry action areas have been designated; and what effect they have had on local situations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. The Department is taking steps to ameliorate lorry nuisance in other ways including building bypasses, research aimed at helping manufacturers build quieter heavy vehicles and the lorry management study.

  Lorry Operating Centres
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the effect of the Transport Act 1982 in siting of lorry operating centres.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A review of the effects of the environmental provisions in the Transport Act 1982 concluded that they struck a fair balance between the interests of people affected by operating centres in their neighbourhood and those of the road haulage industry. A copy of the review was deposited in the Library in December 1986.
  483

  Weighbridges
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many weighbridges have been set up in the United Kingdom; how many lorries were checked in 1987; how many were overweight; how many of these lorries were over 38 tonnes; and what was the average fine.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport has so far a network of 63 weighbridges. A total of 126,000 lorries were weighed in 1987–88, by the Department's traffic examiners and local authority trading standards Departments. Of these 28,500 were found to be overloaded, 5,700 of them over 38 tonnes. The average fine imposed by the courts for overloading found by the Department's traffic examiners was £156.

  Heavy Lorries (Pollutants)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the figures for pollutants from heavy goods vehicles in 1987; and what steps are being taken to reduce such emissions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimates, in thousands of tonnes, are as follows:

  Thousand/tonnes

  Carbon monoxide

  46

  Hydrocarbons

  95

  Oxides of nitrogen

  399

  We shall be implementing the new limits on these pollutants contained in European Community Directive 88/77/EEC at the earliest possible date permitted, which is 1 October 1990.

  Heavy Lorries (Licence Fees)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current licence fees for heavy goods vehicles in each weight category; and what are their allocated road track costs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is a large number of rates of vehicle excise duty. Full information is contained in leaflet V149 "Rates of Vehicle Excise Duty". Information on the road track costs of vehicles is published annually in the "Allocation of Road Track Costs Bulletin". Both are available from the House of Commons Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Management
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report on effectiveness of housing management, which his Department commissioned from the centre for housing research, Glasgow university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library today. It shows that authorities and associations housed the same kinds of people and provided similar kinds of services, although their scale of operation was different.

  While the report concludes that there is no general crisis in the management of social rented housing, there were
  484
  considerable variations between the best and the worst performers amongst both local authorities and associations. In both cases quality of management was the key to their performance as a landlord. Housing associations were found to have more satisfied tenants in better maintained homes but they spent more to achieve this. Some of the best of both types of landlord operated very economically in the most difficult circumstances.

  However, tenants of authorities and associations saw scope for improved services. They wanted more local offices, better repairs services and more genuine consultation by their landlords. A substantial minority were willing to pay more for better services.

  This report has important messages for all committee members and housing staff in authorities and associations. Although it is reassuring to know that a majority of tenants were satisfied with the services provided by their landlords, many tenants were not, and they found it difficult to influence their landlords: quite simply landlords do not listen enough. Moreover, many authorities and associations fail to keep in mind the need to be effective, efficient and economical. The measures in the recent Housing Act and current Bill are designed to address these problems directly.

  It emerged clearly that tenants wanted better contacts and services and that local managers were more effective but no more expensive than those working from the town hall. This is a message which the Department has been promoting for a decade, through the priority estates project and Estate Action.

  I shall be exploring with the Housing Corporation how associations' management efficiency can best be monitored and improved, and also how the widespread public ignorance of housing associations revealed by the report can be overcome.

  I congratulate Professor Maclennan and his team on producing a report which sheds much light on the future of social rented housing and will help all those concerned to move forward on a better informed basis.

  Tenants
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are his Department's plans to monitor and to publish information on a regular basis concerning(a) the level of private sector capital investment: (i) through commercial landlords; and (ii) through social landlords (x) in building new dwellings for letting and (y) in rehabilitating or converting existing property for letting under the assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy provisions of the Housing Act 1988, part I and (b) the rate of return on capital provided by such investment;

  (2) what are his Department's plans to monitor and to publish information on a regular basis concerning the number of empty dwellings brought into letting (a) under the assured tenancy provisions and (b) under the assured shorthold tenancy provisions of the Housing Act 1988, part I, on a commercial basis (i) by non-resident landlords and (ii) by resident landlords;

  (3) what are his Department's plans to monitor and to publish regular information concerning the number of properties let (a) under the assured tenancy provisions and (b) under the assured shorthold tenancy provisions of the Housing Act 1988, part I (i) by commercial landlords and (ii) by social landlords (1) through new buildings, (2)

  485
  through rehabilitation or conversion of existing property, (3) through re-letting of existing property and (4) through transfers of property from the public sector;

  (4) what are his Department's plans to monitor and to publish regular information concerning (a) the number of complaints (i) of harassment and (ii) of illegal eviction reported to local authorities each month (1) by private tenants whose agreement commenced before 15 January and (2) by private tenants whose agreement commenced after 15 January, (b) the number of staff employed by local authorities whose job it is to respond to such complaints: (i) as tenancy relations officers and (ii) as other officers within the council and (c) the number of actions commenced by local authorities in response to such complaints against private landlords or their agents: (i) for harassment and (ii) for illegal eviction, under the provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act, as amended by the Housing Act 1988, part I;

  (5) what are his Department's plans to monitor and to publish information regularly concerning the level of rents charged (a) by commercial landlords and (b) by social landlords (i) for property newly built for letting, (ii) for property newly rehabilitated or converted for letting, (iii) for property relet and (iv) for property transferred from the public sector for letting (1) under the assured tenancy provisions and (2) under the assured shorthold tenancy provisions of the Housing Act 1988, part I.

  Mr. Trippier
  The need for statistics data collection and research will continue to be kept under review by our Department and results will continue to be published as they become available.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to monitor and to evaluate the impact on the Government's policy of promoting care in the community of the changes in succession rights introduced by the Housing Act 1988, part I, for tenants of private landlords.

  Mr. Trippier
  The need for research into the effects of part I of the Housing Act 1988 will be considered in the usual way as part of the Department's research programme.

  Land (Iver)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to determine the appeals against enforcement notices and a compulsory purchase order issued by the South Buckinghamshire district council in relation to land at Swallow street, Iver.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend expects to issue these decisions shortly.

  Bathing Water (North-West England)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether all identified bathing waters around the Fylde coast will meet the enterovirus standard of EC directive 76/160/EEC after construction of the proposed long sea outfall for the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Howard
  It is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to consider all relevant aspects of the proposals from North West water authority in determining its applications for discharge consents.
  486
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list North West Water's environmental quality objectives for all identified bathing waters on the Fylde coast, Morecambe bay and the North Cumbrian coast.

  Mr. Howard
  The quality standards in directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the process whereby bathing waters in the North West region were identified for compliance with EC directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Howard
  The waters were identified in consultation with the North West water authority on the basis of the criteria set out in the Government's response to the tenth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. These, in turn, are consistent with criteria set out by the European Commission.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that all identified bathing waters in the North West region will meet the provisions of EC directive 76/160/EEC by 1995.

  Mr. Howard
  My officials are discussing with North West water authority, the implications—both financial and engineering—of bringing all their identified bathing waters us to EC standards by 1995.

  Sewage Discharge (Fylde)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of North West Water's advertising campaign in support of applications for consent to discharge raw sewage from a long sea outfall and three short outfalls on the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter for the North West water authority, which is required to advertise all applications for discharge consent.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the differences between top and bottom currents at and around the likely areas of impact of the proposed long sea outfall discharge off the Fylde coast;

  (2) if the intended frequency of routine stormwater discharges from three short sea outfalls along the Fylde coast satisfies guidelines for disposal of sewage to the sea agreed in 1988 between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  These are matters to be considered in determining the applications from North West water authority for the Fylde coast scheme.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on black, grey, or red list substances present in existing discharges to enable them to form a view on appropriate consent conditions for the proposed long sea outfall for the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Howard
  The North West water authority has provided information on the likely presence of various substances—including those in the black, grey and proposed red lists—as part of the applications for the
  487
  discharges making up the Fylde coast improvement scheme. This information will be considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and if the scheme is found to be acceptable, appropriate conditions will be included in any discharge consents granted.

  Sewage Pollution (Lytham St. Armes)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide estimates of what proportion of sewage pollution experienced by Lytham St. Annes is due to bacterial levels in the river Ribble; and what proportion is due to existing local discharges of sewage.

  Mr. Howard
  The relative proportions vary, but I understand that the Ribble is usually the larger contributor.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will revise his Department's estimate of the potential efficiency of conventional inland sewage treatment works in eliminating faecal bacteria from the aqueous phase of sewage.

  Mr. Howard
  Conventional inland sewage treatment works are designed primarily to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand and the suspended solids content of sewage. At the same time, treatment also substantially reduces the faecal bacteria count in the sewage effluent which is discharged. The efficiency with which bacteria are removed varies from works to works and, for this reason, the Department has made no overall estimate.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the effect on bacterial levels in the river Ribble of uprating the Clifton Marsh sewage treatment works to include full conventional treatment and disinfection using environmentally benign methods.

  Mr. Howard
  The North West water authority is currently evaluating the effects of uprating Clifton marsh sewage treatment works, including the effects on bacterial levels in the river Ribble.

  Sewage Disposal (Guidelines)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the guidelines for disposal of sewage to the sea agreed in 1988 between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  I have placed copies in the Library of the House today.

  Biodegradeable Plastic
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to encourage the use of biodegradeable plastic.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 7 February at columns 518–19.

  Dioxins
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has any knowledge of evidence that dioxins have been found in paper products made from chlorine-bleached wood pulp;
  488
  (2) if his Department has any information on how dioxins find their way into human tissue;

  (3) what information he has on level of dioxin pollution present in air in the United Kingdom;

  (4) what information he has on the major source of dioxins resulting from industrial processes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 14 February at columns 189–90 which made reference to the statement currently being prepared on the known source of dioxins, their possible health effects and the expected exposure of the public to them.

  Information is available in the scientific literature and from measurements in the United Kingdom that dioxins may in some circumstances be formed during the manufacture of certain chemicals and pesticides and during the combustion of organic materials.

  As far as is known no measurements have been made in the United Kingdom on the levels of dioxins in ambient air.

  Dioxins, if present in food, air or other products, may be absorbed into the body via the digestive system, via the respiratory system or by contact with the skin, respectively.

  Information has been published in the scientific literature on the levels of dioxins found in certain paper products made from chlorine bleached wood pulp.

  All these issues will be addressed in the forthcoming statement.

  Sanitary Towels
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of inshore sea and beach pollution caused by used sanitary tampons and the plastic liners from sanitary towels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Where there is visible evidence of sanitary towels and tampons it is usually attributable to discharges from short outfalls. These are being replaced as part of our programme to bring bathing waters up to EC standards. Many existing outfalls have screening and maceration facilities to break down such material into unrecognisable form. Design criteria for all new long sea outfalls provide for the removal of all solids retained by fine screening and their disposal by incineration or to landfill, and consequently, the effective disposal of sanitary towels and tampons. For these reasons, we believe pollution of inshore sea and beach areas from this source is a declining one.

  Football League
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask The Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Football League.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I met representatives of the Football League and the Football Association on 10 February to discuss aspects of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Ozone Layer (International Conference)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to issue an invitation to the energy and environment research unit at the Open University to send observer delegates to the
  489
  forthcoming international conference on the ozone layer and environmental protection sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in London in March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Participation in the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference on 5 to 7 March is for Governments only. Already over 90 countries have accepted our invitation, and we expect at least 75 delegations to be led at ministerial or equivalent level. A small number of scientists and industrialists will take part in specialist discussions. Relevant United Nations agencies have been invited to send observers, but, because of restrictions of space, it will not be possible to extend invitations to any other observers.

  BNFL
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to conduct an environmental audit of the nuclear fuel cycle production and management process carried out by British Nuclear Fuels plc at its Springfields, Capenhurst, Calder and Windscale works at Sellafield and Chapel Cross facilities to ascertain the amounts of carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons gases released in processing and refrigeration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Preservation Orders
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those interested and professional bodies he has consulted or plans to consult during the current review of the procedures covering preservation orders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Informal discussions are being arranged with various bodies, which so far include the following:

  Arboricultural Association

  Association of District Councils

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Civic Trust

  Coed Cymru

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Countryside Commission

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Country Landowners Association

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Department of the Environment, South-East Regional Office

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Forestry Commission

  London Tree Officers

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Nature Conservancy Council

  National Farmers Union

  National Farmers Union of Scotland

  National Trust for Scotland

  Planning Aid for London

  Royal Scottish Forestry Society

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Timber Growers UK

  Tree Council

  Some other bodies may be submitting written comments.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what time has been allowed for consultation with interested parties during the current review of the procedures covering tree preservation orders; and what representations he has received asking him to extend it.
  490
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It will be appropriate to carry out formal consultations if and when the Government put forward proposals for changes in the present legislation and procedures, and an adequate period of time would be allowed for that purpose. No representations have been received about the conduct of consultations.

  Water (Expenditure)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will express at current prices total capital expenditure on water in England and Wales for each year since 1984–85; and if he will estimate planned capital expenditure on water in England and Wales for each year until 1990–91.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The capital expenditure for the English water authorities is set out in the table. Figures for the Welsh water authority are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The remaining information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  Capital expenditure England only

  Year

  Number

  1984–85

  799

  1985–86

  848

  1986–87

  957

  1987–88

  1,049

  1988–89

  1,303

  1. 1987–88 prices (£ million) deflated using the 'public works non-roads' (PWNR) index.

  2. 1988–89 figure provisional.

  Croxteth Country Park
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss the future of the Croxteth country park with district councils on Merseyside in order to encourage support for its continued existence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Consultations with the Merseyside district councils on the proposals by the Merseyside residuary body to transfer Croxteth hall and country park to Liverpool city council with an endowment of £3 million have already taken place. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the period of consultation for his consultation paper, "The Role and Functions of Waste Disposal Authorities"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government share the strong concern expressed by local authorities and others about the need to improve legislation on waste disposal at the earliest opportunity. Examining the role and functions of waste disposal authorities is a central element of the review that has been undertaken, and it is important to proceed as quickly as possible should an early opportunity for legislation arise. We hope authorities will h able to provide their views on the proposals within the consultation period of two months.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received the report of Her
  491
  Majesty's inspector of pollution following his inspection of the Merseyside waste disposal authority; and if he will take its evidence into account before proceeding with his proposals contained in the consultation paper, "The Role and Functions of Waste Disposal Authorities".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have yet to receive the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the performance of waste disposal authorities. The Secretary of State will take account of all relevant information and views in finalising his proposals to improve the law governing waste manangement.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision will be made for water metering in the limit on charges to apply to water undertakings under the model instrument of appointment.

  Mr. Ridley
  The abolition of the domestic rating system means that water undertakers will have to introduce alternative means of charging. This is quite independent of the privatisation of the industry. Although the Government regard metering as potentially the fairest method of charging, it will be up to each undertaker to decide how it wishes to charge.

  Each undertaker will want to take into account its own local circumstances and information on practicality, costs and effects of alternatives, before deciding whether to introduce widespread metering. Those decisions will be crucially important to customers and should be made on the best available information, over the next three years as a result of the metering trials which the industry is carrying out with Government financial assistance.

  The trials are making good progress. Some preliminary findings are set out in the first interim report, which I am today placing in the House of Commons Library. However, neither these findings nor other data that may become available over the next few months will provide sufficient information to allow for the cost of introducing widespread water metering in the initial charges limit to be assigned to each water undertaker on their appointment later this year. Therefore, I propose to amend the model instrument of appointments to provide for these initial charges limits to be adjusted subsequently by the Director General of Water Services in order to cover the reasonable cost of introducing widespread metering.

  I propose that each adjustment should be subject to an average cash ceiling per installation, to promote economy in the development of metering solutions. In setting this ceiling the director general would be able to take into account information on the cost of installing meters in the trial area, and later from each undertaker's metering programme. There would also be provisions to ensure that the additional revenue raised would be put towards metering and no other purpose.

  The detailed licence provisions will be discussed with the water industry.

  Shellfish Waters
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why there are no designated shellfish waters in the Morecambe bay area under the provisions of EC directive 79/923/EEC.

  Mr. Howard
  We do not consider it appropriate to include Morecambe bay within the scope of the directive.
  492
  Discharges to the Morecambe bay area are controlled under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations 1934 provide adequate protection to the health of the public with regard to the consumption of shellfish.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department has responded to the advice of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, 10th report, 1984, that competent authorities should use the provisions of part II of the Control of Pollution Act to designate more shellfish waters in the interests of public health and the protection of commercial shellfisheries.

  Mr. Howard
  The provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 have been used to extend control of all discharges to coastal waters. We have not considered it appropriate to designate more shellfish waters under the provisions of directive 79/923/EEC as the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations 1934 provide adequate protection to the health of the public with regard to consumption of shellfish.

  English Heritage and Royal Commission on Historical Monuments
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the future relationship between English Heritage and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The relationship between the royal commission (RCHME) and English Heritage has been looked at in the context of a policy review of the activities and functions of the commission and the equivalent bodies for Scotland and Wales. This review is being conducted jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. We shall be announcing conclusions in due course.

  Meanwhile my right hon. Friend has decided that certain issues of principle can be settled now, in advance of the completion of the policy review. These are the question whether RCHME should be merged with English Heritage, and the suggestion in a consultancy report by Peat Marwick McLintock that consideration should be given to the transfer of some functions from English Heritage to the RCHME.

  Peat's conclusion from their study was that RCHME performed a distinctive role in maintaining the national archive of heritage information. We are persuaded by their analysis, and take the view that RCHME should continue as a separate body.

  The arguments for transfer of functions were for the most part finely balanced. We have decided that RCHME should in future be recognised as the lead national body for oversight of the system of local sites and monuments records. In exercising this responsibility we have asked RCHME to ensure proper liaison with English Heritage, and to take into account their interest in SMRs as an input to the monument protection programme, to the decisions of local planning authorities, and to conservation generally.

  We have concluded that the existing statutory arrangements under which English Heritage provides advice to the Department on the listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and scheduling of

  493
  ancient monuments remain appopriate. The main purpose of listing and scheduling is to identify buildings and monuments which should be given special consideration in the planning and development control process. Listing and scheduling are, therefore, linked to considerations of conservation rather than of record, and for that reason we conclude that it is more appropriate for English Heritage to continue to provide advice to us on these issues. But in doing so, we have stressed that it must make effective use of RCHME's expertise in the architectural and historic qualities of buildings and monuments.

  Finally on the funding of rescue archaeology, we feel that there are good policy and practical arguments for the same agency handling all aspects of archaeology casework—scheduled monument consent, negotiations with developers, and rescue archaeology if that proves to be necessary. Accordingly we believe that it is best for English Heritage to continue to deal with rescue archaeology. But, again, we have stressed the need for RCHME's expertise to be fed into the running of the rescue archaeology programme. With these issues of principle resolved, we consider that there is now a very satisfactory basis for a supportive and constructive future relationship between the Royal Commission and English Heritage. We have written to their chairmen to inform them of our conclusions.

  Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a report from Government researchers based at Warren Spring on lead in the air in Cardiff; what significance he places on the latest available figures for Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the

  Police authority

  Number of posts requested 1989–90

  1Date of application

  2Posts approved

  Percentage posts approved from application

  Avon and Somerset

  35

  8 November 1988

  20

  57

  Bedfordshire

  24

  18 January 1989

  16

  67

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  18 September 1987

  18

  45

  Cheshire

  10

  2 June 1987

  8

  80

  Cleveland

  20

  12 July 1988

  15

  75

  Cumbria

  62

  4 October 1988

  12

  19

  Devon and Cornwall

  32

  15 September 1986

  19

  59

  Dorset

  40

  18 September 1987

  22

  55

  Durham3

  16

  24 March 1988

  18

  113

  Essex

  85

  14 December 1988

  23

  27

  5 November 1987

  Greater Manchester

  258

  and 22 November 1988

  45

  17

  :Gwent

  33

  5 February 1987

  12

  36

  Hampshire

  47

  28 April 1988

  20

  43

  Hertfordshire

  70

  28 November 1988

  20

  29

  Humberside

  83

  22 October 1987

  20

  24

  2 October 1987

  Kent

  66

  and 22 June 1988

  27

  41

  Lancashire4

  96

  4—

  15

  16

  Leicestershire

  89

  8 September 1988

  27

  30

  Merseyside

  35

  30 November 1987

  22

  63

  Norfolk

  50

  17 November 1988

  24

  48

  Northamptonshire

  26

  6 October 1988

  15

  58

  15 October 1987

  Northumbria

  84

  and 14 November 1988

  30

  36

  North Wales

  31

  5 November 1987

  4

  13

  North Yorkshire

  50

  12 October 1987

  15

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  88

  27 June 1988

  24

  27

  5 October 1987

  South Wales

  77

  and 26 October 1988

  28

  36

  South Yorkshire

  50

  14 October 1987

  27

  54

  494
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) on Friday 17 February 1989.

  Resources Allocation
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Government Departments use his Department's list of programme and partnership authorities for the allocation of resources and in what ways; and if he will list in the Official Report the allocations made to such authorities in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The list of 57 urban programme areas is used by the Government in a variety of ways to help target a range of measures which come within their Action for Cities initiative. In many cases this does not involve allocation of resources to local authorities; more often it is used to inform the selection of locations for new initiatives or as a guide to assessing eligibility for certain grant schemes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will construct a table showing for each police authority what the bid was for increases in establishment in the latest allocation; when each hid was received in writing by the Department; what award he made in the case of each bid; and what percentage that award represents of the bid.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:
  495

  Police authority

  Number of posts requested 1989–90

  1Date of application

  2Posts approved

  Percentage posts approved from application

  9 December 1987

  Staffordshire

  90

  and 9 December 1988

  22

  24

  Surrey5

  64

  24 August 1988

  10

  16

  Sussex

  122

  27 October 1988

  17

  14

  7 January 1987

  Thames Valley

  209

  and 22 September 1988

  44

  21

  Warwickshire

  14

  12 April 1988

  11

  79

  West Mercia

  40

  25 October 1988

  28

  70

  West Midlands

  350

  24 November 1988

  62

  18

  West Yorkshire

  237

  27 November 1987

  32

  14

  Wiltshire

  36

  20 September 1988

  11

  31

  TOTALS

  2,759

  783

  28

  1 In some cases increases for police forces were considered on the basis of posts unmet from previous applications, always subject to the authority's confirmation that funding was available.

  2 Includes posts for which Home Secretary indicated approval in principle if application was made.

  3 14 out of 16 posts applied for were approved plus indication of agreement in principle for four training posts if authority made application.

  4 No written application received. Increases considered on basis of information obtained from the authority about a provisional application.

  5 Application for 127 posts over 1989–90 and 1990–91. Assumption that 64 intended for 1989–90.

  Strip Searches
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many strip searches were made of female prisoners on remand in Her Majesty's remand centres at(a) Pucklechurch, (b) Low Newton, (c) Risley, and (d) Her Majesty's prison Holloway in each month of 1988, giving the number of prisoners involved and the number of times each was searched; what items the possession of which was a breach of any rule of the establishment or of any law were discovered in any such search indicating how many in each category; in how many cases remand prisoners refused to be searched and were restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under the following headings: (a) making a remand appearance at court, (b) attending trial, (c) cell change, (d) inter-prison visit, and (e) other reasons;

  In connection with remand hearings

  Trial

  Cell change

  Inter-prison visit

  Other reasons

  January

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  February

  14

  —

  —

  —

  5

  March

  4

  —

  —

  —

  3

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  June

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  July

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Between 1 January and 30 October 1988, there were three, and between 31 October and 31 December 1988,

  Inmate

  Cell changes and cell searches

  Court appearances

  Before or after visits

  Other reasons

  January

  A

  1

  —

  2

  —

  B

  1

  —

  —

  2

  C

  1

  —

  1

  1

  February

  A

  1

  —

  —

  —

  B

  1

  —

  —

  —

  C

  1

  —

  1

  —

  496
  (2) how many strip searches were made of convicted female prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons (a) Holloway, (b) Cookham Wood, (c) Styal and (d) Durham in each month of 1988, giving the number of prisoners involved and the number of times each person was searched; what items the possession of which was a breach of any prison rule or of any law were discovered in any such search indicating how many in each category; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and were restrained while the search was conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under the following headings: (a) cell change, (b) attendance at court, (c) before/after receiving a visit, and (d) other reasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners. Between 1 January and 27 September 1988, one such prisoner was held on remand in Risley remand centre. During this period, she was strip searched on the following numbers of occasions:

  there were four convicted category A women prisoners in Durham. These prisoners were strip searched on the following occasions:
  497

  Inmate

  Cell changes and cell searches

  Court appearances

  Before or after visits

  Other reasons

  March

  A

  1

  —

  2

  —

  B

  1

  —

  3

  —

  C

  1

  —

  —

  2

  April

  A

  2

  —

  3

  —

  B

  2

  —

  3

  —

  C

  1

  —

  1

  —

  May

  A

  1

  —

  2

  —

  B

  1

  —

  —

  —

  C

  3

  —

  —

  —

  June

  A

  2

  —

  2

  —

  B

  1

  —

  1

  —

  C

  1

  —

  1

  2

  July

  A

  —

  —

  —

  —

  B

  1

  —

  —

  —

  C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  August

  A

  2

  —

  3

  —

  B

  2

  —

  —

  —

  C

  2

  —

  1

  2

  September

  A

  —

  —

  2

  —

  B

  1

  —

  4

  —

  C

  1

  —

  1

  2

  October

  A

  1

  —

  2

  —

  B

  2

  —

  4

  —

  C

  1

  —

  1

  —

  D

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  A

  1

  —

  2

  1

  B

  1

  —

  3

  1

  C

  2

  —

  1

  1

  D

  2

  —

  1

  1

  December

  A

  1

  —

  3

  —

  B

  1

  —

  5

  —

  C

  2

  —

  1

  —

  D

  2

  —

  2

  —

  No unauthorised article was discovered on any of these occasions. On no occasion did any of these prisoners refuse to be strip searched.

  Robert Weekes
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by his Department in considering any necessary amendments to law and practice following from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Robert Weekes, 2 March 1987, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The implications of the judgment are still under consideration. Further applications by life sentence prisoners have been heard by the European Commission of Human Rights and we shall take account of the progress of those applications in considering whether any amendments may be necessary to our law and practice.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following his White paper on
  498
  broadcasting in the 1990's, he has plans to enable a series of national independent radio stations to operate in addition to local radio stations.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. Paragraph 8.4 of the broadcasting White Paper (November Cm. 517) sets out our proposals for three national commercial radio stations.

  Vehicles (Removal)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 10 February, if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the number of occasions on which he upheld a complaint by a vehicle owner against the towing-away of a vehicle on the ground that it was an unreasonable exercise of this power and as to the recompense made in each case, for the latest 12 month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner that between 1 October 1987 and 30 September 1988, the most recent 12-month period for which complete statistics are available, the charge payable following vehicle removal was waived or refunded in 2,292 cases. Information about the reasons for the waiving or
  499
  refunding of the charge or about cases where any compensation was paid could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Eviction
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's plans to collect and to publish information on(a) the number of criminal proceedings (i) for harassment and (ii) for illegal eviction commenced by (1) local authorities, (2) private individuals and (3) the police under the provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as amended by the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 part I, (b) the number of such proceedings in which (i) the defendant was convicted and (ii) the plaintiff was awarded compensation and (c) the level of (i) fines and (ii) damages awarded in such proceedings.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is collected and published annually for prosecutions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Volume 1, 1987" under offence class 87. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  It is possible from the information collected centrally to identify separately the number of prosecutions for (i) harassment and (ii) illegal eviction, including the number of convictions, compensation awarded and the level of fines imposed. However, information is not collected centrally on the number of prosecutions commenced by (1) local authorities, (2) private individuals and (3) the police or on damages awarded.

  Figures for prosecution following the Housing Act 1988 part I will not be available until the autumn of 1989.

  Tagging
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where he will be introducing tagging as a condition of bail; and what criteria he will use in choosing these areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to conduct trials of electronic monitoring, with the co-operation of the courts and others concerned, in Nottingham, north Tyneside and in a third area still to be decided. In identifying possible areas for the trials to take place, we have had in mind primarily the numbers of defendants now remanded in custody by the courts concerned.

  Absconders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police national computer holds details of(a) the names or (b) the crimes committed by persons serving in Her Majesty's prisons who have absconded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the names of absconders may be held on the wanted missing persons file of the police national computer where, in the police's view, this information would be operationally useful.

  In addition, an individual's record on the index of criminal names held on the PNC may be amended to indicate that he or she is an absconder, where the police consider that this would be operationally useful.

  Details of an absconder's criminal convictions will be available on the convictions record of the PNC, if he or she
  500
  were first convicted of a recordable offence in 1981 or later. Broadly speaking, recordable offences are offences for which a term of imprisonment may be given.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply a list of offences for which prisoners who have currently absconded from Her Majesty's prisons were convicted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not available in the form requested, and reliable information is not available for the period before 1981. Records of prisoners unlawfully at large on 31 December 1988 having, between 1 January 1981 and 31 December 1988, escaped or absconded from a prison in England or Wales (including prisoners who escaped from escort or failed to return from home leave or temporary release) embrace charges or convictions for all offences under the offence classification headings used in published prison statistics (eg, in table 1.7 of the 1987 volume, Cm. 547) except cruelty to children, gross indecency with children, theft of motor vehicle, in charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs, drunkenness, vagrancy and courts martial prisoners. The records show the principal offence where the prisoners were charged with, or convicted of, more than one type of offence. In some cases, the offence is not recorded.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides there were in prisons in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Verdicts of suicide have been returned on 26 inmates who died in prison department establishments in England and Wales during 1988. Inquests have yet be be held on five other inmates who died in prison department custody during this period and whose deaths are thought to have been suicide.

  Figures are not available for reported apparent suicide attempts for the calendar year 1988, but there were 343 reported instances in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides occurred in (i) Holloway, (ii) Brixton, (iii) Wormwood scrubs, (iv) Leeds, (v) Manchester, (vi) Birmingham, (vii) Liverpool and (viii) Wandsworth during 1988.

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

  Suicides

  Attempted suicides1

  Holloway

  0

  19

  Brixton

  1

  16

  Wormwood Scrubs

  2

  9

  Leeds

  4

  12

  Manchester

  2

  8

  Birmingham

  2

  11

  Liverpool

  0

  27

  Wandsworth

  1

  8

  1 The number of incidents reported to the prison department as specific suicide attempts.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners served sentences separated from their children, aged 18 months or under, in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A census on 11 August 1986 showed that 340 females in custody were known to be mothers of 455 children aged five years or under. Of those 455, 93 aged 18 months or under were not with their mothers in prison.

  Prison Discipline
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to deal with increasing prison indiscipline; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for this trend.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are provisions in the prison rules which enable suitable charges to be brought against prisoners alleged to have committed disciplinary offences. The statistics relating to offences punished do not suggest that there has been an overall increase in indiscipline in recent years.

  Prison Building Programme
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of each of the prisons under construction or planned within the prison building programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 20 January 1989 at column 349. This provides the requested information in relation to all the new prisons in the current building programme on which sufficient progress has been made for preliminary estimates to be produced.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the original estimated cost and the actual cost of building each of the completed prisons within the Government's prison building programme since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 20 January 1989 at column 348.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in police cells in England and Wales on 10 February.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 245.

  Refugees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he employs in deciding how to use his powers under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in respect of special provision for refugees resettled in the United Kingdom via British colonies or Commonwealth countries.
  502
  Mr. John Patten
  Under the terms of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, grant may be paid to local authorities only to assist with special provision required because of the presence of substantial numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth. Refugees of non-Commonwealth origin who have arrived in the United Kingdom via a Commonwealth country are not considered to be within the scope of the legislation.

  Police (Foreign Hospitality)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department gives to senior police officers about accepting hospitality from foreign Governments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not issued particular guidance on this matter.

  Prison Sanitation
  Mr. David Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on prison sanitation will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The report of a review of prison sanitation, conducted by Judge Stephen Tumim and his staff, is published today. I am grateful to 'Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for this valuable contribution to our work on improving conditions for prisoners and welcome the detailed research which has gone into his recommendations. I am placing copies of the report in the Library and making further copies available for the Vote Office.

  Judge Tumim's principal recommendation is that access to sanitation should be provided at all times for all inmates in prisons in England and Wales within a period of seven years. This should be done either by providing in-cell sanitation, or by using electronic means to allow individual prisoners to leave their cells, or by providing additional staff to allow for manual unlocking at the request of the prisoner. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons stresses that, apart from improving hygiene and increasing self-respect, the abolition of slopping out would help both inmates and staff by allowing a better use of time.

  I entirely share Her Majesty's chief inspector's view that the ending of slopping out would make a substantial difference to the lives of prisoners and of staff. It should be a high priority. All prisons built or designed since this Government came to office in 1979 have either integral sanitation within the living accommodation or free access to sanitation. About half of the existing accommodation now has access to night sanitation. There is, therefore, already considerable experience of the regimes which can be provided where slopping out can be avoided. Prison service management is well aware of the advantages to be gained. They are committed to ensuring that better regimes are achieved as the programme for improving facilities progresses.

  At the beginning of this decade, it was thought that the most effective way of providing integral sanitation in existing establishments was to convert one cell in three to provide separate sanitary annexes with toilets and hand-basins for each of the other two. This system involves major structural alterations and requires whole wings to be vacated simultaneously. It thus reduces the

  503
  number of prison places and can be undertaken only in conjunction with major refurbishment. This inevitably makes progress slow.

  Recognising that the best may be the enemy of the good, prison service staff during the past few years have looked for alternative methods of achieving the same ends more quickly and at less cost. Among these alternative methods were electronic unlocking and the installation of toilets and wash-basins in existing cells without major building works or net loss of places. Tests carried out by the prison service directorate of works of these new methods have proved successful. As Her Majesty's chief inspector acknowledges, this work has provided the cornerstone for the recommendations in his report.

  I am accordingly glad to be able to accept without reservation Her Majesty's chief inspector's recommendation that integral sanitation should be installed in many existing cells during the next seven years. A provisional programme for adding more than 6,500 cells to those already scheduled for conversion has been identified as practicable in the light of the tests already mentioned. Work has already begun or will be beginning in each of the 27 establishments listed as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. In addition electronic unlocking is to be installed at Bullwood hall and New hall. This new programme will reduce the current 50 per cent. of places without access to sanitation to about 13 per cent. by the end of the century, that is about 8,000 places. This is a considerable improvement on the figures of 25 per cent. or 14,500 places which had been anticipated.

  Each establishment not listed, and in which there is not already access to night sanitation, will be examined during the next year to determine the best way of providing such access, taking account of its individual circumstances, including the present state of its fabric and future plans for its use. In some instances it may not be practicable either to install integral sanitation or to introduce electronic unlocking. A decision whether to provide the high level of staffing required to allow for manual unlocking will have to depend on other staffing priorities. I cannot, therefore, give an absolute undertaking as to when slopping out will end totally. But the number of places without access to night sanitation will be very substantially reduced within seven years.

  The other main recommendation in the report relates to the position of works staff and the need to enable them to fulfil their role effectively within establishments. The prisons board, as one of its key priorities for 1989–90, has required governors to produce and achieve a planned works maintenance programme making maximum use of the professional skills of works officers and of inmate labour. The conclusions of the review of the regional and headquarters organisation of the prison service which was announced recently on 3 February 1989 at column 420, will also be relevant to this recommendation, which will be implemented in the light of these two associated initiatives.

  I endorse what is said in the report about the importance and useful part played by works staff in maintaining our establishments.Their commitment and expertise will be a significant factor in our ability to put Her Majesty's chief inspector's proposals into effect.

  Establishments where integral sanitation is being or will be
  installed

  Bedford

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  Brixton

  504

  Camp Hill

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Durham (H wing only)

  Everthorpe

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Low Newton

  Maidstone

  Northallerton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Onley

  Oxford

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Pucklechurch

  Reading

  Shepton Mallet

  Shrewsbury

  Swansea

  Usk

  Wandsworth

  Mrs. Limbada (Karachi)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the British authorities in Karachi first contacted his Department about Mrs. AL, wife of MY, reference IMP Y53167/3(5); when she was interviewed; what other steps were taken by his Department in processing this case; and when the case was finally referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The entry clearance officer in Karachi referred Mr. Mohammed Yousuf's application to the immigration department on 20 January 1987. The Department wrote to Mrs. Limbada on 19 February 1987 and in the light of her response concluded that an interview was necessary. Owing to a combination of pressure of work and Mrs.Limbada's absence from the United Kingdom it did not prove possible to arrange an interview until 10 August 1988. The interview report was sent to the entry clearance officer shortly afterwards. Due to an oversight, however, the entry clearance officer was not asked to reach a decision on the application until 25 February 1989. Following a re-interview of Mr. Yousuf on 12 February, the entry clearance officer decided to refuse the application.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many justices' clerks are paid in excess of the JNC for justices' clerks national salary arrangements in(a) London and (b) the rest of England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The salary scales approved within the JNC for justices' clerks do not directly apply to inner London. In the rest of England and Wales magistrates' courts committees are expected to pay justices' clerks in accordance with agreements reached in the JNC and approved by the Secretary of State for grant purposes.

  No instance of payment in excess of JNC agreed salary scales has been drawn to my attention.

  Extradition
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1979 his
  505
  Department has made extradition applications for terrorist or other offences; and how often, by whom and for what reasons such requests have been rejected.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: The readily available information for extradition requests from England and Wales to foreign states, Commonwealth countries and (by police forces) to the Republic of Ireland is given in the following tables. Requests involving terrorist offences are specified where known. The Irish statistics are based mainly on information provided by police forces. Full details of reasons for refusals of requests in individual cases are not readily available; but the reasons include insufficient evidence, that the fugitive was a national of the requested state, and that the alleged offences were time-barred under the law of the requested state.

  Extradition requests to foreign states

  Year

  Number of requests

  Number refused

  Country of refusal

  1979

  4

  1980

  1 12

  1 2

  Netherlands Germany

  1981

  1 13

  1982

  11

  1

  France

  1983

  13

  1984

  21

  1

  Netherlands

  1985

  16

  2

  Netherlands

  1986

  15

  1

  France

  1987

  27

  2

  France

  Austria

  1988

  1 20

  1 1

  Belgium

  1 Includes one case involving terrorist offences

  Extradition requests to Commonwealth countries

  Country of refusal

  Number of requested

  Number refused

  1979

  New Zealand

  3

  1

  1980

  2

  —

  1981

  Barbados

  3

  1

  1982

  Sri Lanka

  5

  1

  1983

  3

  —

  1984

  5

  —

  1985

  Zimbabwe

  6

  1

  1986

  New Zealand

  6

  2

  1987

  7

  —

  1988

  3

  —

  Extradition requests to Commonwealth countries

  Number of requests

  Number refused

  1979

  53

  1

  1980

  54

  1

  1981

  43

  2

  1982

  41

  1

  1983

  31

  —

  1984

  29

  —

  1985

  23

  —

  1986

  112

  11

  1987

  5

  2

  1988

  28

  11

  1 Includes one case involving terrorist offences.

  2 Includes two cases involving terrorist offences.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adults and how many children,506
  respectively, are known to have gone missing in the Metropolitan police district during each of the last three Christmas periods.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 December 1988]: The available information is given in the following table:

  Adults and children reported missing in the Metropolitan Police District in December and still missing on 16 December 1988

  Month reported missing

  Adults aged 18 or over

  Children aged under 18

  December 1985

  10

  2

  December 1986

  24

  5

  December 1987 1

  20

  5

  1 New counting procedures were introduced from the beginning of 1987, hence the figures for previous years are not comparable.

SCOTLAND

  Woodland Grants
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average consultation period required for consideration of schemes submitted under the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Up to the end of January, the average time that elapsed between woodland grant scheme applications being sent out by the Forestry Commission for consultation and applicants being notified of the outcome was between 45 and 50 days.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce regulations to exempt all craft workshops from the standard community charge provisions of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 10 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) At 1987, as amended, the standard community charge will be payable in respect of dwellinghouses which are not subject to non-domestic rates and which are not the sole or main residence of any person. Premises which are used exclusively as craft workshops will remain subject to non-domestic rates after 1 April 1989 and will not, therefore, attract liability for the standard community charge.

  Taxi Licensing
  Mr. David Marshall
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to introduce legislation to permit a local authority to allow the transfer of taxi operators' licences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  "Working for Patients" (Video)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the video prepared for his Department explaining the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes.
  507

  Pupils
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils in Scottish schools stay at hostels away from home; and how many of these go home each weekend.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not held centrally.

  "Scottish Education in the Nineties"
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of requests received for copies of the video, "Scottish Education in the Nineties" giving a breakdown per (a) school, (b) parent-teacher associations, (c) school councils, (d) education authorities and (e) other.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date requests have been made for 216 copies in addition to a wide initial distribution which included all schools. These requests break down as follows:

  Number

  Schools

  2

  Parent Teacher Associations

  2

  School Councils

  0

  Education Authorities

  164

  Others

  48

  216

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost in producing the video, "Scottish Education in the Nineties", and what was the total number of cassettes produced.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the cost of production I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 17 January at column 162. A total of 5,000 copies of the video were made.

  Cheese
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have taken place between Ministers from his Department and the Association of Scottish Hard-Cheese Makers about the Government's attitude to unpasteurised milk cheese production.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been no consultations with the Scottish Company of Cheese-Makers Ltd. which represents the major hard-cheese makers in Scotland. The manufacturers represented by the company do not use unpasteurised milk in making there cheeses.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the annual number of cases of listeria in Scotland involving(a)unpasteurised milk cheese production and (b) pasteurised milk cheese production, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Over the past five years there have been 112 cases of human listeriosis but in none of these has there been a positive association with cheese.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to make an assessment of the effect 508
  of recent Government statements on the market prospects of Scottish-produced unpasteurised milk cheese; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Informal soundings indicate that sales of cheese made in Scotland from unpasteurised milk remain steady.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers are directly employed in Scottish farm cheese production made from unpasteurised milk.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At the end of 1988 there were 12 Scottish farm cheese production units using unpasteurised milk, employing some 30 people.

  Potato Policy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received about the Government's consultation paper on potato policy in Scotland; and if he will make a statement about plans to withdraw financial support from the potato sector in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Representations on the proposals set out in the consultation paper have been received from interested organisations and individual potato producers. These are now under consideration; decisions have yet to be taken about future arrangements for potato marketing in Scotland.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations have been established for the transportation of domestic and commercial waste in Scotland from other areas of the country.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Controlled waste arising within the United Kingdom for disposal in Scotland is governed by the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 1977 and the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980. The licence conditions determine, among other things, the nature of wastes which may be disposed of at a site. The Special Waste Regulations make provision for a system of consignment notes to be used by those who produce, transfer for disposal or dispose of special waste in order to notify the waste disposal authorities concerned.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he takes to prevent clinical waste beting transported for disposal in Scotland without public knowledge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, all waste must be disposed of at a site which is being used in accordance with a licence issued by the waste disposal authority for the area (the district or islands council). Conditions prescribing the working practices are invariably attached to such licences; these may include requirements relating to the type and quantities of waste which may be accepted. The waste disposal authority must keep a register of licences available for public inspection at its principal office, and every authority does so.
  509
  The Special Waste Regulations 1980 control the movement of dangerous wastes, but clinical wastes are rarely considered to be so dangerous as to fall under the regulations.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much and what type of clinical waste was transported from London to Scotland for disposal in Glasgow, as revealed by the London waste regulatory authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information of this kind is not held centrally. Responsibility for monitoring the safe disposal of waste is a matter for the local waste disposal authority concerned.

  Electronics
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of output in the electronics industry in Scotland; and what was the level in 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest figures show electronics output in Scotland in the second quarter of 1988 to have been 134, based on 1985 equal to 100. This compares with an average annual figure for 1979 of 37. Since 1979 electronics output in Scotland has increased more than three-and-a-half fold.

  Productivity
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the growth in productivity in the Scottish(a) manufacturing, (b) agricultural and (c) mining industries for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The average annual increase in productivity in these industries in Scotland since 1979 is set out in the table.

  Output per head: Percentage change on previous year

  Manufacturing 1Divisions 2–4

  Agriculture 2Class 01

  Coal extraction 1 3Class 11

  1980

  +1·0

  +14·5

  +3·5

  1981

  +6·6

  +5·1

  +1·9

  1982

  +8·0

  +13·3

  +0·8

  1983

  +5·8

  -7·4

  +1·0

  1984

  +6·5

  +20·7

  -41·6

  1985

  +3·7

  -5·0

  +98·8

  1986

  +2·7

  +13·0

  +35·1

  1987

  +7·3

  +3·5

  +26·1

  1988

  n/a

  4 - 6·8

  n/a

  1 Output per employee in employment.

  2 In agriculture, output per full-time person employed, includingthe self-employed with part-time and casual employees being converted to full-time equivalents.

  3 Coal extraction includes the manufacture of solid fuels as wellas deep-mined and open-cast coal production.

  4 Provisional.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the research projects carried out with public funds, directly or indirectly, on the Scottish historical(a) cultural, (b) political, (c) economic and (d) social, institutions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has not supported, directly or indirectly, any research projects on Scottish historical institutions.
  510

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs were created in the manufacturing industry for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures are available only for full-time jobs from the regional data system which contains employment data for manufacturing units employing 10 or more people. The figures are the annual increases in number of jobs for the units which had increases. The figures after 1984 are likely to be under-estimates pending an up-date of the system using census of employment data for 1987.

  Year

  New Jobs (000's)

  1975

  47·7

  1976

  40·8

  1977

  41·5

  1978

  37·3

  1979

  27·7

  1980

  18·4

  1981

  27·2

  1982

  20·8

  1983

  22·9

  1984

  25·8

  1985

  26·1

  1986

  23·4

  1987

  17·0

  Source
  Regional Data System.

  Departmental Expenses
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were, for each year since 1978, the total expenses of the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The table shows the departmental running, costs of the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish prison service, which are borne on class XVI vote 21 in 1988–89 and comparative outturn since 1983–84.

  £million

  1983–84 outturn

  93·0

  1984–85 outturn

  97·2

  1985–86 outturn

  100·7

  1986–87 outturn

  105·1

  1987–88 outturn

  108·2

  1988–89 Provision

  117·3

  Comparable information for the years prior to 1983–84 could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Doncaster (Books Expenditure)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the total expenditure on text and library books in the Doncaster local education authority for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools at the end of each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and in real terms, using 1987–88 prices; and what were those figures as a percentage of the national average.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information is given in the table:
  511

  Expenditure on text and library books1—Doncaster

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Cash terms £000s

  1987–88 real terms2 £000s

  Proportion of England total Percentage

  Cash terms £000s

  1987–88 real terms2 £000s

  Proportion of England total Percentage

  1979–80

  132·5

  232·7

  0·7

  198·2

  348·0

  0·7

  1980–81

  135·1

  200·3

  0·6

  173·7

  257·5

  0·6

  1981–82

  144·8

  195·4

  0·6

  215·7

  291·1

  0·7

  1982–83

  158·4

  199·5

  0·6

  253·9

  319·8

  0·7

  1983–84

  144·1

  173·5

  0·5

  243·9

  293·9

  0·7

  1984–85

  128·3

  147·1

  0·5

  235·5

  270·0

  0·7

  1985–86

  168·0

  182·7

  0·6

  240·5

  261·7

  0·7

  1986–87

  178·3

  187·8

  0·6

  306·7

  322·9

  0·7

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE.

  2 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  School Leavers (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing the proportion of school leavers in Doncaster who continued into(a) university education and (b) other higher education for each year since 1979; and what was the national average in each year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The table gives for the Doncaster local education authority and for England, the proportion of school leavers from maintained schools who intended to proceed to a course of further or higher education. The figures are drawn from a 10 per cent. sample of pupils at each school. Sampling error is a major consideration where a local education authority, such as Doncaster, has a relatively small cohort of school leavers. Such error alone could be the cause of fluctuations in the figures from year to year.

  Proportion of school leavers intending to proceed to a course of further or higher education

  Maintained schools

  Percentages

  Academic year

  Doncaster local education authority

  England

  1978–79

  11·2

  18·9

  1979–80

  10·5

  20·0

  1980–81

  14·1

  24·5

  1981–82

  14·1

  25·7

  1982–83

  14·1

  25·0

  1983–84

  16·1

  25·9

  1984–85

  16·1

  25·9

  1985–86

  15·4

  26·5

  1986–87

  15·9

  26·4

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a table showing for(a) England and (b) Cheshire the level of expenditure in constant terms per child in (i) primary education and (ii) secondary education for each year from 1978 to the latest available year.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information is given in the table:512

  Net institutional expenditure 1per pupil 1986–87 real terms 2

  Year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Cheshire£

  England£

  Cheshire£

  England£

  1978–79

  685

  710

  1,015

  1,035

  1979–80

  680

  710

  1,000

  1,010

  1980–81

  725

  765

  1,065

  1,075

  1981–82

  740

  790

  1,050

  1,110

  1982–83

  760

  810

  1,065

  1,125

  1983–84

  775

  830

  1,080

  1,160

  1984–85

  775

  830

  1,100

  1,185

  1985–86

  785

  840

  1,135

  1,215

  1986–87

  810

  900

  1,235

  1,340

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE andpupil number returns to DES.

  2 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to1986-87 real terms using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices)Deflator.

  Schools (Opting-out)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if any schools in Derbyshire have had ballots in schools to opt out of local education authority control.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date two schools in Derbyshire have held ballots on grant-maintained status. The parents at Netherthorpe school voted in favour of an application to seek grant-maintained status; the parents at Chesterfield school voted against.

  Secondary Schools (Home Economics)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice he is giving to local education authorities about the teaching of home economics in secondary schools;

  (2) what representations he has received about the absence of home economics from the national curriculum foundation subjects in secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations from organisations, parents and teachers about the place of home economics in the school curriculum. Home economics is a valuable subject and is expected to remain a popular choice, outside the national curriculum, for many pupils. Within the national curriculum, home economics can contribute to teaching the attainment targets and programmes of study for science, to be finalised next month. Home economics can also contribute to design and technology (D & T). The
  513
  D & T working group has been asked to take this into account in advising on attainment targets and programmes of study for D & T.

  Secondary Schools (Classics)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice he is giving to local education authorities about the teaching of classics in secondary schools;

  (2) what representations he has received about the absence of classics from the national curriculum foundation subjects in secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 31 January at columns 171–72. My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations from organisations, parents and teachers about the place of classics in the school curriculum.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what regulations or guidance concerning school premises and pupil-teacher ratios have been issued in respect of nursery schools and classes.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Premises for maintained nursery schools and classes are subject to the Education (School Premises) Regulations, 1981. The last central guidance on the staffing of this provision was issued 16 years ago, by way of circular 2/73 and administrative memorandum 21/73. The Government have no plans to update this. They look to authorities to determine the appropriate levels of staffing for this provision in the knowledge that the prevailing ratios—a pupil:teacher ratio of 22·9:1 within an overall pupil:adult ratio of 102:1—are better than those envisaged in 1973.

  Audenshaw High School, Tameside
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against Audenshaw high school, Tameside, opting out of the local education system.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received 21 statutory and two non-statutory objections to Audenshaw high school's application for grant-maintained status. No letters of support have been received. There is no formal provision for such representations.

  Institut Laue Lange, Grenoble
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on British participation in the research of the Institut Laue Lange at Grenoble.

  Mr. Jackson
  The level of British participation in the Institut Laue Langevin after 1992 will be considered in the light of advice received in due course from the SERC.

  School Trips (Supervision)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to improve the existing 514
  machinery for the control of supervision by teachers on school trips and the enquiries which are made in the case of fatal accidents on these trips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Detailed arrangements for these matters are the responsibility of the local education authorities. My Department has provided guidance for them in the booklet "Safety in Outdoor Pursuits" (HMSO). A new and fuller document will be available shortly, incorporating new material prepared in the light of recent accidents. It will be sent free to all schools, colleges and local education authorities.

  Church-aided Schools, Lancashire
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies his Department has undertaken of capital spending on church-aided schools in Lancashire.

  Mr. Butcher
  Each year my right hon. Friend invites governors of aided schools in Lancashire and other LEAs to assess the need for new school building projects, and to formulate and submit appropriate plans through the LEA. Five new major building projects at aided schools in Lancashire were recently approved for a start in 1989–90; this was the largest number of new starts approved for any LEA.

  Assessment of Performance Unit
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the future of the assessment of performance unit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Responsibility for the assessment of performance unit (APU) will be transferred from my Department to the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) with effect from 1 April 1989. This will allow the APU's programme of work to be closely integrated with SEAC's wider programme of monitoring and evaluation, on which I have invited the council's advice by the end of July.

  Human Genetics
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline any proposals to attract funding from agencies or other sources towards international co-ordination within the community to organise research into the mapping of the human genome, and in particular the application of work resulting from a human genetics programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: As, part of the allocation of science budget funds announced on 7 February 1989, the MRC was allocated £11 million over three years for the United Kingdom human genome mapping project. This project will serve as a national focus, for activities in this field, and will link with related international research. In additon to the newly allocated funds, the MRC already spends £9 million annually on genetics research of relevance to the project, and it is estimated that the United Kingdom medical research charities spend a similar sum.

  The European Commission has prepared a formal proposal for a programme entitled "Predictive Medicine: Human Genome Analysis" and this will be considered by the Council later this year.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to encourage more creche facilities in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  I outlined new arrangements for financing Civil Service child care schemes in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 16 February at column 311. Departments now have the freedom, within overall running cost provisions, to support child care schemes which can be justified in value for money terms. A part-time child care development officer has been appointed to the Cabinet Office, equal opportunities division to offer advice and practical help to Departments as required. A number of Departments are already developing plans for childcare provision for the under-fives. These include my own Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The Civil Service college at Sunningdale is planning a creche which will be available to both staff and students.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 773–74, if he will list the number of organisations entitled to receive funds in respect of the RPI error; what are the individual amounts involved; which of these organisations received a payable warrant and on what date; which of these organisations were asked to repay the warrant pending parliamentary approval; whether a motion has yet been tabled for parliamentary approval for authorisation of payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The organisations benefiting funds from the error in calculation of the RPI and the amounts awarded to them on 1 August 1988 are:

  £

  Civil Service Benevolent Fund

  1,229,000

  Civil Service Retirement Fellowship

  330,000

  Civil Service Club

  150,000

  Civil Service Sports Council

  44,000

  Post Office and CS Sanatorium Society

  150,000

  Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance

  35,000

  Occupational Pensions Advisory Service

  20,000

  Payable warrants were sent to each of the organisations on 3 August 1988. The Civil Service pensioners alliance, occupational pensions advisory service and the Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society were asked to repay the awards pending authorisation of a supplementary estimate for funds which has been submitted for parliamentary approval.

THE ARTS

  Sir Douglas Bader (Memorabilia)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what action is being taken to preserve for the nation wartime memorabilia that belonged to Sir Douglas Bader; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Owners are free to dispose of their property as they wish. In the event that an owner wishes to enjoy the 516
  property abroad, items over 50 years of age and worth certain monetary values would require an export licence in the normal way.

  Scientific Periodicals
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 994, what discussions he has had with the British Library about the pricing of scientific periodicals.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Library draws my attention to the cost of scientific periodicals and other materials when it presents its financial forecasts, and I take these into account when making my arts budget allocation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what advice the Arts Council gives to its clients on fulfilling their statutory obligations to employ people with disabilities;

  (2) what information he has on the expenditure of the Arts Council on developing policy on disability and the arts;

  (3) how many people who are registered disabled have been employed by the Arts Council in each of the last five years;

  (4) what information he has on the percentage of the Arts Council's training budget spent on arts and disability;

  (5) what information he has on the provision of access for the disabled at the Arts Council's offices with regard to (a) ramps, (b) induction loops, (c) signers and (d) Braille signs;

  (6) what information he has on the expenditure of the Arts Council on facilities for people with disabilities at its offices at 105 Piccadilly;

  (2) what information he has on the number of job applications received by the Arts Council from people with disabilities in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Luce
  As I explained to the hon. Member in my reply earlier today, the Arts Council is committed to equal opportunities for disabled people both in its own employment and throughout the arts world. The council actively seeks to recruit staff with disabilities and currently employs six people who consider themselves to be disabled. This represents over 3 per cent. of its total staff. The council has also actively endorsed the same positive approach in its clients, as set out in the council's code of practice on the arts and disability. The council monitors the implementation of the code through its regular evaluation of client organisations. For more detailed information about the implementation of the council's policy at its headquarters and in the field, the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Arts Council.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts(a) how many employees and (b) what percentage of employees of the Arts Council were registered disabled, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: The Arts Council is committed to equal opportunities for disabled people and actively seeks to recruit staff with disabilities. As part of this policy, it has conducted a number of surveys amongst its staff. Since these began in December 1986, only one employee has been found to be formally

  517
  registered as disabled. However, six existing employees consider themselves to be disabled although they have chosen not to register. This represents over 3 per cent. of the Arts Council's total staff.

  Northern Ballet
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the Arts Council's proposed funding arrangements for Northern Ballet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had about the future of Northern Ballet theatre.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: I have received a number of representations from interested parties. The funding of northern ballet is, however, entirely a matter for the Arts Council.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of how many firms, businesses and employers in the East Londonderry constituency employ more than 25 persons.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate as to how many firms, businesses and employers there are in the areas covered by the Department of Social Security offices at(a) Strabane, (b) Londonderry, (c) Limavady, (d) Magherafelt, and (e) Coleraine which employ more than 25 persons; what is his estimate of the total number of persons employed by all those firms in those areas; and what is the total number of employees in those areas.

  Mr. Viggers
  Information on the number of enterprises with more than 25 employees is not available in the form requested. Statistics on the number of employees relate to district council, rather than social security office areas. Latest available figures, based on the September 1984 census of employment records, are as follows:

  Number

  Strabane

  7,480

  Londonderry

  27,930

  Limavady

  5,920

  Magherafelt

  7,640

  Coleraine

  15,810

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish in the Official Report his estimate as to how many firms and businesses in the East Londonderry constitituency employ more than 25 persons;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report his estimate as to how many firms and businesses in the Foyle constituency employ more than 25 persons.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  518

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available on the numbers of claims for additional requirements, including backdated claims under supplementary benefit, which were granted from 1 January to 10 April 1988 and those granted from April 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the supplementary benefit scheme additional requirements were an integral part of benefit entitlement and claims for them were not made or recorded separately. Accordingly the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating the total amounts of money paid under all supplementary benefit regulations in each social security office from 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Legislation
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many recommendations for debate were made by the Select Committee on European Legislation in the last session.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1987–88 there were 117 such recommendations.

  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. and right hon. Members took part in the deliberations of Standing Committees on European Documents who were not members of the Standing Committee, in the last Session.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1987–88, six hon. Members took part in deliberations of Standing Committees on European Documents, of which they were not a member.

  Debates
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many debates were held following recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation on the Floor of the House in the last Session of Parliament.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1987–88, 29 debates were held on the Floor of the House, covering 84 documents, in addition to 15 debates in Standing Committee, covering 31 documents.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners (Rural Area)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to meet representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the future of general practitioners in rural areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Consultations with the general medical services committee of the British Medical
  519
  Association have been continuing for about one year on the detail of implementing changes to GPs' terms of service and remuneration system. These consultations will cover changes to the family doctor services throughout Great Britain, as proposed in the White Papers "Promoting Better Health" and "Working for Patients" including matters of special relevance to rural general practice. I last met the representatives of the GMSC for a discussion of progress in these consultations on 9 February 1989. I have no present plans for a further meeting.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what National Health Service staffing information he collects centrally; and what information relating to the number of vacant posts in all National Health Service staff categories was considered in the National Health Service review which led to the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department collects detailed information on staff-in-post as at end of September each year. Less detailed statistics are available for other quarter points in the year

  Information on vacant posts is collected annually for consultants and senior registrars (hospital services) and for RMO, DMO, SCM, senior registrars and registrars in the community services.

  RAWP System (North Staffs)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be lost by North Staffordshire district health authority as a result of the Government's proposals to change the basis of allocations on the resource allocation working party system.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No money will be lost by the district health authority from its present allocation but in future years, district health authorities, like regional health authorities, will be funded for their own populations weighted to take account of age and propensity to sickness. This will provide a fair basis for the calculation of the district's share of future growth in NHS revenue.

  Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence there is that tampons produced from chlorine-bleached fibres can provide a means whereby dioxins enter the human body.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 14 February at column 179.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to require sanitary tampon manufacturers to print warnings regarding toxic shock syndrome on the packets.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue safety guidelines for sanitary tampon manufacturers;

  (2) if he will take steps to alert consumers of sanitary tampons to medical research which has suggested that there are health problems related to them.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: Four years ago the Government set up a voluntary prior
  520
  approval scheme with the sanitary protection industry, under which manufacturers submit to Government any new tampon or tampons to which there have been significant changes in design or materials, and toxicologists from the Department of Health scrutinise them to decide whether they pose a health hazard. I am satisfied that this scheme is adequate to safeguard the public and I commend it as a good example of a responsible industry voluntarily looking after the interests of its customers. Sanitary tampon manufacturers already include with their products leaflets giving consumers information on toxic shock syndrome and personal hygiene.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now include sanitary towels and tampons among the articles covered by the good manufacturing practice specified by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The voluntary prior approval scheme set up four years ago by the Government and the sanitary protection industry already ensures that any new tampon or major change in tampon design or materials can be properly checked to decide whether or not they pose a health hazard.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund research on the health effects of using sanitary tampons.

  Mr. Freeman
  We look to the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, for the support of biomedical research.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, when negotiating the renewal of voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry, he will make it his policy to seek a ban on the sale of single cigarettes on the grounds that they cannot carry a Government health warning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The sale of single cigarettes is one aspect of the larger problem of tobacco sales to children. This area is already covered by the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 and the Government are looking into ways of improving the enforcement of this legislation.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department's scientific and medical advisers have investigated the studies into electromagnetic wave theory and possible relationships with cot death syndrome; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Neither this Department nor the National Radiological Protection Board, which has a responsibility to advise on hazards from electromagnetic fields, are aware of any authoritative, peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated an association between sudden infant death syndrome and exposure to these fields at any frequency.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will list those research projects which are currently receiving Government funding and which examine the possible causes of cot death syndrome; and whether he will list the academic or medical institutions at which such research is taking place;
  521
  (2) what is the total sum of grant made available by his Department for research into the causes of cot death syndrome in the current financial year; and what is the projected sum for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that in 1987–88, the latest financial year for which figures are available, the MRC spent approximately £83,000 on research into sudden infant death syndrome. The following list shows the current research supported by this money.a. Clinical Research Centre—Division of Clinical Sciences, Harrow, Middlesex.
  Project Title: Arterial oxygen saturation monitoring for respiratory disease, heart failure, cot death, anaesthesia.

  (ii) Grant Holders in University Departments
  a. Professor V. Duhowntz, Department of Paediatric and Neonatal Medicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London.
  Project Title: Continuous 4 channel EEg monitoring in the high risk neonate.
  b.Professor J. K. Stothers, Department of Paediatrics, London Hospital Medical College, London.
  Project Title: An investigation into the incidence and clinical significance of obstructive apnoea in children.
  c. Professor A. D. Milner, Department of Child Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
  Project Title: Apnoea bardycardia and high frequency oscillation in the neonatal period.
  d. Professor P. J. Watt, Department of Microbiology, University of Southampton.
  Project Title: Respiratory Syncytial Virus Polypeptides: age-related antibody responses and the significance of material IGC.

  In the same year, the council made available a further £322,000 for other research which may contribute to the understanding of the sudden infant death syndrome.

  Former Ministers (Facilities)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, col. 79 what is the cost of granting the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health the temporary use of a room at the Department plus the part-time assistance of an administrative officer to manage and safeguard the papers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no additional cost as the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is using a room that was vacant pending the refurbishment of the building. The administrative officer spends up to a maximum of three hours a week managing and safeguarding the papers at an approximate cost of £170 for the nine weeks of research.

  Sea Bathing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider Government funding for urgent research into the extent of infection from viruses associated with sea bathing.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 31 October 1988 at column 546.

  Babies (PCDFs)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response his Department has made to reports about the effects on babies of high levels of PCDFs.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is aware of studies i n Japan and Taiwan which tentatively suggested health effects in babies whose mothers were exposed to cooking oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls contaminated with PCDFs. The Department's advisory committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment is currently reviewing the toxicity data on PCDDs and PCDFs, including these studies, and the committee's advice is expected shortly.

  Cancer (Paper Products)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has any statistics regarding increased lifetime cancer risk resulting from dioxin exposure via paper products.

  Mr. Freeman
  Research indicates that levels present in such products are very low and they would be expected to present a negligible risk. However, we have asked the relevant trade associations to provide information on levels found in products on sale in the United Kingdom. A further assessment of risks to health will then be made.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. what information he has on research conducted by the United States Environment Protection Agency into the risks of cancer from paper products.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the Environment Protection Agency is preparing a report with the American paper industry which is expected to be ready by April 1989.

  Birth Deformities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department is aware of any research indicating links between dioxins and birth deformities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is aware of toxicological studies indicating that some dioxins can cause deformities in certain species of laboratory animals. The significance of these findings for humans is currently being assessed by the Department's advisory committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment as part of a review of all the toxicity data on PCDDs and PCDFs. The committee's advice is expected shortly.

  Aluminium (Home Cooking)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the scientific evidence linking aluminium with Alzheimer's disease, he has considered the control on the use of aluminium in food processing, including cooking utensils and aluminium foil; and what advice he has for home cooks.

  Mr. Freeman
  No controls on the use of aluminium in food processing are warranted. My replies to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 27 January at columns 797–799 explain the known medical effects of aluminium from all sources.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is carrying out or funding about the effects of paper and similar products containing dioxins on the health of people.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Research in Sweden has shown that levels present in those products are extremely low and are likely to present a negligible risk to health. However, the Department's committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment has been asked to advise on the possible health effects from dioxins.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the Yorkshire regional health authority determined to introduce cook-chill catering in hospitals throughout the region;

  (2) on what date members of staff of the Yorkshire regional health authority were informed that a policy decision had been made to introduce cook-chill catering in hospitals throughout the region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The decision to introduce cook-chill catering into hospitals within Yorkshire region was taken at the regional health authority meeting on 24 March 1988. Information about the decision and its implementation was formally communicated to Yorkshire district health authorities and the media the same day. Similar information was conveyed to staff in the region in the RHA's newspaper "Health View", April 1988 edition.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals in the Yorkshire region currently operational, or in the process of construction, have facilities to receive and distribute cook-chill food.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The proposed new Halifax district general hospital, all hospitals within the Wakefield and Dewsbury boundaries, all hospitals administrated by Bradford health authority with the exception of the Bradford royal infirmary, St. Luke's hospital and Linfield mount hospital, the Alfred Bean hospital, Driffield and the Brumby hospital, Scunthorpe.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which cook-chill installations currently in operation within the National Health Service contravene his Department's 1980 guidelines.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect health authorities to satisfy themselves that cook-chill installations all conform to my Department's cook-chill guidelines.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if facilities exist to ensure it is possible for the requirement of the Yorkshire health authority's expert group that all cook-chill food must be served within 15 minutes of reheating to be met following the proposed introduction of cook-chill catering in Wakefield's hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I understand that the DHA's arrangements, using heated trolleys, would meet this requirement and I expect the DHA to ensure that performance is monitored.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 January to the hon.
  524
  Member for Wakefield if, in the light of scientific and medical evidence of the potential importance of listeria monocytogenes in cook-chill catering, he will now withdraw the 1980 guidelines prepared by the expert group.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 7 February 1989.]: We remain quite satisfied that, provided the 1980 guidelines on cook-chill catering are followed, the food produced by this system will be safe.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer of 2 February to the hon. Member for Wakefield, he will list the published and unpublished papers on the safety of cook-chill and low temperature pathogens considered by his Department's expert group.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The purpose of convening an expert group is to ensure a broad information base for decisions on the preparation of guidance. The group considered a wide range of information on the scientific basis of the cook-chill system from a variety of sources. It is not possible to compile a complete list of all material which members of the group will have taken into account when formulating the guidelines.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the evidence presented at a symposium on cook-chill catering at Danbury technical college held on 9 July 1988, by a consultant microbiologist at Plymouth health authority on the incidence of patients with listeriosis treated in Plymouth hospitals during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The evidence presented by a consultant microbiologist from Plymouth health authority at this symposium showed that all patients found to have listeriosis in Plymouth hospitals during 1987 and 1988 acquired this infection before their admission.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to give his replies to the questions tabled for priority written answer on 7 February and to which a holding reply was given relating to cook-chill catering and his Department's expert group, and to Plymouth.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Hospice Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of the pay award to nurses working in the hospice movement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In 1988–89 the Government made available to health authorities an additional ?5.5 million to meet the costs of the nurses' clinical regrading exercise incurred by hospices and mainly charitable hospitals with which they had contractual commitment or to which they regularly gave financial support. This allocation was made because of the exceptional nature of the increase in pay costs and about one quarter of it was expected to go to hospices.

  That sum is being carried forward to 1989–90, and increased by 5 per cent. The Government have not

  525
  included any further provision in the additional funds being made available in respect of the 1989 nurses' pay award, but health authorities may wish to provide extra financial support from the very significant overall increase in financial resources at their disposal in 1989–90.

  My Department has asked for more information to be collected on the general pattern of financial support of hospices by health authorities and will consider the need for any further action in the light of this.

  Chief Nursing Officer (Letter)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent by the chief nursing officer to all district and regional nursing offices on 18 January.

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall be placing copies of the letter and accompanying paper in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the consequences on employment and pay scales for nurses resulting from the guidelines on nursing contained in the letter sent from the chief nursing officer to all district and regional nursing offices on 18 January.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not envisage that there would be any consequences on employment and pay scales for nurses arising from this letter.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the purpose and status of the letter sent by the chief nursing officer to all regional and district nursing officers on the role of nurses.

  Mr. Freeman
  The purpose of the letter on nursing routines and improving efficiency, which was sent by the Chief Nursing Officer and chairman of the standing nursing and midwifery advisory committee at the specific request of members to regional and district nursing officers and to the chief nursing officers of special health authorities, was to encourage local nursing and midwifery advisory committees to study the use of some routine nursing practices with a view to considering whether they were still relevant in their local circumstances. They were asked to take whatever action they considered necessary to develop innovative ideas to increase the efficiency of effectiveness of nursing care, so that unnecessary practices can be eliminated, releasing nurses to provide a quality service which not only benefits patients but provides increased job satisfaction for nursing staff.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response there has been to the letter sent on 18 January to all regional and district nursing officers from the Chief Nursing Officer about the role of nurses.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some nursing officers have already replied in a positive way indicating the initiatives and developments they are undertaking.

  Sickle Cell Anaemia and Thalassaemia
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North,Official Report, 9 February, column 802, if he will review his decision not to include a question on local funding arrangements in his Department's questionnaire to all district health authorities on screening and counselling for sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia.
  526
  Mr. Freeman
  The questionnaires were issued to district health authorities on 22 June 1988 and the Department is currently analysing their responses. The need to see further information will be considered in the light of this analysis.

  Listeria
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the number of cases of United Kingdom produced cheeses in which listeria infection has been identified over the past 12 months; if he will express that number as a proportion of the total United Kingdom cheese production over the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: One case of listeriosis associated with United Kingdom produced cheese has been reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service in the past 12 months. Cheese production in the United Kingdom in 1987, the last year for which figures are available centrally, totalled 263,900 tonnes.

  There has been a variety of published evidence indicating the risk associated with both unpasteurised and pasteurised soft cheeses. In particular, I draw the hon. Member's attention to the "Report of the WHO Informal Working Group on Foodborne Listeriosis", Geneva 15–19 February 1988 and "Occurrence in the UK of Listeria species in Raw Chicken and Soft Cheeses" published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology 1988 vol. 6. However, as indicated in his public statement on 10 February 1989, the Government's Chief Medical Officer has recently been taking further expert advice on the risks.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of listeriosis have been attributed to(a) unpasteurised milk, (b) unpasteurised milk products, (c) pasteurised milk, and (d) pasteurised milk products in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Confirmed reports to the Public Health Laboratory Service show that in England and Wales there have been two cases of listeriosis associated with products made with unpasteurised milk, one in 1986 and one in 1988. In both cases, the milk was heated beyond pasteurisation temperatures during the manufacturing process. There have been no reports of listeriosis attributed to either pasteurised or unpasteurised milk, or to products made with pasteurised milk.

  Cheese
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances have been notified to his Department of poisoning caused through the consumption of contaminated soft cheese or unpasteurised milk during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Confirmed cases of food poisoning associated with the consumption of soft cheese and unpasteurised milk reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service in the years from 1986–88 are as follows:

  Unpasteurised milk

  Soft cheese

  1986

  347

  1

  1987

  366

  —

  1988

  122

  1

  527
  1 Provisional.

  There has been a variety of published evidence indicating the risk associated with both unpasteurised and pasteurised soft cheeses. In particular, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the "Report of the WHO Informal Working Group on Foodborne Listeriosis", Geneva 15–19 February 1988 and "Occurrence in the United Kingdom of Listeria species in Raw Chicken and Soft Cheeses" published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology 1988 volume 6. However, as he indicated in his public statement on 10 February 1989, the Government's Chief Medical Officer has recently been taking further expert advice on the risks.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any evidence of the incidence of(a) salmonella enteritidis, and (b) any other strain of salmonella in cooked prawns.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Studies on imported cooked prawns by the Public Health Laboratory Service between 1976 and 1986 show that a small number of the samples tested contained isolations of a wide variety of serotypes of salmonella. Any action on such imported produce is a matter for the port health authorities. In 1986 and 1988 there were no reported outbreaks of food poisoning associated with cooked prawns. In 1987 there were two reported outbreaks possibly associated with this food.

  Radiated Food
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to bring in legislation requiring all radiated food to be clearly marked.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ministers have agreed for advice from officials on the regulatory framework, including labelling that would be necessary for irradiation of food on general sale to be permitted in this country. This advice is expected shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Poultry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he now intends to ban the use of animal protein, other than fish meal, for feeding poultry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 19 January at column 314–15, I have no plans to do so. My officials have routinely inspected all protein processing plants to monitor their compliance with the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 which requires the manufacture of a salmonella-free product. A new statutory provision to stop the supply of salmonella-contaminated animal protein has been introduced recently and further control measures are under consideration.

  Research and Medical Staff
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many research 528
  medical or scientific staff in his Department with expertise in (a) egg production, (b) milk and cheese production, (c) food poisoning and (d) consumer demand there were in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Details are as follows:

  1979

  1988

  (a) Egg production

  418

  325

  (b) Milk and cheese production

  473

  377

  (c) Questions relating to food poisoning are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  (d) Expertise in consumer demand is available widely in the Ministry for different commodities. Total staff numbers could not be ascertained without disproportionate cost.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that British farmers receive the maximum allowable nationally funded element of the suckler cow premium once changes to the beef variable premium scheme have been agreed by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government are considering the appropriate rate for the suckler cow subsidy in the light of the changes being made to the beef regime and will announce the rate in good time before the start of the 1989 scheme on 15 June.

  Beef (Special Premium)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the method of payment of the special premium which is to be introduced to replace the beef variable premium scheme;

  (2) what male animals will qualify for the special premium after abolition of the beef variable premium scheme; and how the numbers so entitled will be verified.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As a result of the agreement reached by the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers at its meeting on 23–24 January 1989, the United Kingdom's beef variable premium is to be replaced by a premium on male cattle paid at a rate of £28·42 per head up to a maximum of 90 head per producer.

  The premium is payable once only in the lifetime of each animal. We have the option to pay the premium either on animals retained by the producer on his holding, or on animals sold by producers for slaughter whether sold direct to slaughterhouses or through liveweight auction markets. The Government are currently considering which of these two systems should be applied and the appropriate administrative arrangements for ensuring compliance with the 90 head limit. The legal texts implementing the arrangements have yet to be agreed and adopted by the Council. The intention is that the new arrangements should come into effect on 3 April 1989.

  Beef (Hormone Implants)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the import from the United States of America of beef from animals where growth was artificially induced by hormone implants.
  529
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The import of beef from the United States of America has now been prohibited because the US authorities are not complying with the European Community's requirement that beef imports should be certified as derived from animals not treated with hormone growth promoters. The Government have consistently opposed the ban on hormones because we believe that it has no scientific basis. We are continuing to work for a solution to the trade difficulties with the United States which it has caused.

  Universities (Research)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether those working in universities on research commissioned by his Ministry are required to sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is not our normal practice, though it may be considered necessary if the work involves access to sensitive or commercial information.

  Cheese
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what evidence he indicated that he was considering a ban on unpasteurised milk cheese production; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what evidence he has that cheese produced from unpasteurised milk is less safe than that produced from pasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) which representatives of the dairy products industry he consulted prior to his statements concerning soft cheese; and if he will indicate the company or organisation with which each is associated.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the consultation document which I shall shortly place in the Library of the House.

  Fylde Coast (Sea Outfall)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the frequency and nature of contacts between his Ministry and North West Water in connection with the proposed construction of a long sea outfall from the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Officials were informed of North West Water's work at an early stage. Before plans were drawn up MAFF was asked to provide information about fisheries in the Fylde coast area. After consultation with local fisheries organisations this information was provided with a view to seeking to ensure that interference with fisheries was avoided. MAFF has since sought from North West Water information about the possible locations of the discharge and the nature and likely effect of the effluent. The Ministry has now been formally consulted under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on the proposed outfall.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his Ministry intends to obtain sufficient baseline ecological data to enable it to form a view as to the necessity for consent limits for the proposed long sea outfall for the Fylde coast.
  530
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department undertakes a continuing programme of routine monitoring of contaminant levels in fish and shellfish. In addition, information would be obtained, as appropriate, from work undertaken by other relevant organisations.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information is held by his Ministry on the virological quality of shellfish harvested in Morecambe bay and adjoining coastlines;

  (2) what information is held by his Ministry on the bacteriological quality of shellfish harvested in Morecambe bay and adjoining coastlines.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Ministry is aware of the status of the shellfisheries as determined by the environmental health departments of the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is held by his Ministry on the chemical quality of shellfish harvested in Morecambe bay and adjoining coastlines, with particular reference to compounds identified as black, grey or red list.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Both shellfish and finfish from the Morecambe bay area are sampled as part of the Ministry's national monitoring programme. Samples the edible mussel Mytilus edulis were collected in 1985 from Morecambe and Barrow-in-Furness and analysed. for the metals mercury, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc, the pesticides HCH, HCB, dieldrin and DDT and PCBs. In addition a sample of brown shrimp (crangon crangon) was obtained from the Lune Deeps area in 1982 and analysed for metals.

  Using the guidelines listed in appendix 3 of the MAFF aquatic environment monitoring report No. 16, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, contaminant levels found would not be considered to be elevated in any of these samples.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the potential for hydro-transportation of sediment-associated viruses from the proposed long sea outfall for the Fylde coast to shellfisheries in Morecambe bay and the adjoining coastlines.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is one of the factors that the Ministry will take into account in providing comments on the proposal under the terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Relevant to the Ministry's consideration will be the design characteristics of the proposed outfall and the location of the shellfisheries concerned.

  Meat (Transhipment)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken by his Ministry, and port or local council officials to ensure that meat landed in Great Britain for onward transhipment to a third country is not sold for use in Great Britain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  All meat entering Great Britain, whether intended for consumption here or for transhipment to a third country, must comply with our animal and
  531
  public health requirements. There are no health reasons, therefore, to require that meat in transit is not diverted for sale in Great Britain.

  Feedstuffs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce statutory measures for the monitoring of feedstuffs which contain non-animal products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As part of the further measures to combat the salmonella contamination of animal feed I intend to introduce statutory monitoring requirements for complete animal feedingstuffs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the importation of salmonella-contaminated feedstuffs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A very small proportion of compound animal feedingstuffs is imported. The majority of imports are of the raw materials including animal protein for incorporation into feedingstuffs. The importation of animal protein is already prohibited except under the authority of a licence. These licensing arrangements are being strengthened to further reduce the risk of contaminated products entering the country.

  Fisheries (Research)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place the details of near market research projects in fisheries in the Library.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I will place in the Library the list of projects at Torry research station which we have identified for termination unless industry funding can be arranged. These projects are primarily concerned with the development of new products and processes. We will be continuing to fund work at Torry which is needed in support of Government policies for food safety and quality.

  No near market projects are being carried out at my Department's other fisheries laboratories.

  Veterinary Officers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary officers he has employed in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of veterinary officers permanently employed in all grades of the Ministry's state veterinary service throughout England, Scotland and Wales for each of the last 10 years is:

  Number

  1979

  580·5

  1980

  578·5

  1981

  563·5

  1982

  557·0

  1983

  549·0

  1984

  539·5

  1985

  527·5

  1986

  506·5

  1987

  464·5

  1988

  444·5

  532
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the recruiting of staff with veterinary qualifications to his Ministry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Ministry regularly recruits, via the Civil Service Commission, staff with veterinary qualifications for posts in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Staff with veterinary qualifications who are recruited into the Ministry must be members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Listeria
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of listeria being passed to poultry via contaminated feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Clinical listeriosis in poultry is extremely rare. I know of no evidence indicating that listeriosis has been passed to poultry from contaminated feedingstuffs.

  Salmonella Enteritidis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many or what proportion of birds are monitored when laying flocks of poultry are investigated for salmonella enteritidis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At present, a statistical sampling technique is used to detect salmonella enteritidis in poultry which ensures a very high confidence level of detecting the disease. Statutory provisions for the bacteriological monitoring of poultry laying flocks are to be introduced shortly.

  Livestock Stress
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken by his Department into the possible connection between livestock stress and vulnerability to infection.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funds research at the Institute of Animal Health on the influence of social and other stress on immunosuppression in poultry vaccinated against Marek's disease virus, and on the effects of stress in early life on the incidence and pathogenesis of infectious stunting syndrome in poultry.

  In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funds programmes of research into the causes and effects of stress in farm animals and its objective assessment, and into the causes/pathogenesis and immune responses to infections. Connections between stress and vulnerability to infections are continually kept in mind and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will commission further investigations as considered necessary.

  Southwold Harbour
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his Department to resolve its consideration of the navigation and coast protection interests relating to the repair scheme for Southwold harbour put forward by Waveney district council; and if he will make a statement.
  533
  Mr. Ryder
  These proposals raise questions of navigational safety which still have to be resolved. I understand that Waveney district council is seeking expert advice, which it is hoped will help to resolve the difficulties.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of cross-infection in slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Statutory hygiene controls, enforced by local authorities, apply at all stages of meat production to reduce the risk of cross contamination. My Department is continuously seeking ways of further reducing the incidence of cross infection.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been 534
  received from EEC inspectors regarding the conditions in British slaughterhouses over the last two years; and what response has been made to these representations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The reports made by EC commission inspectors on individual plants are confidential. They are discussed with the inspectors, with the local authority concerned and with the plant management and any corrective action which is necessary is put in hand.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require that all milk containing bovine somatotropin is clearly marked.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. All milk contains traces of bovine somatotropin.

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

Special Constabulary Strength
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the strength of special constables serving in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years, and what steps are in hand to increase their numbers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the strength of the Special Constabulary in England and Wales in 1978 was 16,952. In 1981 it dropped to 14,978. In 1987 it had risen to 16,209. In Scotland the figures were: in 1978, 3,134 and in 1988, 1,747. I have sent my noble friend separately the figures for each of the 10 years in question and I shall arrange for them to be printed in the Official Report.
Recruitment is a matter for individual chief constables. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a conference in December 1987 in order to enable chief officers to discuss matters of increasing the strength and of improving the deployment of special constables.
Following is the table referred to:

Strength of Special Constabulary as at 31st December

England and Wales

Scotland

1978

16,952

3,134

1979

15,960

3,128

1980

15,108

3,005

1981

14,978

2,814

1982

15,160

2,736

1983

15,331

2,634

1984

16,012

2,453

1985

16,161

2,046

1986

16,070

1,964

1987

16,209

1,777

1988

not yet available

1,747

Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But people in all parts of Parliament, particularly in this House, are anxious to see a reduction in crime and a strengthened relationship between the civil population and police forces all over our country. Are not the specials a rather useful force which can help to bridge that gap? Is it not sad that, whereas uniformed police strength has gone up by 15,000 in the last 10 years, the strength of our specials has substantially gone down? The figures given hide the fact that the number of women in the specials has more than doubled while the number of men has dropped by almost 5,000 in that period. Will my noble friend say what is the outcome of the special conference convened by the Home Secretary? Has it been advantageous? Has recruitment improved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, after the conference the chief constables reported to their forces the matters under consideration and since then most forces have extended the use of chief constables over the past year. I cannot give my noble friend any specific details about the figures because they are not yet available.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that all parties in this House and noble Lords of no party at all are anxious to see serious crime figures reduced? Having said that, does he agree that the increase in the numbers of special constables is to he encouraged provided that it is properly gained by the use of properly trained people? Is he aware that, presumably for purposes of economy, Sealink Ltd. has done away with the British Transport Police at Harwich, has taken on 25 members of a private security firm—untrained in police duties so far as one knows—and has sworn them in under Section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 as special constables, giving them therefore the right as special constables to operate in that capacity within the port area and a mile outside? Is he further aware that the Police Federation has written to his right honourable friend with regard to that matter? What is the Home Office doing about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he is in favour of anything being done to reduce the crime figures; we are in total agreement on that. The arrangements that Sealink has made at Parkeston Quay are similar to those at many ports which appoint their employees as special constables under the 1847 Act. The security guards who have been appointed as special constables there have jurisdiction only within the dock and its immediate confines. They cannot act as special constables elsewhere. The policing of docks and ports is a matter for the owners, subject to statute, and I understand that Section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 enables dockmasters to nominate their employees for appointment as special constables. Some docks employ private security firms for that purpose. I am also aware that the Police Federation has written to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It wrote on 15th February, which was only the other day, and my right honourable friend is considering his reply.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, although as he rightly says the numbers of regular police have increased in recent years, it is truly astonishing that there are now fewer special constables than there were when the Government came into office? That being so, what precisely do the Government intend to do about it? Discussions with the chief constables are no doubt most admirable. Will the chief constables put their weight behind some form of national publicity campaign? What specific measures are the Government contemplating to deal with this disturbing shortfall in the recruitment of special constables?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the recruitment of special constables is a matter for chief officers. It has been

389
found that very often local advertising and so forth is much better than national advertising. We convened this conference. A number of proposals were made. However, it is up to chief constables to put them into operation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the number of special constables could be, and should be, increased where possible, but that is a matter for local chief officers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, whatever the position of chief constables, are the Government not concerned at the reduction, both in absolute terms and in proportion to the regular police, in the number of special constables? Are the Government not concerned to reverse that trend? If my noble friend has any difficulty in deciding how to do this, will he consult the one ministerial colleague of his at the Home Office who has practical experience as a special constable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we are concerned if the number of special constables deteriorates. If my noble friend will be good enough to study the Official Report when it is published he will see that over the last few years the numbers have improved.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says no, they have not. According to my figures in 1985 the number was 16,161; in 1986, 16,070; and in 1987, 16,209.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we cannot carry on a conversation. The noble Lord keeps speaking from a sedentary position. Over the last few years the numbers have increased. Of course they may be lower than they were some time ago. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that we convened this conference and we are encouragng chief constables to recruit more special constables.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the numbers of special constables have been reduced significantly since the Government came into office? Will he now answer specifically the question put to him by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? What are the Government intending to do? The noble Earl has said that it is a matter for chief constables. Is it not a matter for the Government also? Does he not consider that he and his department should take some action to deal with what is an extremely disturbing situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the original Answer that I gave to my noble friend indicated—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise when he reads it again—that in 1978 the figure was 16,952 and it is now 16,209. I agree that that is a deterioration, if my mathematics is right, of 700 special constables in the course of 10 years.
390
I have explained that we held a conference. We are doing our best to encourage chief constables to recruit special constables. However, in the end it must be a matter for local decision. One cannot find special constables. They have to be attracted, and they have to be attracted locally.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Earl undertake to look into the serious position at Harwich outlined by my noble friend Lord Mishcon involving a large ferry company? Does he recall that in a debate we had recently on crime on the London Underground his noble friend sitting next to him, Lord Brabazon, made it quite clear that while recruitment was taking place the Metropolitan and City Police were going to loan police officers to British Transport Police so that they could be trained? Is not the important point raised by my noble friend the training of these people at Harwich?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, confuses two matters. One is the training of special constables; the other is the fact that Parkeston Quay is private property. Since Sealink became a private company it is entitled to use a private company should it so wish. It has decided to operate its own policing arrangements. This is similar practice to that in other ports; there is nothing different about it. As to whether or not it is desirable, that is a totally different point. I have no reason to believe that it is not desirable, but I am certainly prepared to look into the matter.
Lord Knights: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem is not so much one of recruitment but of retaining the motivation of volunteers once they have joined? If he does so agree, can he say what factors might be operating to cause so much early wastage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously one has to motivate people once they are special constables. It is up to chief constables to decide when to employ special constables. Since the conference was held, I understand that a great deal of effort has been made to use special constables. However, it is inevitable—as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, will know from his own responsibilities as a chief constable—that different chief constables in different areas take different views on how best to employ special constables.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, although the figure that my noble friend quotes of a difference of only 700 in the total number removes the alarming nature of this fall, is he aware that the fall has occurred during a period when the numbers should have increased? Due to the changed circumstances of society and the consequent need for special constables, is not the position much worse than it ever was? For even a small deterioration to have occurred during such a period compounds the problem. When did we last have a recruiting drive? When did the Rotary Club talk about it?
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure how many of those questions I can answer. I can tell the noble Lord this. It is a factor that he may have inadvertently omitted from his calculations. Special constables are volunteers. One cannot force feed volunteers into joining. My noble friend is concerned to see an increase in police strength. The strength of the police force as a whole has gone up by some 15,000 people. Expenditure on policing has risen from £1·1 billion to £3·7 billion. Special constables are one small facet of this expenditure. They are volunteers. I shall certainly take note of the suggestions made by my noble friend. If he would care to tell me how one can force a person to become a volunteer—other than a person who is already in the army—I should be delighted to know.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 13 minutes have now passed on this Question and it is about time that we moved on?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I could have sworn that it was 30 minutes!
Noble Lords: Next Question.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that an enterprise known as the Guardian Angels, which purports to provide special protection for travellers on the London Underground and which has been imported from New York, is fraught with difficulties and possible danger and should be discouraged? That kind of work is much better done by special constables.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are opposed to private citizens adopting a policing role except as special constables. We are in favour of active citizens playing a full role by acting as the eyes and ears of the police, but not as their arms and legs. If the Guardian Angels act unlawfully or engage in conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, their presence will not be welcomed. In that event they could not expect to be exempted from the ordinary processes of the law.

Cherished Number Plates: Sales
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to have worked out a detailed scheme for selling cherished number plates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, work is continuing on the proposals announced by my right honourable friend on 27th July 1988. Sales need legislation. Further details about the timetable will be given when the legislation is introduced.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he ask his noble friend to consider selling the number plates that are held at Swansea to charitable organisations? In other words,
392
could auctions be organised and the money raised by the auctions dispensed to charities that deal particularly with the disabled and the disabled motorists—for example, PHAB, Motability and many others?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that the idea is attractive in principle, but unfortunately the rules of Government accounting would not allow the department to divert revenue away from the Consolidated Fund and use it as a covert grant in aid. The department is however investigating alternative approaches to make the sales attractive and that will form part of the announcement in due course.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. One reads and is constantly told that the country's economy is raring away. We have billions to pay off the national debt. Is it not possible for the Minister to put it quite seriously to his honourable friend that the Treasury, instead of clawing everything back, could use the funds to help the disabled? One would have thought that this Tory Government would have considered the caring aspect of getting rid of these number plates.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this issue is already before my right honourable friend. He is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by Motability and the suggestions made by it. We have considered this and as I have said we are still investigating alternative approaches. I should point out that the Government already support organisations such as Motability. My department's mobility advice and vehicle information service dealt with over 6,000 inquiries last year from disabled drivers and again this year we shall be running the Mobility Road Show. We also exempt disabled people from having to pay vehicle excise duty.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, are we to take it from the Minister that the Government support something along the lines of what my noble friend Lady Fisher advocated rather than having newspapers containing columns of advertisements placed by private enterprise for the sale of these number plates? Surely what my noble friend suggests is a far better idea.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, we are talking here of selling taxpayers' and Government assets and therefore we have to abide by the rules. The advertisements for number plate sales which one sees in the newspapers are not affected by the proposals at all.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether there is a readily-available official publication on the Government's accounting rules? If there is not one already, and in view of the noble Lord's reference to the rules, will he ensure that such rules are speedily prepared and made available to the public because at the moment they tend to be rather a mystery?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a very different question from the one on the Order Paper, which is about our proposals for selling cherished number plates. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of the rules which concern government accounting.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any feasible definition of the phrase "cherished number plate"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is very easy to define. It is a number plate that is cherished by somebody and for which somebody is prepared to pay a price.

Illegal Dumping
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to curb the dumping of rubbish, in particular, bottles and tin cans, in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government share the concern indicated by my noble friend and deplore illegal dumping and litter wherever they occur. They have again doubled the grant to the Tidy Britain Group to £3 million in the coming year to test methods of dealing with the problem.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Will the Government make it an enforceable requirement that all bottles and cans that contain drink carry a returnable charge? As far as the cans are concerned, will he also make it illegal for the little bit that opens the can to fall apart when one pulls it out and insist that it should be retained on the can as is common practice in other countries? That would stop children and animals being harmed by the sharp edges.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in reply to the last part of my noble friend's question, I do not think I am in a position to make any "little bits" illegal, but I am afraid that I have some rather disappointing news in relation to returnable charges. I believe that in South Australia they have proved to be very effective. But when the same experiment was conducted in Oregon in the United States the reverse experience occurred and the depositing of litter increased.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country now has the reputation of being the dirtiest, most untidy and most litter strewn of all of Western Europe, according to foreign visitors? We see it not only in the rural areas but in urban areas too. Do we not need something more than an extra £1 million for the Keep Britain Tidy group? Do not the Government think that our national reputation now deserves a good deal more energy being put in to clean up Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have doubled the grant, and the purpose of doubling the grant is to try to find initiatives for a cure. I am sure that all noble Lords in this House are well aware that there is litter everywhere. It is very difficult to try just to enforce the laws. There are already many laws. The programme for the TBG involves 27 projects grouped in order to try to find answers and initiatives to teach people, particularly the young, not to acquire the habit of throwing down litter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has recycling a part to play in this, with metal, glass and paper?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is true that recycling is a growing industry and is showing results. There is the Save-A-Can scheme run by the Can Makers Association to enable the recycling of cans as well as bottles so that they do not litter the countryside or the streets of our country.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as someone who for many years has been associated with the Tidy Britain Group, I am delighted that the Government have recently given us additional support. However, in connection with the noble Lord's original Question, could a greater effort be made in the countryside which, after all, is one of the jewels in the crown of this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. We are doing our best to educate the public. The difficulty is that litter is proliferating over a vast area, particularly in the countryside, and it is difficult to enforce the law. The long-term answer is to teach people that it is environmentally unacceptable to drop litter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the survey carried out last year for industry into packaging and the environment? Half the 16 to 24 year-olds interviewed were not aware that it was a criminal offence to drop litter. Does he agree that we should pursue the education of children in schools about care for the environment generally and about litter in particular?
Does the Minister consider that a much higher profile should be given to recycling waste? Figures for this country are poor compared with those for the rest of Europe, and a government initiative is necessary to encourage people to recycle more waste.
Lords Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the last point, the figures for the amount of waste being recycled are rising.
I fully endorse the noble Baroness's first point; the long-term answer is for youngsters to be taught that dropping litter is environmentally unacceptable.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are now in an age where plastic bottles and not glass are creating difficulties in the countryside and they cannot be recycled? Can he assure the House that in future the Government will

395
try to dissuade drinks manufacturers from using plastic bottles?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point and I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many wastepaper bins were placed around the countryside but that they have disappeared? Is the reason for their disappearance, particularly from lay-bys, the fact that no one will empty them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not aware of the disappearance of such litter bins, but I shall endeavour to discover more about them.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that where litter bins are generously placed people will use them? Is he aware that in Italy, a country that I know well, recently the rubbish in the streets has been disappearing as a result of placing litter bins everywhere? It is the responsibility of local authorities to put them in place and to clear them. Will my noble friend try to obtain greater impetus for such a campaign?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that Westminster City Council has a programme of sponsored litter bins in line with the scheme pointed out by my noble friend.
Lord Carter: My Lords, supplementary questions have concentrated on small litter. In asking my question I declare an interest because I farm to the edge of a town in the Midlands. Is the Minister aware that large items of litter such as bedsteads, old armchairs and bicycles cause a great deal of trouble to farmers? Does he have any idea of the damage which can be caused to the inside of a combine harvester by an old bedstead?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that the driver of a combine harvester will spot an old bedstead before trying to plough it up.

Westminster City Council: Finances
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will hold a public inquiry into the financial affairs of Westminster City Council.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the authority's auditor has the responsibility for inquiring into any complaints about a local authority's financial affairs. I see no need for the Government to hold a public inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a ratepayer in the City of Westminster. Is the Minister aware that I find the council's settlement to its retiring chief executive, Mr.
396
Brooke, of £1 million to be absolutely unbelievable? Is he also aware that when due to government action the metropolitan counties were dissolved, the maximum payment for redundancy or retirement settlements was £200,000? Is he further aware that the population of most of those metropolitan councils was far in excess of that of Westminster City Council?
What new features have been introduced into the payments of retirement or redundancy settlements to chief officers to enable the abnormally high payment of £1 million to be made? Was it in order to cover up the deficiencies of the political leader of the city council, who obviously made an appalling blunder on this occasion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I find it slightly surprising that the noble Lord should question the payment. Mr. Brooke had served in local government for 32 years and he has been paid only that to which he is legally and contractually entitled.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in order to discourage extremism in local government, and because the eccentric behaviour of the leader of Westminster City Council has led not merely to the expenditure of £ 1 million but to a reported protest to Buckingham Palace from the Netherlands Royal Family in respect of the cemeteries affair, would it not be in everyone's interest if Westminster City Council now selected a more responsbile leader?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the Government's policy not to interfere with local government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, after that extremely good-quality joke, what would the Minister's language have been if a Left-wing Labour authority had behaved in the way in which Lady Porter has behaved in Westminister?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It was that we are discussing a gentleman who has served in local government for 32 years and he is being paid only that to which he is legally and contractually entitled.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the course of the noble Lord's Answer he referred to the responsibility of the district auditors in connection with the financial affairs of the council. Is he aware that many noble Lords believe it to be extraordinary that the district auditor in this case—a private firm which was charged with the investigation of the scandalous transaction in the disposal of cemeteries for 15p—was at the same time offered a consultancy contract to the tune of £78,000 without competition? Does he not consider that there was a division of interest which should receive the Government's attention? Is he also aware that many noble Lords may believe that we should have regard to the Government's responsible impartiality when it comes to a Tory council behaving in that scandalous way in relation to cemeteries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is already a considerable amount of regard: three investigations

397
are being carried out into the sale. The district auditor's report of 2nd November showed serious defects in the council's handling of the sale for which members and officers were responsible but no evidence of fraud or corruption. He is also to hear the ratepayers' objections to accounts at a public hearing next month. The Commission for Local Administration in England found considerable failings amounting to maladministration. The Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad's investigation continues. In the light of all those investigations, there is no case for intervention by the Government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has told the House that it is the Government's policy not to interfere with local authorities. Therefore, are we to understand that they will now be free to spend the money obtained from the sale of council houses which they have not been allowed to spend?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the financial settlement made between the council and the chief executive upon his retirement. Were any conditions attached to it? Is it a fact that the chief executive is now under an obligation not to reveal or publish anything relating to the council's recent affairs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that Mr. Brooke will remain an employee of Westminster City Council for some time. It will be up to him to deal with any questions put to him by the auditor about events which occurred during the time he was chief executive.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Was it a condition of the settlement made between the chief executive and the council that he should not publish anything which may be in the public interest in relation to the affairs referred to by the noble Lord?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of any condition.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps telling us about the number of years for which the chief executive has served. If that is the case and he is so satisfactory, why has he been sacked? As my noble friend on the Front Bench suggested, is that not in order to cover up what Mr. Brooke knows has been going on in the Westminster City Council?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of that. However, I address the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to my earlier answer; namely, that Mr. Brooke will remain an employee of the Westminster City Council for some time yet.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that I totally reject his Answer to my first Question? Will he bear in mind that I have spent a
398
long time in local government and can find no case where a chief executive has retired or been retired on anything more than one-fifth of what Mr. Brooke is to receive? Can the Minister say what special circumstances apply where the chief executive of the Westminster City Council, which is less than a fifth as large as any of the Metropolitan country councils, can be forcibly retired on £1 million? I again put the question to him. Does he not understand that it quite clearly appears to everybody outside, other than people trying to protect the leader of the Westminster City Council, that it is hush money in its worst sense?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am slightly confused as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is suggesting that Mr. Brooke should be paid less than his legal and contractual entitlement.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989 and the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989 will be taken.

Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("applies") insert ("whether or not in relation to any initial stage").
The noble Lord said: I agree with the grouping of Amendment No. 1 with Amendments Nos. 44, 65

399
and 86 to 89. They run together and indeed, if the Government accept or the Committee approves the first amendment, the others will almost automatically drop into place and will be implemented. Therefore, the grouping is effective and acceptable from every point of view.
I am trying to decide whether one should say that the Bill in its present form is unique or unprecedented. It is one or the other and perhaps could be both. It is unique in the sense that the implementation of the terms of the Bill that we shall examine is left in the hands of an implementing committee made up of football leagues, an administrator, other people and to some extent the Secretary of State. The implementation is left in the hands of those other than the normal machinery which comes into operation when a Bill becomes law. I believe that that is very wise and I accept it. The problem with which this Bill endeavours to deal carries with it practical difficulties. It is very sensible that the implementation of the general terms which Parliament gives for dealing with it should be in the hands of people with practical knowledge of what it is all about and those who know how to organise thousands of people going through football turnstiles to watch a match, with the emotions which sometimes go with that.
In moving my amendments, Members of the Committee will find that I am very much in sympathy with the Bill, the way in which the Bill is drawn up and the proposals for its implementation. Having established the need, which is a matter for Parliament and Government, for regulating the entrance to football grounds on match days, the decisions as to the form of the regulation and its practical implementation should be mainly in the hands of practical people who are aware of the practical problems which arise.
In introducing this Bill to Parliament in its present form, although we have criticisms of many of the details found within it, the Government have done their duty and it is right that they should have done so. It is now for Parliament to do its duty in making the Bill as sensible and acceptable as possible consistent with doing the job which it sets out to do in the most effective way. In the absence of other people outside being able to find an answer to the problems which have arisen, I believe that the Government should be congratulated on saying that it is their duty to do something. This Bill is the result of their considerations.
Up to that point, the Government are on strong ground. They have the whole Committee and, indeed, most of the country with them on the generalities of the matter. I do not believe that anybody is unaware of the dangers of the hooliganism which is being allowed to grow. There is no argument or difference of view on that. Society has to find a way to deal with hooliganism; otherwise we shall deteriorate into anarchy and there will be such unpleasantness that life will not be able to carry on as at present. Therefore, we are all at one in wanting to deal with hooliganism.
I believe that we all agree that football crowds are not the reason why we have hooliganism. It is not
400
football matches or crowds which have caused hooliganism. Nobody says that. To try to suggest that by bringing in such a Bill we are thereby blaming the problem of hooliganism upon football matches is not the aim of anybody dealing with it. However, I believe that it is also generally accepted that, while football crowds and their management are not the reasons for hooliganism, which takes place in places unconnected with sport and in other sports, sadly, football crowds have turned out to be a magnet for an element of hooliganism—and I believe a very small element. At this stage I do not believe that anybody is oblivious of the great efforts which most of the clubs have made. Television cameras and extra facilities have in many instances been able to minimise the problem.
Therefore, we are agreed that we must do something about hooliganism. We are agreed that it is not the fault of the football clubs that we have hooliganism. We are also agreed that football crowds have turned out to be a magnet which, whatever its significance, has something to do with keeping hooliganism alive and making it worse. At this point we must start examining the Bill itself to see whether, in acknowledging what the football clubs have done, it will help or hinder the clubs in the next step that has to be taken—that is, in removing the magnetism from the magnet as regards the contribution of football crowds to hooliganism.
My amendments, running together, do not in any way interfere with the Bill. They do not give instructions as to how the implementation of this general idea has to be carried out. The Government's Bill is left almost intact. What is attempted by some of the other amendments that we shall be dealing with later is another matter. My amendments—at the opening stage of the Bill and therefore perhaps the most important—leave the Bill intact. All that my amendments propose is that the committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State, in working out whatever scheme is to be implemented, should take into account when giving advice the value of confining application of the Bill (in whatever form it is when we finish with it) to trials in a small segment of the country rather than it operating universally. Many people who should know say that the Bill is impracticable; that however good in theory it may seem, in practice it will not work. If it is tried out at a microcosm of grounds that may well produce the answer.
The Government will find that nearly all the criticisms in the innumerable amendments they have to answer during the Committee stage say that however strongly Ministers may feel that their Bill, in theory, will do the trick of removing the attraction from the magnet and that the measure may look and sound all right, in practice it will not work. The critics of the Bill say that the amendments have not been tabled out of prejudice, bias or any anti-Government feeling. Indeed, criticisms come from all parts of the Committee. I have worked in association with noble Lords who sit on all Benches. The Official Opposition, the Cross-Benches, the Liberal and the SDP Benches have all looked at this Bill. The Committee is saying that the theory may look fine, but in practice the Bill will not work.
Whose view should we accept as to whether the Bill is practically as well as theoretically possible? There are those who say, yes, let us have the Bill all at once. That is what is implied: the Bill says that it automatically becomes available for application on enactment. My amendment proposes that before that happens the Bill should be tried out in various segments. The amendments do not even spell out in detail the segments that should be chosen for trial purposes in the preliminary stages. It will be for the Committee to do that.
In suggesting to the Committee that my amendment will assist the Bill and make it more worthwhile I have to put this argument. The Government, with all the experienced civil servants who make up the department—they are good, experienced and know their work—seem to be saying that the Bill must be applied as soon as it is enacted. All the football clubs—not just a few or a majority, but all—who for years have had to cater for crowds through their turnstiles say that the Bill as it stands will not work. The practicalities of that view are there.
My amendments do not seek to alter the Bill. The movers of other amendments say that the Bill is not practicable, but if the Committee accepts my amendment we shall be in a position to say whether or not the Bill is practical before it is universally applied. We shall have had a testing on the ground. That will show whether or not the Bill will work. It seems the correct way to proceed in view of the dangers that could otherwise flow.
What are those dangers? It is not a matter of conjuring up emotive words. The people who have experience of organising crowds say that, however efficient these clever machines may be, however efficient are the people on the turnstiles in carrying out the measures within the Bill as it stands, and however efficient are the police who will be on hand to bolster the general control, if, a quarter of an hour before the match, there is a hold-up affecting those who are eager to see the match and who are emotively affected by what they think they are about to see, then the proposals in the Bill will not work. In the feeling that they are being denied what is their right the apparent hooliganism that will result from that disruption will do immense harm.
I should like to put this point. The theatre has to deal with crowds. The quality and the success of any show is always reflected by the time given to rehearsals. There is a final dress rehearsal. Previews are held to obtain reaction before the show is presented to the public. That usually indicates whether or not the show is a good one.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: May I ask the noble Lord—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may finish this point before the noble Baroness intervenes. The threatre has to deal with crowds and the previews show whether it will be a success or a failure. How many noble Lords would buy an air ticket if a new aeroplane had not had a test flight first? How many
402
noble Lords who have gone through military training of any sort have not had the instruction that time spent on reconnaissance is seldom, if ever, wasted? All that my amendments do—they do not interfere with the Bill—is to suggest or to give an indication to the Committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State that in working out the scheme that they have in mind for implementing the Bill they try it out in segments, as a rehearsal, before applying it throughout the country.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I am seeking information. I am prepared to admit that I am probably slow on the uptake. If the noble Lord's amendment is carried can he tell me whether it will mean that no Bill shall come into force unless it is first tried out in segments and that it will not apply to the country as a whole?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My amendment does not go that far. I thought about that. When I first decided that this was a Bill to which I should pay attention, my first inclination was to do that. I wanted to write into the Bill that it should be tried out in the first or second divisions. If I had tried to do that through my amendment the Bill would not have remained as it is. It would have become a hybrid Bill by sectionalising the people who would be affected by it.
The suggestion to which the noble Baroness referred passed through my mind. It was not a bad idea but it would have altered the nature of the Bill and slowed it up. It would have made it more difficult for the Government and I do not want to do that. I do not wish to delay the time in which something can be done to deal with hooliganism.
I expect some sympathetic response from my noble friend on the Front Bench and I hope that he sees the point of my amendments. The committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State will alone have the power to decide what shall be done. My amendments insist that when other considerations are taken into account they bear in mind the possibilities of the advantages by applying the regulations in sections. If they with their special knowledge and all the information that they will receive from their inquiries say, "It is a nonsense and we believe that these measures should be implemented together and it would cause harm to do otherwise" then I am not altering their powers.
My proposal is to use the knowledge of Members of the Committee and those in another place because many of us have dealings with football clubs. We have seen them built up and we know of the problems at the turnstiles and the difficulties in dealing with crowds. We are not telling the Government what to do; we are merely saying that when they decide what should be done under the Bill we want them seriously to take into account whether applying it in sections would not be safer and better.
It is really an insurance policy. How many Members of the Committee have not insured something or other of their possessions? These measures are merely to try to provide insurance against the practicalities proving insuperable though

403
the theory looks all right. This is insurance and I believe that the committee, the administrator and the Secretary of State would be wise to follow that course. It is no more than that. My noble friend cannot suggest for one moment that with any of my amendments I am wishing to alter the Bill as it now stands. I am not taking anything out; I am not removing any powers and I am not insisting that they use any new powers. I am merely saying that the Government should accept the guidance and should take seriously into account the good sense of having a rehearsal before they put on the show.
I could refer to the details of my amendments but that will take up time and other Members of the Committee wish to make a contribution. I ask noble Lords to take my word that if they read the words of my amendments they will find that they mean what I have just said and no more and no less. Everyone who has to run football matches has said that the practicalities are as I have described them. We should take the precaution of taking out an insurance policy. I hope that, when my amendments are put to the Committee and if my noble friend has not already accepted them, these remarks will give him the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Mellish: I support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I declare at once that in my view this is not a party political matter. I beg all Members of the Committee clearly to understand that. This Bill is about the best interest of football. It has nothing to do with the Conservative or Labour parties or the Liberal Democrats or whatever they call themselves. This Bill is about football and what is best for the clubs.
As I understand the Bill at the moment, it is to bring in a national membership scheme in which every single club in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Divisions will have to comply whether it likes it or not. That is the Bill as it now stands. What this series of amendments is proposing is that we agree with that part of the Bill that sets up a specialist committee that will implement the Government's proposals. We are saying that that specialist committee shall have certain considerations before it prior to implementing a national membership scheme. That is all that we are saying.
We are not denying the Bill. I do not deny that there is hooliganism at football matches and I never have done so. I am president of Millwall Football Club and I know something about hooligans. I know more than enough. But the truth of the situation is that we have to get down to basic hard facts. No club has tried harder than my own to eradicate hooliganism. It has spent a fortune and it has been eradicated. The club has dozens and dozens of police and crowds of people watching everything that is going on. I speak as one with a great deal of personal knowledge. It is not true to say that every game is full of hooliganism. It used to be but it is not so now. For example, last week, Barnsley, which is not a notable team to many people—
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I beg your pardon!
Lord Mellish: I appreciate that it is to the noble Lord, Lord Mason. Barnsley played Everton and there were 32,000 people there. I imagine that it was the biggest crowd that they have had for a long time. The Minister may be interested to know that there was not a single incident at the game, and that was achieved without the provisions of this Bill. I am saying to the Committee that the Bill should not be applied to every single club in the four divisions. It would be mad to do so. You cannot say to clubs like Crewe, Darlington and Hartlepool and other smaller clubs, "Whether you like it or not you are to have a national membership scheme". We have tabled these amendments to enable the Government to think about the terms of reference that they will give to the specialist committee.
My parliamentary experience tells me that if the Government Front Bench has decided, whether we like it or not, that this Bill is to become the law of the land then I am wasting my time and I do not know why I am speaking. I do not know why these amendments are to be moved or why anything should be said on this side of the Committee. That is why I began by saying that this is not a party political matter. Will the Minister please get that into his brain—I almost said "thick head"—but I would not dream of saying that. The fact is that the Bill affects all of us; it concerns all clubs and the vast majority of them do not deserve it.
There are top clubs such as Liverpool and Arsenal which will take the Bill in their stride. They will have no trouble in implementing a national membership scheme. But I believe that the Crewes and Hartlepools of this world and the rest of the tiny clubs at the bottom who form the backbone of football, will find it impossible. I wonder whether Members of the Committee realise that the vast majority of support for clubs comes from what is called casual support. For example, if Leyton Orient win away, which is fairly rare, it gets about 500 extra people at the next home game. Those supporters are called casuals. The average attendance of Leyton Orient which is a Fourth Division team, is about 2,000 to 2,500. It is being suggested that it should be told "Whether you like it or not you are to have a national membership scheme. You have got to be in it in the same way as Arsenal and Liverpool and the rest". I say that is rubbish and absolute nonsense. This measure cannot be applied to all the clubs. They do not know what hooliganism is about and they have never heard of it. Such clubs may have read about it concerning Chelsea but it is nothing to do with them.
The Government are saying that every club should conform. I support the amendment on that principle and that basis. I do not quarrel with the Bill and the Government's intentions. I readily accept Part II of the Bill which is to control the characters who go overseas. I do not deny, and have never done so, that there is hooliganism in the game and it has to be eradicated. I was asked by a very distinguished noble Lord "What will happen if your plans go through and some clubs try the experiment? Will not some of the gangs go to other clubs?" I do not believe that that will happen. I do not believe that the so-called organised gangs will ever bother the Leytons of this world because their football is so lousy.
Lord Underhill: I beg your pardon!
Lord Mellish: That is the truth. It is all about football. The Government are making a general sweep. I do not suppose that these villainous gangs will go up to Hartlepool and muck them about. I ask noble Lords to agree with me that this is not a party political matter. Secondly, will they agree with me that this specialist committee should be established in such a form that it can introduce a trial scheme? Let it be applied to those clubs where it is needed but not to the vast majority of clubs which have nothing to do with hooliganism and should not have the Bill imposed on them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On these Benches we very much appreciate the manner in which the two prime movers of the amendment have sought to engage the attention and support of the Committee. I join them in saying that we are desperately anxious to deal with the problem at a football level and not at a party political level. That is a genuinely held view. Many noble Lords will have come to the Chamber today to hear the arguments. I very much hope that when they come to vote, whether on this amendment or on the others, they will acknowledge that there is a problem to be tackled. On that point, there is literally no dispute in this Chamber, in another place or in the country.
We have a dispute about how it is to be tackled and in what manner the scheme is to be imposed. Having heard the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Mellish, speak, I cannot believe that there can be a more gentle way of examining the seriousness of the Government's intentions. The Government are being invited to accept that lessons must be learnt before the whole panoply of the Bill is visited upon football. As I said at Second Reading, the Minister has his own store of unique experiences as a former director of a football club. He must be proud of the fact that at that level he is more closely in touch with the realities of football than many. Members of the Committee. However, he is not alone. Other Members of the Committee can bring their experience to these matters.
We must listen carefully to the Football Association, the Football League, the clubs, the police, the supporters and other organised groups. They have told us of their fear of what could happen. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that we should see whether the system will work. The Committee has been well served because there have been two demonstrations in Committee rooms upstairs of the manner in which the football membership scheme will operate. One was a computerised scheme and the other scheme, presented by a concern called Check-In, does not rely on computers but operates in a different way.
The Committee needs to be aware of some of the pitfalls. The Minister for Sport has said more than once that he will not bring in a scheme until he is satisfied that it will work. However, we all know that we are not talking about one piece of machinery or about something that can be adjusted. We are talking about what happens at ten minutes to three or at five minutes past three on a Saturday afternoon, not just
406
at one football ground but at perhaps 30 football grounds. That is when the provisions of the Bill will stand or fall.
Perhaps I may be allowed to tell the Committee what has happened in practice. The Minister has said that we have already had the experiment—the experiment was at Luton. We are told that because Luton works, it is a good blueprint. Luton has little relevance to the Bill. The Luton scheme specifically excludes away-fans. If we are thinking in terms of the Luton scheme writ large in the Bill, that means banning away-fans. However they are dealt with, we are talking about two different things.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee what Plymouth Argyle has told us and the football world about its attempt to have an experiment:
"In March 1986 the Second Division club embraced with enthusiasm the principle of entry by identity card, commissioning Aquix to implement a 50 per cent. membership scheme at Home Park. The intention was to introduce controlled access to all sections of the ground well ahead of the Government's proposed deadline. Instead the scheme has been abandoned as unworkable with Aquix writing off nearly £19,000 of their invoice for £60,000. Cliff Hartley, the Plymouth director responsible for crowd control, said 'We thought the Aquix system was just what we were looking for and we went for the full package, exactly what the Government is insisting we should all have. They told me everything would be handled by their computer, not just card reading at the gate but season ticket sales and turnstile returns, everything. It never worked. The card readers supposed to reject and exclude known troublemakers were faulty and a second lot were impracticable. At several matches I had to say to the turnstile operators 'Forget it, let them all through'. There were massive queues and that was with gates of only 8,000."
Members of the Committee need not listen to me saying what I think will happen. I am inviting them to listen to what the man in charge of Plymouth Argyle said did happen. I am not even saying that that will happen at all matches. I am saying that that happened in his experience over a number of matches.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee what has happened at the grounds which attract crowds of around 38,000. There are not many but they are part of the picture. Last November I was on my way home from this place. I normally travel by Clissold Park and go through Arsenal territory. At about 7.30 or 8 p.m., I came upon thick traffic around Green Lanes. The roads were full of cars. It took me a long time to manoeuvre. I could not understand why at 8 p.m. the roads were crowded. I realised afterwards what had happened. Arsenal were playing at home to Liverpool. The traffic had gradually been pushed out and instead of the match starting at 7.30 it was delayed until 7.45 in order to let the fans in. My report says:
"Because of the crush the start was delayed by a quarter of an hour but thousands, including ticket holders, were still struggling to get in when the game began. In spite of this everybody remained good humoured. Add the nuisance of computerised turnstiles to the situation and the mood might have become ugly. One piece of strategically placed chewing gum could well gum up the works".
Computers, as travel agents, air traffic controllers and newspaper sub-editors know, have a habit of breaking down when they are most needed.
We are asking the Government this: "Are you prepared to listen to the voice of experience? Are you prepared to say to the Football Association and the Football League—which are the prime administrators of football in this country and which in any guise will be the football membership

407
authority, either enlarged or added to; they will be the people concerned and are the people who have expressed their displeasure—that there is a need to ensure that the scheme will work in practice?"
I say to the Minister with all due candour that we are concerned about getting the matter right and not about getting it quick, even if it means that there must be some delay. Moreover, although the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that the amendment was not designed to delay, if the idea is taken on board it will delay complete implementation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said, on the same day as Arsenal and Liverpool have to carry this scheme out, who is talking about imposing it on the tiny clubs?
Is this not something which deserves to be worked in gradually? Perhaps by working it in gradually the other lessons will be learnt. Quite frankly, I believe that there will be some wrinkles which can be ironed out. The answer which will come forward is that there may be powers. If the Arsenal situation happens again and those concerned suddenly find that they must let the fans in, then subsequent amendments in the Bill are designed to give a police officer and the football club powers to do so. However, you do not have to do that; you must be able to take your courage in both hands.
Before I sit down I say this to the Minister. This is the first opportunity upon which he and his colleagues can indicate to the Committee, and the other place, and, indeed, millions of fans outside this place, that their ideas are not set in stone, that they are prepared to listen to the voice of experience and that they are prepared to come some way towards those who, like myself, intensely dislike the concept of an ID card.
However, if the Government are not prepared to accept what is a modest amendment, modestly moved, the implication of which can be taken on board very gently, and if the Minister and his advisers are not prepared to move even in that way, this Chamber may be in some difficulty, not only on this amendment but on many others. It does not have to be like that. What we want is a manifest sign from the Government through the Minister that they are prepared to listen and to learn.
Lord Wolfson: I support the aims of the Bill but I share the practical reservations expressed by the noble Lord who so ably moved the amendment. I especially agree that there should be a phasing-in process and that there should be a selective approach. I am rather concerned about certain aspects which I hope Members of the Committee will allow me to mention briefly. Indeed, I am sure that I am not alone in my concern.
First, I am not clear why all age groups must be included when most of the hooliganism is coming from a very small group of youngsters. Secondly, what are the fall-back arrangements in the event of equipment failure? Thirdly, what arrangements are proposed to combat violence in the street, which could easily arise, as has already been mentioned? Fourthly, what arrangements are proposed for international games and cup finals?
408
Finally, the position of small clubs has been made very clear. However, what is the position of casual or foreign visitors? After all, you cannot tell someone coming from our European partners or elsewhere that they cannot get into the ground because they are not a member when they are not aware of how to become one.
The question of late arrival has also been mentioned. I am unhappy about how that will be dealt with. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take such matters into account and possibly rethink some of them in order to come forward perhaps with some compromise proposals.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must confess that before I came here today I had no doubt in my mind that I should support the amendment. However, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I begin to wonder whether I should. I wonder whether by supporting it I should be wasting my time. In his opening remarks he seemed to be trying to persuade people like myself who are opposed to the Bill that the amendment meant something: before the Government embarked on the whole panoply of a membership scheme, they would have to bring in a pilot scheme. That was my understanding of the amendent before I heard what he said.
However, during his speech the noble Lord seemed to be saying to the Government, "Look here, this amendment really won't hurt your Bill at all; it won't matter if we pass the amendment, because your Bill will not be injured". Quite clearly, if we passed the amendment and if he had convinced me that it meant something, it would be bound to hurt the Bill, if only by delaying its application. But, as I understand it from the remarks he made, even if we pass the amendment all the Government have to say is, "Well, we have considered your proposal and we throw it aside". Then the whole process as outlined in the Bill will continue. I do not wish to delay a vote if there is to be one, so I shall sit down. No doubt at a later stage the noble Lord can explain to me whether I am right in my assumptions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I freely admit that I am no expert at all on football. But having listened to the discussion on the amendment I cannot help wondering whether those who have spoken have made themselves absolutely clear to the Committee. Indeed, we have been talking about the amendment for 43 minutes. It seems to me that it is simply saying, "We do not like the Bill; we want a pilot scheme and we consider that that is what the Government should have".
My understanding of public feeling on this issue is that it is a serious law and order matter. People are extremely worried about what is going on at football matches. Moreover, the Government feel that they have a duty to ask clubs to do something about the situation. If a pilot scheme is all that is wanted, and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said, it is a matter for football and not for the Government, why have the clubs not been able to do something already? It is because they have not been able to do anything about it that the Bill has been introduced. In my view,

409
whatever my noble friend says, the amendment is saying "We don't want the Bill'. It is a wrecking amendment and I shall not support it.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: Pehaps I may just say a word or two at this point. We have heard a great deal of discussion this afternoon and I do not think, with respect, that it has addressed the point which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was making. In my view we are not discussing whether this is a good Bill or a bad Bill in this regard; we are discussing something which I think is a wrecking amendment and which, if it were carried, would wreck the Bill. It would do that simply because, as I understand it, the proposal is that whatever scheme is ultimately decided upon, it should be carried out in sections.
In the first place I think that that proposal is nonsense. I say that because if you are discussing rough play or hooliganism, it is not confined to any particular division; it might be in any of the divisions. It is not feasible to suggest that any scheme which might be agreed upon should be applied sectionally. Indeed, I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. I remember the Minister saying in his winding-up speech that he would not be prepared to adopt a scheme which had not proved technically feasible. I asked him about that because I think it is a very important aspect.
I suggest that if we vote for a scheme at the end of the day, it must be one that the Government have guaranteed will be technologically possible. I think that any scheme would be wrecked if it had to be carried out in sections. Therefore, if my interpretation is right, I too shall vote against the amendment.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I am a supporter of the Bill, but I believe that it should be confined to certain age groups; and we shall come to an amendment on that point later. However, that is not the point upon which I wish to address the Committee now. There was a nasty incident on a train last night between some Tranmere Rovers fans and some others. I forget the name of the football club. If the scheme applied only to, let us say, Plymouth Argyle and Manchester United, I cannot see how it would have any effect on the Tranmere Rovers fans and the other fans who were having a punch-up on the train. If we are going to apply the scheme—there may be better arguments for not applying it, but I do not happen to agree with them—surely we should apply it universally to those people who are liable to take part in the mayhem and violence.
I should like my noble friend to discover whether any people other than young men are involved in this type of trouble. If they are not, we should like to know at a later stage. On the whole, I am against the amendment and I shall support my noble friend in the Lobby.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The temptation to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls,
410
makes it irresistible for me to intervene briefly in the debate. I must declare an interest because I have been a life-long supporter of Cardiff City and Chelsea.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the Committee for that support. I was at Chelsea a week or so ago. Chelsea won 3–2, although Swindon, their adversaries, had scored four goals. The Committee can work out how that happened.
A few weeks previously I was at Cardiff City. There was no trouble at either of those matches because of the organisation that had been developed. I must declare a further interest. I hold a perhaps unique position in this place because for seven or eight years after coming down from Cambridge I was a Football Association referee. If there is any other Member of this place who was a Football Association referee, I should like to join him in one of the hospitality arrangements that we have in this place to talk over past events.
When I became a referee I was told by a distinguished headmaster of a great school that whenever a player suggests to a referee that one's parents are not married because of something one may have missed or done in the course of refereeing, one should take no notice. If he says it a second time, speak to him. If he says it a third time, treat him roughly. When I was refereeing in the then Isthmian League down at Plough Lane a fullback did that. On the third occasion that he referred to my ancestry quite improperly, I gave a free kick against him for ungentlemanly conduct. As a result a goal was scored against his team. I expected to be roughed up and mobbed by the team because a goal had been scored after I had given a free kick. Not at all. That team's players mobbed him and told him to keep his mouth shut while I was refereeing.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful for that applause, because in the course of discussions on the Bill the players' attitude has not been adequately mentioned. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, because when we were at an international conference in Paris he said something against my party. He was then in the other place and so I asked him what his majority was. He said that he had a majority of three and so I told him that I would soon sort that out. I said that I would get a Liberal to stand against him. As a result, the noble Lord is in this place. I hope that the Committee will not hold that against me on this occasion. I support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, because he is talking practical common sense. As he said, all he is saying is that the amendment provides a kind of insurance policy and that is all. I hope that all Members of the Committee will support him on this occasion.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a remark which deserves to be challenged. He referred to the set-to between

411
Liverpool and Tranmere supporters. That was nothing to do with a football match. It took place outside the ground. Liverpool and Tranmere are not in the same division. The incident was an indication of the general hooliganism and violence that occur outside grounds. It concerns us all, but it has nothing to do with football.
Lord Mishcon: I knew that we had a great deal to be grateful for in respect of the presence in this place of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I had not realised that he was responsible for the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, being here. If there were a division of support for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on that matter I am not quite sure how the voting would go. I hope that it would be in support of him.
I wonder whether in the presence of the right reverend Prelate I might quote what the Almighty said through one of his prophets:
"Come, let us reason together".
I should like to do that now, because otherwise the Committee may gain a wrong impression of the amendment and the way to vote.
Anyone who tried to propose a wrecking amendment would not be in consonance with the traditions of this place. The Bill was announced in the gracious Speech and properly, in accordance with our traditions, received a Second Reading. A Second Reading means that one agrees with the principle of the Bill. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that silly party partisanship will not enter into this matter because we should be failing in our duty if that actuated our minds, especially on this amendment.
We are trying to see that the measure goes through this place with dignity and propriety and in conformity with the principles of accepting the Bill. I note with great respect the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course on Second Reading some of us expressed the doubts that he has expressed, and the matters must be covered. We will come to them in Committee. He was right, if I may say so, to point out some of them. The amendment has nothing to do with such issues except possibly to cover all the difficulties that there might be.
I have heard so often, as the Committee has, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have heard him say that the reason for having statutory instruments in legislation is so that, without putting forward an amending Bill, this place can feel sure that it has kept its sense in legislating by allowing flexibility.
The principle of the national identity card is not in front of us. We are dealing with an identity card for members of football clubs which are designated under the Bill. That principle, for the purpose of the amendment, must be accepted. Many of us, perfectly properly, want flexibility in this sense: we want to see whether the police were right or wrong in their fears; we want to see that no mistakes are made and therefore we say, "Accept the principle of the Bill. Do not legislate in mandatory terms so that the committee, the administrator or the Secretary of State has to do something. Merely point out that he has a duty to consider something".
412
When has this House objected to somebody considering something in legislation? When? I can think of no example where we should have stood up and made valiant speeches saying, "We don't want the Secretary of State to consider something. We don't want an administrator to do so." We have never had an administrator before, we are going to appoint one but we do not say, "We don't want him to consider something". Nor do we say, "We have never had this committee before but we do not want it to have on its agenda to consider something".
All this does is to say in the legislation, "You may come to a contrary view. You may decide that it is not sensible to limit this to the First Division in the first stage and the Second Division in the second stage or to separate it into divisions. You may come to that view and if so, God bless you; you have considered it." All we are saying is: for the sake of flexibility and so that we do not make a cardinal error in carrying out a scheme which we have never had before but the principle of which we are admitting for the purpose of this amendment, please consider it. If the Almighty can say:
"Come, let us reason together",
cannot we also?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke as a referee.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: An ex-referee.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I speak as an ex-member of staff of a Football League club. Among other things I was also a referee of both codes, along with the husband of the present Prime Minister. I wish to answer directly the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In doing so, I wish to bring to the attention of the House an incident even more recent than that quoted by my noble friend Lord Graham. He spoke of what happened outside and in the neighbourhood of the Arsenal ground last November. I wish to refer your Lordships to what happened at Old Trafford, a club with which I have been familiar for the past 60 years. This happened just two weeks ago. It is an answer to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and also a warning of what can and very likely will happen. It is what many of the police fear will happen if consideration is not given to the way in which the Bill is applied.
Manchester United were playing Queens Park Rangers at an evening match with a 7.30 kick-off. Before the match started, the police asked the management of Manchester United to close all the turnstiles. At Old Trafford there were 92 turnstiles and outside there were 8,000 to 10,000 people. The crowd inside was reduced by that number and there was absolute chaos around the Old Trafford area. Traffic snarled up and there were crowds of people milling around.
Just consider what would have been the position if, in addition to the crowding of the area with fans going to the game, there had also been hold-ups at the turnstiles. I suggest—and this is where I am in opposition to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and the belief of the police is that in those circumstances there

413
would have been mayhem. That would have had nothing to do with football. It would have been mayhem among supporters who were not inside the ground, who had not had anything to do with the ID cards. It would have been mayhem because there would have been a crush of people at the turnstiles and outside, infuriated by their inability to get into the ground.
The incident which took place on Saturday night between Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers fans had nothing to do with football. If the people who were involved had had ID cards, it would not have stopped the fights on the train. That was where the violence occurred.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and his co-signatories to the amendment because unless an opportunity is given for the experiment to be tried out, however it is decided to try it out, and unless there is a pilot scheme, I fear that when it comes into operation in something like 40 to 50 grounds every Saturday afternoon, there will be real mayhem right across the country. That will have nothing to do with football but will result from the frustration of fans who are held up outside the grounds.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek to make mandatory the phased introduction of the membership scheme.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hesketh: They would make it a requirement on the Football Membership Authority to investigate and report to the Secretary of State on ways of achieving this. Amendment No. 65 would provide that, as part of this process, the Football Membership Authority would have to examine basing the phased introduction of the scheme on the criteria of ground capacity, present club membership and average attendance at home games over the past three seasons. Amendment No. 88 makes trials mandatory. Amendment No. 89 would require the Football Membership Authority to look at the desirability and feasibility of implementing the scheme in the Football League in four stages beginning with Division One clubs and ending with Division Four clubs. This would have to be done before the provisions in Part I of the Bill could take effect. Indeed, as they are drafted they would appear to make no provision for Part I of the Bill ever to come into effect.
Let me deal with two concerns which I believe lie behind the noble Lord's amendments. Noble Lords have expressed concern about whether the technology involved in the scheme will work in practice and about the possibility that the scheme might be introduced before the equipment has been tried and tested. We do not need to introduce complicated phasing arrangements to address these concerns. The Government have already made it clear that the key issue in settling the timetable for introduction is the need to be satisfied about the availability of the right technology. We shall not
414
implement the scheme until we are satisfied that it will work effectively and efficiently. We accept that this means that the equipment will need to be tested at individual clubs before the scheme is implemented in full. Indeed we understand that the football authorities have it in mind to test equipment available from alternative suppliers before making their choice about the supplier they think should be awarded the contract. They may test different types of equipment in one ground for the sake of comparison. To take the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, we are not intending that anyone should have to buy a ticket on an aeroplane that has not been on a test flight.
Concern has been expressed about equipment failure. It is clearly essential that the technology to be employed should be robust. Many noble Lords will have had the opportunity to see the GEC demonstration arranged in this House before our Second Reading debate. One of the features of that system is that the readers are independent of one another. The readers are those pieces of equipment over which a membership card should pass. So if one of the readers failed it would not mean that the whole system would break down. Nor is there any need for the individual readers to be linked to some single great computer.
We should also bear in mind that the technology and experience of running membership schemes is not new to football. Some 90 of the 92 clubs run membership schemes, backed by a range of technology, some of it advanced. Of course, the national membership scheme will make new demands on the technology but much has already been learnt about the conditions of use and about membership cards in match-day conditions. It is simply not the case that this experience is new to football. I have no doubt that the football authorities and the Football Membership Authority will draw on this experience in the implementation process. As soon as the equipment has been chosen, individual clubs will be able to begin testing it at their own grounds.
The other concern that I believe exists is that of the financial impact of the scheme on smaller clubs. There are fears that the scheme will impose a financial burden on clubs and that they might lose support. But there is no good reason to believe that the scheme will have an adverse financial impact on clubs, even the smallest clubs. A number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to clubs or supporters. Even without commercial development, a leading company has said it could put the scheme in place at a cost to the member of about £3 per annum. This is less than many clubs charge for admission to one match now. If the football authorities and the clubs take a positive approach to marketing the scheme, financing it will not be a problem and it will produce income to football. It will not be a cost upon football.
On attendances, the scheme brings with it the real prospect of attracting back to the game the many tens of thousands of spectators who have been lost to it because of hooliganism or the threat of it. The hooligan problem has been endemic since the 1960s and during that period support for the game has fallen dramatically—from a total attendance at

415
league and cup matches of 35 million in 1967 to 1968 to 21 million last season. Hooliganism has been a major factor in this decline in support. There is a real chance of getting many of these fans back into the grounds. Surely it is in the interest of clubs to take a positive attitude to the scheme and seize this chance.
The hooligan problem is not confined to Divisions One and Two of the Football League. There is trouble too at matches played in the Third and Fourth Division. The opening of the last league season was scarred by the ugly scenes at the Scarborough versus Wolverhampton Wanderers Division Four match. Wolverhampton's away fixtures continue to be subject to all ticket restrictions.
Sadly, there is much more recent evidence of the problems which can occur in the lower divisions. Today's press carries reports of a clash on the Intercity Newcastle to Liverpool train between Tranmere fans returning from a York versus Tranmere Division Four match and Liverpool fans travelling back from their cup tie at Barnsley.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope very much that the noble Lord will not make generalised statements about hooliganism or violence in the lower divisions. He must be aware that on 10th January 1989 in response to Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Douglas Hogg stated in a Written Answer in another place that in Division Four there had been 543 arrests up to 31st October 1988. Yet when my honourable friend Mr. Pendry challenged those figures on 2nd February 1989, Mr. Hogg replied in a Written Answer:
"Following my reply of 10 January, ACPO was informed of a substantial error in the return from one police force".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/89; col. 389.
So the Minister needs to be very careful before he pleads in aid statistics which are often found to be erroneous.
Lord Hesketh: I am not referring to statistics. I am referring to what I and many millions of other people saw on television news last night. Fighting broke out soon after the train left Manchester Victoria Station. The train was extensively damaged and the British Transport Police have set up an inquiry. The argument that the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League are unaffected by hooliganism simply does not stand up. If the national membership scheme had been in place, anyone who may be convicted following those incidents would lose his or her membership and be unable to attend future matches. The scheme is relevant to incidents of this kind.
I have another concern about the concept of phasing the introduction of the scheme. It could create the danger of displacing hooligans from clubs in the scheme to those outside it during the phasing process. That was the view of all the members of the Minister for Sport's working party which reviewed the principles of the scheme last summer.
Many Members of the Committee have said that this Bill is not political. It is not a political Bill; it is a Bill which has been introduced because the football authorities felt it was impossible to introduce a
416
voluntary scheme. The Bill has been introduced in response to an urgent problem. The Bill is based on the views of the experts who were in the Minister for Sport's working party. I have explained why I believe that phasing is unnecessary and unhelpful.
Lord Mellish: How can the Minister say that when practically every football club and all the police authorities are against this present scheme? That is rubbish!
Lord Hesketh: I believe that what I have just said is not rubbish. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have one or two questions to ask on the basis of what the Minister has just said. The Minister referred to the working party and the very distinguished members who served on it. I have no doubt that the members were deeply distinguished; but can the Minister explain to me why none of the names of those members has been disclosed? The working party's report, published by the noble Lord's own department, gives no names of the group of people who made the recommendation. I find that one of the more surprising things about the report.
If the Minister will forgive me saying so, a number of specific points have been put to him by Members of the Committee in various parts of the Chamber, not least the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Mellish. I did not hear the Minister on a single occasion refer to a point which had been made in the debate. I hope he will change his style during the rest of our discussions.
Lord Hesketh: With regard to the question of names of members of the working party, it was composed of the organisations who after all are the important parties representing the clubs, and various other interested parties. These included the Football Association, the Football League, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the Minister take on board the fact that both the Football Association and the Football League stated at No. 10 Downing Street that they were opposed to an identity card scheme? As recently as 1st February this year, in response to a letter from the Minister for Sport, those bodies said they had grave reservations about the efficacy of the Bill. Nevertheless, they said they would work with the Government. So the Minister needs to be very careful about spreading around the rumour that people who are opposed to the Bill, but who are members of a working party, are tarred and feathered with the outcome of that report.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have never been more puzzled by a government reply than I was by the reply of my noble friend. I have only one complaint. The noble Lord's opening words were so long. He said that my amendment made it mandatory that certain things would have to be done. He heard that I was chastised by Members on the Benches opposite because we had not made the provisions mandatory.

417
I made it crystal clear—the words of the amendment itself will confirm that—that to try and make the provision mandatory would have made this a hybrid Bill which would have meant that it could not go through the normal procedures. It was because we wanted to avoid the amendments being in the nature of wrecking the Bill that that line was not on. I hope that if my noble friend impressed anyone with his opening words, they will discount them now.
What puzzled me was that my noble friend then went on in his speech, in examining what had been said, to say that he agreed with all of the things that I claimed that my amendment would do. He said that the Government had undertaken to carry out pilot schemes to see whether the scheme worked. He further said that the Government had undertaken to carry out tests before the scheme was implemented throughout the Football League to ensure that the scheme was suitable.
The only reason that my amendment is now more essential than ever, in view of my noble friend's speech, is to make sure that what the Minister said the Government intended to do in any case will be done. All that my amendment will achieve is to make certain that the football committee that has to decide this matter, the administrator who will be appointed, and the Secretary of State who will designate all this, will take into account, in some form or another, the very problems that my noble friend said the Government are very keen to see tackled. The nature of the reply means that if the amendment is not accepted by the Government we must see as a Chamber that that sort of message is taken into account. It gives me no joy; nor, I am certain, does it give my noble friends on this side any joy for the Committee to have to defeat the Government. It gives me no joy again to have reported, in the press, "The Lords defeat the Government on a major matter of interest to the nation". But, in view of the speech of my noble friend, we have that duty.
I know that we on this side of the Committee—I do not know about the other side—have what is known as a strong two-line Whip. I should like to explain to noble friends, who are not as fully acquainted with parliamentary procedure as some of us who have been at it for 39 to 40 years, that the Whip is not an instruction on how to vote. The Whip is for the government of the day, very properly, to indicate how important they think is the measure under discussion. Once we have obeyed their Whip and attended, so recognising the importance of the debate, it is for us as individuals—in the light of the debate, in the light of the arguments, and in the light of the facts—to say how we use our attendance. On this occasion, having listened to the arguments and having examined the amendments as they stand on the Marshalled List, and putting those considerations alongside the very puzzling response of my noble friend on behalf of the Government, I think we should go into the Lobby to say in the kindest, most sensible way that we think the Government would be well advised to allow Parliament—and this Chamber in particular today—to provide them with some strength for what they have in any case said they want to do.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down I should just like to say, in spite of the perfectly reasonable views held to the contrary, that before we vote against the Government we ought to realise how very strongly people outside this Chamber feel about football hooliganism. They are fed up to the back teeth with people creating mayhem and rioting; they want something done. That is why I intend to vote for the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Earl expresses his view in the form of a question to me. I should like to say that if he examines his life style and mine, both before we came to the House and he will find that I am just as likely to know the feelings of the rank and file people of this country as he is.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amherst, E.

Hughes, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hunt, L.

Attlee, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Auckland, L.

Ilchester, E.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Banks, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brain, L.

Kennet, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Derwent, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ennals, L.

Mellish, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mersey, V.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monson, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nelson, E.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Northfield, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Gregson, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Haddington, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hampton, L.

Porritt, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rathcreedan, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Reilly, L.

Hayter, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rochester, L.

419

Russell, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Seear, B.

Trafford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Underhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

White, B.

Soper, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stedman, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wise, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Knights, L.

Beloff, L.

Knutsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Luke, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brightman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Camden, M.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cockfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Croft, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dundee, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles, V.

Pennock, L.

Effingham, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Erne, E.

Rodney, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rollo, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thurlow, L.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Westbury, L.

Joseph, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should immediately declare an interest. I am president of the Cardiff City Football Club and I am very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that he is a supporter of the club. Looking at the speeches made at Second Reading, I was astonished that there was clearly no case whatever made out for including Wales in the Bill.
Moving the Second Reading, the Minister referred just once to Welsh people. He then went on to talk about preventing convicted hooligans from travelling to English matches abroad. A little later, he referred to the disgraceful scenes involving so-called English football supporters. In the Second Reading debate, there are constant references to "the English disease" and the shame that English Members of your Lordships' House felt at the frequent news about the way in which English football supporters abroad behaved.
As I understand it, this Bill is aimed primarily at the 92 clubs in the Football League. The result of my amendment, if it succeeds, will merely take three clubs out of the Bill; namely, Swansea City Football Club, Cardiff City Football Club and Wrexham Football Club. Until very recently, there were four Welsh clubs in the Football League. Unfortunately, for financial reasons, Newport County has left the league. I am not sure of the result of today's court proceedings, but we may well hear the unfortunate news that Newport County Football Club has disappeared altogether.
It may not be well known in England that, although the results of the three league teams that I have mentioned are carefully studied each Saturday evening by Welsh football supporters, it is not the most important competition for soccer supporters in Wales. The most important competition is the Welsh Cup. It is the most important competition because the winners of the Welsh Cup automatically enter the European Cup Winners' Cup. Two seasons ago, the whole of Wales was rooting for Merthyr Town to beat the famous Italian Team, Atalanta. Unfortunately, it did not win, but to tell you that Merthyr was in the European Cup Winners' Cup gives some idea of the vast difference between soccer in England and soccer in Wales. The three league clubs that I mentioned strive very hard to win the Welsh Cup, which puts Wales on the international scene.
The draw for the 1989 Welsh Cup semi-finals has been made and little Barry Town in South Glamorgan has been drawn against what may seem a soccer giant in Swansea City. Quite frankly, knowing the rivalry between Cardiff and Swansea—I might add that it is friendly rivalry—I hope that Barry will beat Swansea, reach the final, win and play in European Cup football.
There is a reference in the Second Reading debate to Scotland not being included in the Bill. As I understand it, it has not been included in the Bill because it is already in Europe. So is Wales; Wales is

421
in Europe. I wonder whether what will happen to those three Welsh clubs if they are included in this Bill is generally realised. Obviously, it will mean that the very small gates that they now have—between 4,000 and 5,000 and sometimes even fewer at their league games—will almost certainly drive them to the wall. Swansea escaped bankruptcy very recently almost at the doors of the bankruptcy court. It has dragged itself up by its bootstraps.
I also see a reference in the Second Reading debate to Cardiff City being offered £100,000 for one of its players and there was a suggestion that there must therefore be plenty of money in the game. It is true that that money was offered and the offer was in fact accepted last week. It was accepted because Cardiff City, like many other clubs with attendances of 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000, cannot continue in professional football unless it occasionally sells a player. However, if this scheme is imposed on clubs they will be in dire financial straits.
There is another dimension with regard to Wales—the international matches that are played back home. The Committee may remember that England and Scotland no longer play Northern Ireland and Wales in the home championships. I think that that was a disgraceful decision. As I understand it, with regard to England, the decision was taken because the English Football Association has a contract with Wembley under which all England's home games should be played at Wembley. Why on earth England and Wales cannot play each other at Anfield or Hillsborough is beyond me. It would be an evangelical way of letting the people of the north and other parts of England see their national team play. It would also help the finances of Welsh and Northern Ireland soccer.
All the evidence is that, when Wales plays at home, particularly at Ninian Park in Cardiff, it is not in the main the supporters of Cardiff City, Swansea and Wrexham who buy the tickets. It is the people from mid-Wales and from the rural areas. That is the evidence that we have. What will happen to them? In the normal course of events these people would not join a membership scheme because they are not in an area where Football League is played. Will they be banned from watching Wales play, say, West Germany in the European Nations Cup at Ninian Park? That would be the effect.
I see no justification whatever for including Wales in the Bill. It would mean excluding three league clubs from the scheme. As I understood it, a number of Members of the Committee opposite, supported the Government on the last amendment because they felt that it would be a wrecking amendment. Whatever can be said about my amendment, no one can say that it is a wrecking amendment. It simply takes three clubs out of the 92 clubs involved and leaves 89. If the Government insist on going ahead with the scheme, they can have the 89 English clubs with pleasure.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly support the amendment just moved by the noble Lord. As we heard from the noble Lord the Minister at Second Reading, the Government intend to exclude Scotland from the provisions of this Bill. It therefore seems
422
perfectly reasonable to look at the case for excluding Wales.
There were three clubs in the Fourth Division in 1987/88. There was a Written Answer by Mr. Moynihan relating to those clubs on 19th December of last year in the House of Commons. I am taking these statistics from col. 58 of the House of Commons Written Answers. The statistics show this. The average gate at Newport—to which the noble Lord has just referred—is 1,750 people. Are we seriously suggesting bringing in this massive bureaucracy for 1,750 people? The number of arrests—not convictions—in the season was 35.
We then come to Swansea City. An average attendance per match was 4,389. How many arrests were there? There were 10. That means that in the case of Swansea City there was one arrest—not conviction—for every 10,000 people who attended. That is of course not necessarily an arrest within the ground. They might well have been arrests at a local railway station which are, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said earlier, totally irrelevant to this Bill.
We then come to the figures for Cardiff City. The average attendance there was 4,424. There were 43 arrests—where we know not. There were therefore four arrests—again not convictions—for every 10,000 people who attended.
I hope that the Government will show some sense of proportion. Are we going to load these substantial costs on to these small clubs? It is easy for the noble Lord to say, "We have a wonderful scheme, and as a result of the wonderful scheme there will be no costs", because he is not responsible for the financial management of one of these small football clubs. Those who are responsible have indicated their very serious concern about the implications of this legislation. It seems an extremely moderate and reasonable amendment that is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks. Even the most impassioned enthusiast for this legislation cannot describe this as a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Government will for once show some degree of graciousness in this matter and will indicate that they are prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude Wales from the requirements of Part I of the Bill. It would mean that matches played at the grounds of the three Welsh clubs which play in the Football League—Cardiff City, Swansea and Wrexham—would not be subject to the requirements of the national membership scheme.
It has always been our intention that the national membership scheme should apply thoughout the Football League to all of the 92 clubs which play in it. To exempt matches played between some clubs could severely threaten the effectiveness and integrity of the scheme. There is a real danger that matches outside the scheme would become a target for hooligans banned from attending matches at clubs in the scheme.
The designation of matches in Wales to which the scheme will apply is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales and he has established a working

423
party to advise him on the matter. It is very unlikely that designation will not include the Football League and FA Cup Matches played in Wales when the home team is one of the Welsh League clubs. Excluding Wales would have some odd effects on the Welsh clubs. Supporters of the Welsh clubs would still need to join the scheme if they wished to attend their side's away matches in England. But they would have no protection from visiting hooligans at matches in Wales.
I do not believe that the analogy with Scotland is a fair one. Scotland has its own league. These three clubs in Wales are playing with the other 89 in England south of the Border. The Secretary of State for Wales is consulting about the designation of matches.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on low attendance, of course there are Fourth Division clubs in England which also have low attendance. As I stated in the previous debate, we believe that the costs will not be insupportably high. However, I believe that it would be quite wrong to exempt Wales from the Bill altogether. I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. It is rather sad. He started by stating that consultation has taken place, but he tells us in advance of the outcome that that consultation is unlikely to exclude the Welsh clubs. I do not know what kind of consultation is taking place or who is to be included, if the Secretary of State for Wales is already under some remit from higher authority that whatever the consultation produces it must he ignored unless it is of a certain view.
Members opposite—and there are still some in the Chamber at this time—need to consider very carefully what the Minister is saying. Of course there will be problems. There are difficulties now when a club with no problem is visited by a club with a problem. The clubs overcome it very easily by making the match an all-ticket affair. One club, which I shall not name, has a reputation. It has recognised that its fans cause problems. Whenever the club plays at another ground it is an all-ticket match. These difficulties can be overcome.
There are later amendments which do not relate geographically to Wales, as this amendment does, but to clubs which have a record of non-violence. Where there are two such clubs, the later amendments asks: why make such impositions? Reference has already been made to casual supporters. At clubs such as the one which I occasionally attend, Tottenham Hotspur, one-quarter of an attendance of about 30,000 people is recognised to have come along on spec on that day. That is the position now. If the Minister is going to be so rigid—I am sorry to feel this way on only the second group of amendments—if there is no flexibility in these matters and he states that the Government believe that the legislation should be applied universally, I am very much afraid that we shall have a long and tedious Committee stage of the Bill. That is not wished.
424
The Minister mentioned costs. He and his colleagues have more than once referred to the way in which the costs can be defrayed. Reference has been made to the commercial opportunities that are open. One has to question whether one of the raisons d'être behind the Bill from the Government's point of view is commercial exploitation and not the best interests of football. I very much hope that the Minister, given the opportunity of saying something else, will be prepared to take this amendment away. To start on the premise, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, did, that everything has to be fought for with the Government, is not the way to do it. Members of the Committee in all parts of the Chamber genuinely want the Government to think again about these very important matters.
The practical outcome for clubs in Wales is easy because the Government can concede that they are not right on every issue all the time. I hope the Minister will be kinder in his second bite at the cherry.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is well aware that it is an absolute cornerstone of the Bill that the 92 clubs must be included.
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Hesketh: Because the Government's advice was that the way to tackle the problem was to try to tackle it with the four divisions, and the three Welsh clubs are part of the four divisions. Were we to do otherwise we would start interfering with the fundamental basis of the advice that the Government received on this matter. That is why I am unable to concede to the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Brooks, the commitment that they would like me to give.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has made a quite interesting statement. From whom did the Government receive the advice that every club had to be included, irrespective of the different problems or absence of problems associated with those clubs? Is he referring to the working party or to some totally different group of advisers? We should all be immensely in the noble Lord's debt if he were to tell us why he is being so inflexible on the matter. His argument, in so far as I understand it, is that the Government have received this advice from an unknown source. Can he tell us the source?
Lord Underhill: Before the Minister replies will he take cognisance of the fact that the House has passed an important amendment which allows for flexibility? Surely this is a matter which the Government ought now to reconsider, because it is suggested in the amendment we have carried that there should be a phasing-in process and that the scheme should be introduced in an orderly manner. Surely the Government have changed their brief.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend replies, will he take up at once the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about flexibility? If the

425
amendment is passed and Wales is excluded there will be no flexibility whatever on this point.
Lord Hesketh: As I said earlier, the Government were advised by the Minister's working party. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware, we continually have discussions both with the League and with the Association, but the key feature is that we should have an odd situation if three clubs in the League are not parties to the scheme.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I press the Minister a little further? I do so in my capacity as senior vice-president of the Cardiff Business Club and also as a member of the Institute of Directors management committee. I have asked people in Wales who advised that the three clubs should not be excluded. I have not been able to find out who gave that advice—whether it was Welsh advice and whether it was anybody who knew anything about the circumstances of soccer in Wales.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, that I missed the first minute of his presentation on this amendment. I heard him mention my name as I entered the Chamber although I do not know in what capacity, but I am sure it was on a friendly basis. I say this with some diffidence. Once again I have heard a member of the Government—it happens whatever government is in power—misunderstand the position in Wales; something which occurs as regards any Bill before this Committee. Once again the Minister, who has read his brief most carefully and positively, has totally misunderstood the difference between how soccer is dealt with and managed in Wales and England. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Morris, refer to the Welsh Cup. Wales is in the European Cup. Why cannot even that simple parameter be worthy of recognition and not to descend on Welsh clubs the panoply of English dogmatism? The Welsh position is so often forgotten. I should like to support this amendment very strongly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I briefly follow the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is making the very best of a bad job. I feel a good deal of sympathy for him, because I feel sure that if it were left to him he might come to a different decision.
However, the time is long past when committees in London make important judgments about what takes place in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, this is an issue which is of considerable interest throughout Wales, not only south Wales but north Wales as well.Therefore I plead with the noble Lord to take this away again and to think carefully about it.
I wish to ask him one question. Has this matter been put to the Secretary of State for Wales? If so, what judgment did he make upon it? If he was not consulted I believe the Minister should take this away and make sure that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Peter Walker, is given the opportunity to make a judgment. He is there to make a judgment on this kind of thing. I am sure he would wish to do his best for Wales in these circumstances. On behalf of my colleagues—I am sure that there are a number on the
426
other side who feel as deeply as we do on this issue—I plead with the noble Lord to think again about this. The Government have nothing to lose by thinking very carefully about it. I am quite sure that if further discussion is needed with Ministers and particularly with the Secretary of State for Wales, a number of us would be glad to meet him to underline our arguments once again in favour of treating Wales separately. I appeal urgently to the noble Lord to say that he will take this away.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as I stated earlier the Secretary of State has a working party. The problem is slightly more complicated than Wales itself because the three clubs we are talking about—Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham—are playing in a transnational league. This is where the real difficulty arises. We are not talking about three clubs playing in the glorious and beautiful isolation of Wales, but three clubs who are playing in a transnational league whereby they are exposed to the activities of the other 89 clubs. Because of that it makes the situation very difficult to remove those three from a transnational league. I can give no commitment, but I can take it away for consultation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: I can understand the problem faced by the Minister, but I am seriously disappointed by his reply. I was hoping that there might be two compelling reasons for him to accept the amendment. First, I had hoped that he would have pity on us after what happened to us in France last Saturday and, secondly, the Tory candidate in the Pontrypridd by-election might save his deposit if he can say that the Government have accepted the amendment. However, in the light of what the Minister has said I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Wales") insert ("in the first division of the Football League").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 11. In one way or another they deal with the central issue: that of experimentation, primarily in the First and Second Divisions. Amendment No. 3 deals with the First Division of the Football League. Amendment No. 4 deals with the First or Second Divisions of the Football League. Amendment No. 8 deals with an experiment for two seasons of a scheme which rests on the premise that the police already categorise matches as A, B or C in relation to their experience of the level of policing required. Amendment No. 11 deals with events involving clubs which have no record of violence.
The Minister has made a sensible proposal in respect of the last amendment. He has indicated that in certain circumstances, such as the possibility of defeat, he is prepared to take away and consider amendments which he dislikes. He has made plain the

427
fact that the Government have a blueprint or master plan embracing all the clubs in all the divisions, and that there is no room for experimental or pilot schemes.
I beg the Minister to remember in particular the comments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Mellish. The cases which they made for experiments in respect of the amendment which was carried against the wishes of the Government are open to interpretation, yet they give clear indications of what we have in mind. The amendments indicate the fact that there is a world of difference between clubs such as Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United and those in Manchester and Liverpool. There is a wide gap between clubs in the Second and Third Divisions, and clubs in the Fourth Division are very small. The chairman of Colchester United is on record as telling the Minister that if the scheme as unamended was passed it would mean the death of the Fourth Division. That comment was made not only in the light of the knowledge of his own club, but of other aspects.
I understand that the Minister is not in the business of damaging clubs or causing them unnecessary expense or worry. He is in the business of eradicating the element of violence inside football grounds which can be eradicated as a result of such a scheme. The amendment which rests upon restricting the application of the scheme to the First and Second Division is realistic. Earlier in the debate it was said that First and Second Division clubs are more likely to be able to carry it. The large clubs could be at the risk of losing a large proportion of their attendance from casual supporters. However, they have land, money and ambition.
Tomorrow night my home-town club of Newcastle United will experience a boardroom battle. Millions of pounds have been mentioned not only as being at stake but as having been spent by rival factions which seek to control the destinies of the club. I wish the club well. It is distasteful to people such as myself to see such a fine club in the middle of that battle. However, I make the point because in the case of many clubs we are talking about large sums of money.
Those clubs will be able to begin to operate some kind of scheme if the Minister insists. However, we are raising the question of the small clubs which do not have the time, money or support from their townships. The Minister knows Northampton better than I. As a director of the club for several years he will remember the struggle which he and his co-directors experienced in raising enthusiasm for the football club inside the town. I have seen the statistics—and perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee—but I imagine that in small clubs such as Northampton which do not have a thriving supporter-club nexus, or access to millions of pounds, there will be a real struggle.
The Minister knows more about football management than I who envy the opportunities that he has had. Undoubtedly, he has experienced some headaches and perhaps a raid upon his bank balance. I have not and do not wish to experience that.
428
Football management does not provide a cachet or bring instant glory; it brings many headaches.
When the Minister speaks in terms of advice and consultation, I hope that he will be even-handed in accepting it. In relation to some of the amendments he has stated, "This is after consultation. This is what the working party has recommended". He can take it from me that the clubs in the Third and Fourth Divisions do not want the scheme, are not in favour of it and are very much agitated by the fact that it will be visited upon them.
It is a spectator Bill but little consultation has taken place with the spectators. I know of the problems which arise in consulting an amorphous mass. They are not organised as well as the management or players and are unable to respond. However, people speak on behalf of supporters' clubs, and in the lower divisions there still exists the kind of atmosphere which we know as "the old spirit" of football.
If the Minister can provide the evidence or show that there is as much a problem in the Third and Fourth Divisions as in the First and Second Divisions, I am prepared to look at that and change my attitude. The noble Lord and his Ministerial colleague, Colin Moynihan, have said that they wish to break the link between football and violence. He needs to produce the evidence that there is a need to do so. One finds that the empirical evidence does not exist in relation to the Third and Fourth Divisions. The Minister may say, "You have forgotten what happened at this match and that match", and he will produce the evidence. Some of the evidence which the Minister and his noble friend Lord Caithness have circulated related to matches which were played by clubs in and out of the divisions. Therefore one must be exceedingly careful when quoting such evidence.
I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to examine the possibility of applying the scheme to the First Division or to the First and Second Divisions. Guidance will be given to a body, the composition and powers of which the Committee will consider later. However, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that what will be embraced by the scheme will be left to the FMA and at the same time resist this or the other House having the temerity to give advice to the FMA before it is agreed.
It was said earlier that once the FMA is set up and, under the Bill as currently constructed, it produces a scheme approved by the Secretary of State that is the end of the matter. We shall test whether the Committee believes that that is the end of the matter because the application of this scheme is sufficiently important for the Committee to know what is the final scheme before it becomes law. Therefore, I believe that the Minister has an opportunity to help the Committee and I look forward to hearing from him. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, always speaks with a deceptive appearance of reasonableness and he certainly gave a very agreeable illustration of that this afternoon. First, he referred to the desirability of experiment. I imagine that few Members of the

429
Committee disagree with him about that. However, these amendments which he moves will exclude experiment in all the areas which he seeks to cut out of the Bill. Whatever the results of investigation, it will not be possible to apply the provisions of the Bill to the clubs expressly excluded by these amendments.
Therefore, it is not a question of talking about experiment; it is a question of whether, at this stage, one is to cut out of the provisions of the Bill the clubs below the First Division on Amendment No. 3 and below the Second Division on Amendment No. 4. Equally, it is no use saying that the FMA will have to consider that. It will be excluded from consideration of applying the Bill to the clubs expressly excluded by the legislation. However innocently presented, these amendments will cut out of the effects of the Bill a large number of the clubs in this country.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered one possible effect of that. Once the scheme is in operation, there seems good reason to believe that the hooligans will be excluded from the clubs covered by the scheme. Where will those hooligans go? They will not go home and play ludo but will almost certainly go to football matches to which the provisions of the Bill do not apply. Therefore, they will go to clubs to which the provisions of the Bill have been forbidden to apply by amendment of the Bill.
I believe that this applies to some extent to what was said on the previous amendment. The fact that clubs are not at present troubled by hooligans is no guarantee that when the protection of the Bill is applied to some clubs, those hooligans will therefore not go deliberately to clubs which do not have that protection. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not fall for the seductive cadences and apparent reasonableness of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I hope that he will appreciate that the proposal is to cut out a very large number of the clubs from the protection given by the Bill.
I remind the noble Lord that whatever the clubs may say—and of course from the clubs' point of view there is no doubt that the introduction of this scheme is a nuisance and an expense—I am perfectly certain that the great majority of the public and those members of the public who like to go to football matches and to take their children safely to football matches, welcome the introduction of a system which gives a good chance of rooting out the very real evil of hooliganism. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will not deliberately deprive a large number of excellent football clubs and the crowds who attend them in this country of that protection.
Viscount Craigavon: I have put my name to Amendment No. 4 and I should like to speak in support of most of these amendments. My amendment draws the line after the First and Second Division clubs and will therefore exclude the Third and Fourth Division clubs. In my opinion it is not a wrecking amendment; it is a reasonable balance to draw in terms of sheer practicality. I believe that that is likely to make the scheme work and enable the scheme to solve more problems than it will create.
430
In answer to a previous amendment regarding Welsh clubs we have had the argument that the league should be regarded as a whole. There is obviously a problem when non-league clubs play league clubs or, in the case of my amendment, when First and Second Division clubs play Third and Fourth Division and non-league clubs. In the working party document there is provision for such an occasion. Paragraph 4(a) on page 17 in the chapter entitled "Designated Football Matches" is headed:
"Matches between League and non-League teams".
Obviously the working party had to take account of that kind of occasion.
The working party favours the second option which will allow non-members access to the ground for such matches. The document goes on to state:
"Supporters of the League team would be encouraged to use turnstiles at which their cards would be checked according to national membership scheme procedures but supporters of the non-League team would not have to produce membership cards at the turnstiles allocated to them (though they would have to buy tickets, in advance, from their own clubs)".
We come back to the system of all-ticket games, which is a well-known existing procedure. The next paragraph goes on to say:
"The working party recommends, therefore, that option (ii) should be followed, at least initially. The matches concerned would nonetheless be designated, so that members will be required to produce membership cards on request and risk losing them if they misbehave (the scheme would allow for an appropriate variation)".
As I say, one is mainly trying to deal with cup matches. As Members of the Committee will know, there is a stage of the FA Cup when First and Second Division clubs start to join in.
When one examines the figures of attendances and arrests in the Third and Fourth Divisions, the results are rather startling. The total attendances for the Third Division in the 1987–88 season—and these figures are in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled in another place—was 2,751,275 and the arrests per game were 1·57. In the Fourth Division the arrests per game were 1·68 from a total attendance of 1,772,287.
We mentioned at the beginning of this afternoon's debate a couple of clubs in the Fourth Division. Perhaps I may give two examples. Hartlepool had a total attendance of 48,972 last season and a total of 12 arrests. As has been said before, some of those arrests may quite easily have been outside the ground. Leyton Orient had a total attendance of 90,322 and eight arrests. I agree that I have given good examples but in my view to deal with that scale of problem in that way is bureaucratic overkill and sets up a very top-heavy bureaucratic machinery to deal with a relatively minor problem.
Perhaps I may turn to the matter of costs. There has been a claim that cards will be free, or at least free to football clubs. They are only free in the sense that Green Shield stamps are free. At the end of the day someone has to pay. Under this scheme spectators are likely to have to pay £3 per annum for three years. That is the suggested figure. Often in lower division clubs there are existing membership lists which provide the basis for social activities and existing schemes like lotteries. Because of the additional cost the benefit of those schemes will be taken away from

431
the clubs and given to the managers of the commercial schemes.
Moreover, the poorer Third and Fourth Division clubs will be in a much less advantageous position because of their small number of spectators to make any ground alterations required. The unit cost per spectator will be so much higher than for clubs with a larger spectator base. Third and Fourth Division clubs are the clubs which can least afford the estimated drop-out in casual spectators. That has been estimated at approximately 20 per cent. They will suffer in that respect.
An example has been given today. We had the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. She said that she wanted the whole scheme operating for all divisions at once. I remember that the noble Baroness made an impressive speech on Second Reading basically in favour of the Bill. However, she also said:
"The question has been raised of bankruptcy for some clubs. I think we must accept that some clubs would not survive"—[Official Report, 2/2/89; col. 1267.]
That is not an acceptable consequence. I hope that the Government appreciate that there are these uncertainties and that there is a better chance of getting a scheme working if they concentrate on a narrower target.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I had not intended to speak on the Bill but I have been somewhat frightened by what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Here I should declare an interest as a patron of Featherstone Rovers Rugby League Football Club. Rugby League is not affected by the Bill, thank goodness. However, the thought that if we passed the Bill in toto all the marauding hooligans who cannot beat up people at soccer matches might come to Rugby League matches frightens me. I am fast becoming convinced that I should perhaps support the opposition and endeavour to scupper the Bill. To be serious, I cannot believe that football spectators will join Third and Fourth Division clubs because they can have punch-ups there and cannot at First and Second Division clubs. That is somewhat far-fetched.
I wonder whether there is a way out of this difficulty. I am endeavouring to give a lead to my noble friend who is not having an easy afternoon. Perhaps following earlier events this afternoon he might agree to take the amendment away to see whether it would not fit in with a phasing-in of Third and Fourth Division clubs at a later stage, thereby first seeing how it works with First and Second Division clubs. That might be an acceptable way round the problem.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In general, I am more anxious to understand from the Government what they have in mind and for the Government to understand what we have in mind than I am in forcing Divisions. The ball is in the Minister's court.
Lord Knights: I shall speak briefly. I sympathise very much with some of the views expressed by the proposers of these amendments but I am concerned
432
about some of the practical results. I have in mind the area which I know best, Birmingham. There is Birmingham City in the Second Division, Aston Villa in the First Division, Walsall in the Second Division and Wolverhampton Wanderers in the Third Division. All those clubs are within easy bus rides of each other. If some are to be included and others excluded from the Bill we shall certainly see hooligans who are, for example, banned from Aston Villa making their way to Wolverhampton or even Coventry.
Equally, it should be borne in mind that one of the few successful prosecutions of gangs of football hooligans for conspiracy, and so on, was in respect of Wolverhampton Wanderers, a Third Division club.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without ID cards and under present law.
Lord Knights: That is true. It indicates that hooliganism centres round some of the smaller Third and Fourth Division clubs, which is where Wolverhampton Wanderers were when all the conspiracy started. Therefore, I would find it difficult to support amendments which seek to exclude some clubs and not others.
Lord Underhill: I hope that noble Lords were impressed, as I was, with the information given by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. I declare my interest. For over 50 years I have been a supporter of what is now a Fourth Division club. It is a club which in the early 1960s was promoted to the First Division but did not like it very much and came out at the end of the season.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is one way of putting it.
Lord Underhill: I am referring to Leyton Orient. I looked at the club's programme last Saturday. It is interesting to see how attendances vary according to the visiting team. It is a fact that there are casual spectators attending football matches who are not regular supporters of a particular club. In the past 10 or 15 years Leyton Orient has had successful FA Cup runs. What has happened? The gate for one week is 3,500 and the next week it is up to 15,000 or 18,000 because people can see the prospect of an exciting Cup match and the possibility of a favourable result. Over half the turnstiles at Leyton Orient are not used for every home game. They are only used when an attractive club is visiting.
There was a meeting of all the club chairmen. I should like the Minister to tell the Committee the attitude of the chairmen, particularly those of Third and Fourth Division clubs.
Some years ago if my club was not playing I would go to Arsenal, West Ham or Tottenham. Frankly, I am not interested, and nor are many hundreds of other Leyton Orient spectators, in going anywhere else but to Leyton Orient to see the team play, despite what my noble friend Lord Mellish said about the standard of football. However, there are casual spectators to be considered.

433
We must consider the financial pressure that there will be on Third and Fourth Division clubs. They are already having difficulty in keeping their heads above water. If Leyton Orient had found it possible to retain some of its best players it could have been in the First Division. They had to be sold to keep the club going and to keep one of the finest playing surfaces in London in decent condition.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this is important for football. If Third or Fourth Division clubs go out of existence and we have only the two super leagues, it will be a tragedy for football. I should like to hear from the Minister exactly what information was given at the meeting with club chairmen, particularly those from the Third and Fourth Divisions.
Viscount Mersey: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has got the cart before the horse. As he may well know, I supported him and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on the first amendment. However, there is the problem of Murphy's Law on which all sides of the Committee agree—the malfunctioning of computer systems. It is normally reckoned to be about 3 per cent. It follows that 3 per cent. of a very big gate is far worse than 3 per cent. of a small gate.
Everton has an average gate of about 35,000. That will mean 1,200 legitimate complaints at every Everton home match. I should have thought, therefore, that the First Division is at extreme risk perhaps more so than the lower divisions. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I do not think this is a good amendment.
Lord Monson: I hesitated before putting my name to Amendment No. 4 because I have a marginal preference for Amendment No. 11, but I believed that Amendment No. 4 might be more acceptable to the Government. If I am mistaken in that assumption then I shall gladly transfer my allegiance to Amendment No. 11. The attendance figures for league games last Saturday, that is two days ago, may have been slightly atypical for two reasons. The first was the exceptionally fine weather. Normally when the weather is bad the less popular clubs are affected to a greater extent than the popular ones. The second reason was the fact that the fifth round of the FA Cup was also being played on that day.
Nevertheless the attendance figures are most instructive and highly relevant to the amendments that we are discussing now and in particular Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The average gate at the three First Division matches was just over 15,000; the average gate at the seven Second Division matches was just over 10,000; the average at the nine Third Division matches was just under 5,000 and at the eight Fourth Division matches it was only 3,360. The First and Second Divisions combined had an average gate of 11,615 whereas the Third and Fourth Divisions combined had an average gate of only 4,196. In other words the average attendance for the Third and Fourth Division matches was only just over one-third of that for the First and Second Division matches: 36.13 per cent. to be precise. One can appreciate the terrible administrative and
434
financial burdens that this scheme would impose upon the Third and Fourth Division clubs.
There is another factor to be considered. I have with me a cutting from a local newspaper which serves a cathedral city and the surrounding area and which has a population of about 80,000. It has a Fourth Division football club, albeit that it was once in the Second Division. The report reveals that pensioners are suffering "terror and torment". They fear that they will live the rest of their lives "in misery". They are suffering "endless abuse and harassment". Some of them do not even dare to walk to the end of the street to go to the pub. Many of them keep their doors locked for the entire evening.
This has come about because hooligans jump up and down on their cars, damaging the bonnets and the roofs. They also urinate upon their cars. To be more specific they urinate on the cars of those pensioners who can afford to run them. They have thrown bricks through the windows of their houses, and some of the pensioners in question have had heart attacks—indeed some of them have had more than one heart attack—as a result of what is happening. The important point to recognise is that none of this has anything whatever to do with football: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is bearing this in mind. The behaviour in question is described by the authorities as due to "boredom and frustration". Doubtless it has also a lot to do with the anti-disciplinarian attitude that was inculcated in their parents during the 1960s.
The point is that this Bill will do nothing whatever to help these people. I suspect that making it more difficult for the teenagers who are causing the problem to get into football matches will actually make the lives of the old people worse rather than better. Football provides an outlet, but more a verbal than a physical outlet, for these bored young people. It is an occasion to let off steam, partly by yelling at the tops of their voices in support of their own team. Let it also be admitted that they let off steam by boisterously barracking the opposing team and by indulging in a certain amount of minor rowdiness.
Even minor rowdiness is distasteful and certainly not something to be encouraged or welcomed. But for better or worse young male aggression has been a feature of life in Britain for hundreds of years, as many Members of the Committee pointed out at the Second Reading of this Bill. It is better by far that this aggression and surplus energy should be dissipated and absorbed within the confines of the football ground rather than for it to be bottled up and used later on pubs, shopping precincts, cafes, the homes and cars of elderly people or at other sporting events. (The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has just referred to the dangers of this kind of behaviour spilling over into Rugby League.) That is always provided that the rowdiness within the football grounds is of a relatively minor nature, which it normally is in the case of Third and Fourth Division clubs—where such a problem exists at all. Many clubs have no problems whatever.
The expensively dressed men in their mid-twenties and older about whom we read travel long distances in first-class railway compartments to matches carrying Stanley knives and other dangerous

435
weapons with which to scar their rivals. They normally concentrate upon the important and major games in the First and Second Divisions. They consider the Third and Fourth Division games with their small attendances beneath their dignity, if one can ascribe dignity to such people. In other words. for the Third and Fourth Division clubs the scheme is not only financially and administratively burdensome, but also unnecessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are designed to limit the application of the scheme to certain matches. I would like to make clear the Government's general position on the principle of excluding certain matches from the scheme. It is our intention that the scheme should apply to all matches between the 92 Football League clubs and to include other matches as the Secretary of State considers it necessary to designate. It is important in the interest of preserving the integrity of the scheme that it should apply to all the clubs in the Football League.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me what was the position as regards the chairmen of the Third and Fourth Division football clubs. He will not be surprised when I tell him that they made strong representations to us that they wanted to have the scheme phased in. The Government's position is that to exclude certain matches could create the danger that hooligans prevented from going to those games covered by the scheme would be displaced to those games outside the scheme.
My noble friend Lord Swinton asked whether people would just go to look for a punch-up. That is what we feel. We believe the position is that if you have a choice of going as a known hooligan to try to get into a First or Second Division football game where you must have a membership card or of going to a Third or Fourth Division game where you would not be in the same situation, it is obviously easier to go to a Third of a Fourth Division game.
We want to see an efficient and effective scheme in place. The more you move away from the premise that the scheme should apply throughout the Football League the more complicated and less effective the scheme becomes. Life gets difficult for both the clubs and the spectators. We must avoid the position where potential spectators are confused about whether or not they have to be a member of the scheme to go to a match. We must take care also to ensure that the job of the police does not become needlessly difficult.
It is against this background that we may consider the idea of restricting the application of the scheme to the First and Second Divisions of the Football League. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpetner pointed out, we cannot expect to beat the problem of football hooliganism by introducing a membership scheme only in the top two divisions of the League. The hooligan problem is not confined to Divisions One and Two. There is trouble too at matches played in the lower divisions. If the scheme were to be applied only at the top, we could increase the possibility of creating a bigger problem lower down.
436
The sad fact is that football hooliganism can strike at any club, at any match, and at any time. These arguments also apply to the proposed amendment about restricting designation to police category A matches for the first two seasons of the scheme's operation. There would be major practical disadvantages too. The amendment could result in the spectator being confused about which matches were and were not covered by the scheme.
I do not think that Amendment No. 11 presents a workable proposition. It seeks to restrict the application of the scheme to clubs which have a history of violence. The Secretary of State would have to consider each individual match played throughout the season to see if one of the participants had had hooligan problems over the previous three-year period. This looks like a recipe for chaos. Clubs and spectators would not know where they were. The more complicated you make the scheme the less effective it will be. There is another sad but important point I should make here. No club can be safe from the threat of hooliganism. Trouble can strike at clubs which have experienced long, relatively quiet periods.
I should make one additional point about Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. My advice is that if accepted, they would make the Bill hybrid. I do not need to tell the Committee what effect hybridity would have on the Bill's passage through Parliament. Various noble Lords including the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, mentioned what essentially this problem is about as they perceive it and what the opponents of the Bill perceive it to be. The Third and Fourth Divisions will be vulnerable financially to this Bill.
One can take that view or a more positive one. Support for the game has fallen from 35 million people in 1967 to 21 million last year. The Bill will result in people being able to go back to football. I am a parent of young children. As things stand, when they are a little older I am not sure that I would be too happy for them to go unattended to a football game; but once one knows that football will be safe, people will flood back onto the terraces. It is important to consider what the Bill can do that is positive rather than say that we want no change. I hope that the Committee will be able to resist the seductive cadences of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that the movers will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has told us, rightly, that there can be trouble outside the First and Second Divisions. That is true, and no one has ever denied it. According to the Written Answer given by his honourable friend Mr. Moynihan in the other place—I gave the Hansard reference earlier this afternoon—trouble, as defined by the noble Lord, in the case of Aldershot in the season 1987–88 amounted to six people in every 10,000 who attend matches. In the case of Blackpool, the figure was four in every 10,000 people who attend. Those are not people arrested within the grounds. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and I had a minor disagreement on how many of these arrests take place within football grounds. It is argued by many that a relatively small minority of the arrests take place within football grounds.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord arguing that the only people who cause disturbance and behave as hooligans are those who are arrested? Is he not aware of the fact that when there is widespread hooliganism, the limited number of police available are able to arrest only a small proportion of the malefactors?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Of course, in some cases only a minority of those involved in disturbances are arrested. That is the case if a large number of people are involved in substantial disturbances. I am talking about very nearly non-existent disturbances at a number of football grounds. In a ground such as Aldershot which will be adequately policed by the chief constable of Hampshire, how can one say when the disturbances are on such a small scale that it would be impossible to effect arrests? That is not a serious proposition.
One can go through one team after another in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the English league and find the same story—tiny numbers of arrests. When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke a little earlier he said that there would be immense enthusiasm for this measure among large numbers of football supporters. I think he said that. I found it a little hard to believe that what he said is correct, but that certainly was his view.
I have a report of a public meeting that took place in Bury in January of this year. I am told that it was one of the largest public meetings to have taken place in Bury outside the period of a general election. A principal speaker was a local Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Alistair Burt. There was a full discussion at the meeting, dominated undoubtedly by people who had a close interest in the game. They heard Mr. Burt's view and in a ballot which took place at the end the voting figures were as follows: "I support the Government's ID card scheme for football supporters"—three votes; "I do not support the Government's ID card scheme for football supporters"—246 votes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Recount!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord believes that that is evidence of immense enthusiasm for the Bill among football supporters, I would be rather surprised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord had given way a moment earlier he would have saved himself and the Committee a couple of minutes' time. The point I was seeking to make—and reference to Hansard will show that I did make—was not that in the welter of propaganda from clubs there is any enthusiasm among supporters now, but that what supporters will be immensely pleased with will be the good and orderly conditions which the operation of the Bill will produce and the possibility, as my noble friend the Minister said, for them not only to go peacefully to matches but even to take their children to them which many people dare not do now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In the cases which I have cited where the amount of crowd trouble is minimal
438
and has been for many years, there is clearly no deterrent at the moment to people taking their families to football matches. To be absolutely frank, I was going to quote the Bury example because I thought it was a helpful one in terms of the amendment which we are now discussing. In the case of Bury, it is perhaps wholly understandable why the people at that meeting voted as they did. Here are the figures for Bury in terms of disturbances which took place within and outside Bury football ground. In 23 matches, five people were arrested. That figure is for an entire season. Yet on the basis of the Bill that we have before us, that club, which has a difficult financial position, will be compelled to introduce this huge bureaucratic machinery. I sometimes wonder whether the Government have not lost their sense of proportion in this matter.
Of course we are all against hooliganism, whether it takes place at football grounds, on the London Underground, on British Rail, on housing estates or as an isolated or a more substantial act of vandalism. All that most of us would say is that in the examples I have just given the idea of trying to control entry to the Underground or in some way the admission to housing estates by some strange procedure would receive a great deal of derision in this Chamber. As concerns this proposal, anyone who believes that there will be a substantial reduction in the amount of violence at football grounds if the Bill becomes law will be unpleasantly surprised.
At Second Reading I reported to the House a conversation that I had with six senior police officers of superintendent and chief superintendent rank. All of them had been directly involved as police commanders at football grounds during the past 12 months. Of those senior officers, all believed that those who were barred from entering grounds because they were disqualified from membership of the scheme would still loiter in the streets outside, and then become involved in acts of violence. As senior policemen, their view was that they would not transfer their allegiance to a Third or Fourth Division club. They may be right or they may be wrong.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said on a previous occasion, police views differ on this question. I would not suggest for a moment that there is unanimity of opinion in the police service. What I do say is that these experienced senior police officers did not believe that there would be a transfer of loyalty to other clubs. They believed that once disqualified many of these young men would become involved in other acts of violence outside the grounds. In their view, that was one of the problems associated with the passage of this measure.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, feels strongly about the fact that the figures for arrest in the Third and Fourth Division are low. We should keep very much at the forefront of our minds that that is achieved with very high and heavy levels of policing. That cannot lightly be cast aside. It is important that we remember that two of these amendments could well hybridise the Bill.

439
The decisions which are taken here today represent two different views. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, believes that the problems will transfer out of soccer and that such problems extend beyond clubs within the League. However, from this Dispatch Box we believe that there is a direct link between hooliganism and League soccer. If that difference is irreconcilable, so be it. We believe that we must have the four divisions and without the four divisions the scheme begins to fall apart.
Finally, as regards the matter of Bury, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew to the attention of the Committee, as I was not present at the meeting, all I can say is that I suspect in terms of the variation of the supporters it may be rather similar to asking the College of Cardinals to vote for the Reformation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wish to make one or two cardinal points. The noble Lord has been very fair and consistent. I mean that most sincerely. He restated the Government's view and said that it is their intention that this proposal should be universally applied to all 92 clubs. Even though we have had reference to consultations which take place in Wales in respect of the Welsh clubs, and even though we have had indications from the Minister and his colleagues that they are prepared to look at some suggestions, I simply invite the Committee to consider the matter very carefully.
If the Government's view was that they have produced a Bill which is not capable of being amended in any shape or form and there is no way in which it can be amended—for example, revised or improved—we should have a very arrogant Government. However, I do not make that charge. I believe that the Government must be prepared to listen to the arguments.
Reference was made to the meeting at Bury. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us what was undoubtedly a factual, unembellished, account of what took place. Of course there could be other meetings at which other people who would be affected might say that they would prefer to have that kind of Bill. It was not stage-managed; all the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is saying is that a group of people who are passionately involved in football were invited to state a view on the Bill and they said, "We do not want it".
We do not have a national referendum. But the next best thing is this Chamber and the other place. Both places are trying to interpret the reaction of people outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wondered where the potential or active hooligans would go if they were excluded from the First and Second Division. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, speaking from his great experience, which I acknowledge, drew our attention to the situation in a major conurbation. He did so, quite rightly, by mentioning clubs in different divisions. However, there are many conurbations where there are simply football clubs and if people were excluded from one of them under a scheme they would perhaps go to others. But we do not know that. The surmise is that they might.
440
The noble Lord used the interesting analogy of Wolverhampton. He used Wolverhampton to illustrate fairly that violence is present at some clubs which are not in the First and Second Divisions and that it needs to be dealt with. Having regard to his previous professional commitments, thanks to proper and adequate policing and determination by the clubs, those people were dealt with properly by the courts without any ID card scheme. Indeed, 25 people were brought before the courts, convicted of football-related violence and duly dealt with. I have the details here with me but, I shall simply say that they were dealt with by the courts. That can happen now. Violence at Fourth Division grounds can be dealt with by the police and the clubs now; we do not need an ID scheme.
Reference has been made to the situation inside our grounds. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about an outstanding situation. The other day I went to Watford to see the team play Leeds United. It was my first visit to the ground. We know that Watford is in the Second Division. I was sitting in the area where the directors sit. It was not a box, it was a bench in a sense. I looked down and below me was the family members' area, where there were families and many children. I do not mean only seven and eight year-olds; two year- old and three year-old children were running around inside. My attention was then drawn to a young mother with a baby in a pram; she was pushing the pram. I said to my colleague, "That is astounding". She said, "Oh yes, she has been a football fan all her life. She has a child whom she brings along and there is no problem. There is no problem in getting to the ground, no problem in getting in and no problem in sitting down".
There are situations where the full rigour of an ID scheme is not necessary. The Minister might say, as he did in reply to the first set of amendments about Wales and upon this one, that it is necessary. However, I invite him to consider very carefully that if the Bill leaves this Chamber and goes to another place—whether or not amendments are won against the Government—it will be on the premise that the Government are not prepared to consider the possibility that it can be improved. I think that that would be a most dangerous situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, quite rightly raised a point in the light of earlier amendments and Divisions. However, when you put down the amendments you do not expect to win or lose; you put them down with all of the variations in mind. Indeed, I was not the progenitor of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. However, I heard him speak on Second Reading; I was consulted about it and I liked it. Therefore we supported it. But we do not know the outcome. We put down these amendments to exclude the Third and Fourth Divisions because we genuinely believe that there is a case to be made out.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Amendment No. 11. In the haste of agreeing to groupings, the amendment has slipped in. I can honestly say, on reflection, that it should have been out of this grouping because it deals with a separate principle; namely, the situation where to the satisfaction of the authority there are two clubs

441
such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which have no record of violence. In such a situation we are asking why the Government should want to impose the full rigours of this, with the resultant damage which the noble Viscount, Lord Graigavon, mentioned, even to a small percentage of a small gate.
If a large club such as Tottenham was to lose 5,000 or 6,000 casuals it would mean the loss of a lot of money. However, the club could manage because it would still have 22,000 or 23,000 people. But to a small club which has only 3,000 spectators and which loses the same proportion—for example, 500—it could make a big difference. It could be a loss of, say, £2,000 or £3,000. Therefore when we come to Amendment No. 11 in its proper order I hope to have the opportunity to debate that as a separate issue.
The Minister said that there are bigger problems lower down the League. Of course he is making the case for the four divisions. But why does he stop at the four divisions? There are other leagues and there are clubs within those leagues which are aspiring to move up. Indeed, my local team is Enfield. The team has ambitions. One of the categories of violence which the Minister mentioned in a circular to his colleagues in this and another place concerned a match at Enfield. We must say that the Minister has had no difficulty in excluding by leagues some divisions and some clubs. In other words, the Minister can make arbitrary cut-offs but this place cannot suggest refinements to those arbitrary cut-offs.
The Minister made a poor point when he said that it would be difficult to make exclusions from the scheme by looking at clubs' records; it would be difficult to decide that a club had a poor record, and that some consultation would have to take place. That would not be an onerous task. To be fair to him, the Minister published the information in response to a Question. There is a great deal of information available. A case cannot be made out to suggest that the operation of an exclusion scheme for such clubs would be onerous.
The Minister has said as much as he can on this point. We are not satisfied but there are later stages to the Bill. I have said that we intend to come back to Amendment No. 11, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line II, leave out ("such") and insert ("league or domestic cup").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to League and cup matches only. The purpose of the amendment is to exclude international fixtures played at Wembley Stadium, Ninian Park and the Racecourse ground from the scope of the national membership scheme. Fixtures such as the League and FA Cup finals would not be affected by the amendment. As regards matches at which visiting supporters from countries without membership schemes, including Scotland and Northern Ireland,
442
would not have membership cards, supporters of the home team would not have to show membership cards to gain admittance to such matches.
On Second Reading the Minister dealt with the application of the scheme to Scotland and the visits here of Scottish supporters. He will no doubt be well briefed and will be able to satisfy this place about the problem that we raise in the amendment. There will be serious practical problems at Wembley and other stadia if membership schemes are imposed on international fixtures. The Minister has an obligation to tell us what he and his colleagues believe to be the answer. The Government have not made it clear as to what conditions would be enforced at, for example, a match at Wembley between England and Scotland.
If Scottish supporters are not required to have membership cards what is to stop English supporters without membership cards entering areas of the ground allocated to Scottish supporters? There may be a match between England and Scotland at Wembley. Scottish fans, alleged Scottish fans or pseudo-Scottish fans would be able to enter the ground without a card because the scheme does not exist and yet English fans, who are registered as such, would need to have a card. What is to stop those people who decide to enter those areas allocated to Scottish fans? They would be able to say that they were following Ayr. However, let us suppose that they are the hooligans who are looking for trouble and that they want to get into the enemy camp. They can get in among the Scottish fans and if they are the hooligans who travel about looking for trouble what will the situation be? If the Government require Scottish supporters to be members of a membership scheme how will it be administered when the scheme does not extend to Scotland? The Bill at the moment does not extend to Scotland. Will the police be happy if a large number of Scottish supporters arrive at Wembley without memberships cards and are denied admission to the game?
The Minister understands that there are many people outside this place who will look at the Bill and from their practical experience will ask how it will work. The Minister must say something about the matter.
It is believed that the Government envisage that foreign visitors should use their passports to obtain temporary membership cards or directly to obtain entry to the ground. How will the German, Austrian, Dutch or Spanish supporters be admitted to an international football match at Wembley? If the passport is to be the identity card how will it work? One assumes that the passport will have to be scrutinised. Otherwise what is the point of the passport? One can envisage elderly gatekeepers—many of them are—at dimly lit turnstiles—many of them are—having the problem of examining the passport to decide whether it belongs to the man or woman in question. There must be some kind of scrutiny, but it will be done under pressure as the people come through the door. The Minister must look at that matter.
The alternative which was canvassed, and upon which people have gone silent, was the issue of temporary membership cards earlier on match days.

443
If the foreign visitor must queue at the ground in the morning to obtain some kind of temporary admission and then return in the afternoon, he is not going to come back. It is difficult to say that people must come twice. If he does not have to queue, there will be some bureaucratic device which will mean that the foreigner can enter the ground without any trouble whereas the man or woman who lives around the corner, who decides on match day that he or she wants to go to the match, will have to go through some bureaucratic process. That is not on either.
I hope that the Minister will help the Committee, I have explained the basis and the raison d'être upon which I have moved the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to designate the football matches to which the requirements of the membership scheme must apply. It would remove from him the ability to apply the scheme to any matches other than those played in a league or domestic cup competition. However, it appears that it would leave him free to designate a match in any domestic league or cup competition—not just those organised by the Football League or Football Association. I suspect that that last effect was not intended.
The intention may have been, however, that none of the provisions of Part I of the Bill would apply to international matches, friendly matches between League sides, and matches played in European competitions. If such matches are excluded from the scheme, they would provide an open invitation to hooligans banned from attending games to which the scheme does not apply. Inevitably, such matches would become a target for banned hooligans.
I cannot accept that such matches should be excluded from Part I of the Bill. We recognise, however, that applying the scheme in full to some of those matches could cause problems. In particular, it is not realistic to expect everyone attending an international match in this country, including foreign nationals supporting their teams, to join the membership scheme.
We accept that international matches raise unusual issues. There is not only the problem of foreign nationals living abroad and visiting this country for the match. I understand that a significant proportion of those who attend international matches at Wembley may be people who never go to domestic matches.
We cannot exempt international matches from Part I of the Bill altogether, or, as I have said, they will simply become a focus for hooligans banned from other grounds. We must also recognise that international matches can provide a particular focus for trouble. The England-Scotland game is the obvious example but it took 1,000 police at Wembley alone to avoid the risk of violence at the England-Holland match last year.
International matches must therefore come within the Bill. Wembley, and any other ground which holds them must have a licence under Part I. The licensing
444
authority must be satisfied that the ground authorities have taken every possible step to avoid trouble. This does not mean that everyone attending a match will be required to join the scheme. It does mean that if there are to be arrangements for people to attend such matches other than as members of the scheme, those arrangements must be as secure as possible. For that reason, the matches must be designated and the ground licensed. In working up a draft scheme to submit to the Secretary of State, this is a matter to which the football authorities will need to give the closest attention. In the case of the England-Scotland game, my honourable friend, the Minister of State in the Scottish Office has made entirely clear that Scottish supporters who buy their tickets in Scotland will only be exempt from the requirement to join the national membership scheme if the Scottish football authorities can devise effective means of preventing those tickets falling into the hands of troublemakers. The Wembley authorities are very well aware of the overriding importance of making their segregation arrangements as secure as possible for England-Scotland matches.
We must also look at the issue of friendly matches between league clubs and matches with European clubs. The Government's present instinct is that friendly matches should be fully part of the scheme; if two league clubs are involved, the word "Friendly" has only too often been entirely inappropriate. The question of matches with European clubs will not be a significant issue until English clubs are re-admitted to European competition. It seems reasonable that the arrangements worked out for international matches should then be applied for matches against European clubs.
The Government take the problems of international and other matches seriously. We recognise that special arrangements will be needed within the overall framework of the scheme. But it must be within that overall framework or there will be no protection for such matches at all. If they are exempt from the requirements of Part I of the Bill, they can only become a focus for hooligans. I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think a number of us will want to read what the noble Lord has said. Frankly, I found it quite impossible to follow the argument which he deployed, particularly in relation to the position of Scottish football supporters. That is not a totally irrelevant issue, given the fact that at the last Scotland versus England match at Wembley, twice as many Scots were arrested by the police as English. Of course the scheme does not apply to Scotland. The Government or the noble Lord used the phrase that there were a number of "unusual issues". That is something of an understatement. What he was really saying was that the Government have not the faintest idea of how to bring international matches into their scheme.
In so far as I was able to follow the point he made in relation to Scottish supporters, as I understood it he said something like this. The Minister of State at the Scottish Office has told the Scottish football authorities that they will have to give some broad

445
undertaking about the behaviour of Scottish fans when they go to Wembley. If the authorities give some broad understanding or commitment or something of that kind, they will be excluded from the scheme. I may have got that absolutely wrong, in which case the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will, I know, be anxious to correct me.
I find the concept extremely difficult. If the Scottish supporter who travels with a ticket from Scotland to watch his national side play at Wembley, presents himself at Wembley Stadium, presumably there will be some arrangement whereby Scots go in at certain entrances and people with foreign passports will go in through other entrances. Some people will have the privilege of having their membership cards scrutinised, with the possibility always that if they try to enter the ground without being a member of the scheme, they will be committing a serious criminal offence. That, as I understand it, is the Government's position. Englishmen— and perhaps Welshmen, we do not know about them at the moment—will be treated in one way; Scotsmen will be treated in a totally different fashion, and others will perhaps be required to show a foreign passport.
During Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, as he may recall, the position of the Irishman who lives in Manchester but has an Irish passport, as many do. How will he be affected by the scheme? I should be immensely grateful if the noble Lord can clear that matter up.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, presents a seductive argument of why this is already rather superfluous, but I must answer him in this way. The object of the Bill is to create a successful scheme. There always was and there always will be a problem with any scheme to improve the state of hooliganism in English soccer when it comes into contact with any outside body. One of those bodies could be a Scottish football supporter coming to an England Scotland game or a German supporter—at the moment it could not be the latter but one hopes that in the not too distant future it might be a German supporter coming to see an England?West Germany game. We understand that there are problems. That is what I tried to explain in what we are hoping will be the outcome. But it is very important that the Football Membership Authority is able to address the problem in what it thinks is the most sensible way of dealing with it.
It would be entirely hypothetical for me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerning the gentleman of some fame now: the Irish football supporter in Manchester. Perhaps I may answer in a hypothetical way because I cannot speak for the FMA. If a foreign national wished, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, to go as a regular attender with an Irish passport to, let us say, a Manchester United game, it might be that the FMA would stipulate that anyone who applied for more than one game or two or three games in the passport holder category, might have to become a card holder member. However, that is an entirely hypothetical suggestion, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will appreciate that I cannot speak for the proposed FMA.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The more the noble Lord says about the proposed FMA, the more concerned some of us become. At the moment this is an entirely non-statutory body, the scheme will not be presented for any form of parliamentary approval. Therefore there is no way in which the noble Lord will be able to shuffle the responsibility for answering some of those questions onto a non-existent body; namely, the FMA.
We are entitled to ask the noble Lord what the Government want done in these cases. There are many Irish citizens who live in Manchester and Liverpool. Some of them possess Repub tic of Ireland passports, and there is nothing hypothetical about that at all; it is a practical fact. We want to know whether these people will have privileges over and above going to international matches at Wembley. Let us forget league football and talk about matches at Wembley, it is once-and-for-all in any season, so far as concerns that national team. Regarding these matches at Wembley only, what is the Government's view? First, does the existence of a foreign passport on that single occasion guarantee someone admission to the ground, or does it not? What is the Government's expectation in this matter? What do they want the FMA—their own creature, I may say—to do?
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, that quite substantial questions of European law are involved in this which could easily become a matter of some dispute in the courts. We simply want to know whether or not foreign passport holders are to receive special privileged treatment. I do not think there is anything hypothetical about the question. I should be immensely grateful if the noble Lord can answer today; but I quite understand if he cannot do so.
Lord Hesketh: I did not say that the question was hypothetical, I only said that my answer would be. After three and a half hours of debate in the Committee, this is the first time that I have mentioned the FMA in all truth. It is an occasion on which it is suitable to mention the FMA because one of the main intentions of the Bill is that the scheme will be supervised by and for football. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised a point which must be discussed and that the conclusion will be achieved by that route.
The Earl of Onslow: As the Committee knows, I am a supporter of the Government on the Bill, but I am very worried by the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It seems extremely odd that for international England v. Ireland and England v. Wales matches somebody who is an Irish supporter who lives in Guildford may have to obtain an identity card to go into the Irish or Scots supporters' part of the ground. If he is a Scottish supporter who lives in Oban he does not have to get an identity card. Either everyone should have to get an identity card—on the whole I think that is impossible in view of the European dimension—or there will have to be extra police to overcome the problem that way. International matches will have to be exempted. In spite of being a major supporter of the Government,

447
I see that this particular dilemma is an extremely difficult one for the Government to get themselves out of. I cannot see a way that that can be done, but then I am only a humble Back-Bencher and I do not have the advice of civil servants behind me.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: As I said at the very start of this debate, there will always be a problem when an interface occurs with an outside source. The Government take the view that if we exempted certain grounds—I take Wembley as an example—from Part I of the Bill, they would act as a honeypot for hooligan bees.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is there any hope that the Government will be able to clarify this matter between now and Report? I very much hope that the Minister, particularly after the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be able to tell us that we shall be given a far clearer indication of answers to questions that I and others have raised. The Minister will appreciate that those questions have not been answered. If he is prepared to undertake to look again at this matter between now and Report, I hope that we shall not press the amendment because undoubtedly there are some difficulties involved, although some of them are of the Government's own making. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, feels the same way. I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he is prepared to look again at this matter because, frankly, in its present form the Bill as drafted is most unsatisfactory.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Minister will be able to say something further on this. This matter is undoubtedly a hot potato. It has been recognised as such ever since the scheme was conceived. The Minister rests his case upon Clause 5(3)(c) which states that the scheme may provide:
"for the admission as spectators at designated football matches, without their being members of the scheme, of descriptions of person specified in the scheme in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as are so specified".
That is one of the remits of the football membership scheme. The Minister is really saying that the Government recognise that there is a problem. He gave what I think, with great respect to him, was a wholly inoperable means of dealing with the problem. However, the Minister then said that a solution was up to the Football Membership Authority. Clause 5 states that:
"The scheme must include provision".
The clause is very specific on many matters. But as regards the matters we are discussing, it becomes unspecific. The Minister must understand that when Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber—and on the other side too I hope—get up, we are asking questions on behalf of very important people who are doing a very important job. I ask the Minister what the reaction of the Wembley authorities has been to this measure. Is the response of the Wembley authorities on record? I am not privy
448
to that and this is not a catch question. But clearly Wembley must be one of the clubs that will have something to say about this.
When this Bill becomes law the Wembley authorities, like all other law abiding citizens, will try to make it work. But before the Minister makes this Bill into an Act, he must be satisfied that it is workable and enforceable. I noted what the Mnister said as regards Scotland. I believe he said that it would be expected of the Scottish football authorities to make as secure as possible the arrangements for Scottish fans to travel to England. The Minister also suggested that the same safeguards should apply to buying tickets in Scotland. Perhaps 10,000 people with mixed attitudes and intentions will be affected by those provisions. So are we saying that somebody is going to have to say either to the Minister, the FMA, the administrator of the scheme or to Parliament that he has tried to make sure that those 10,000 people will behave themselves?
The Government have already made sure that English fans behave themselves because the Government believe that possession of a card is, ipso facto or prima facie, a passport into a football ground at which there will be no violence. I should like to hear the views of the Scottish Football Authority on this matter. I do not mean the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland; I mean the views of the Scottish Football Authority. Is that authority really going to accept this kind of responsibility? It is unfair to label Scotland in this way, but Scotland serves as an illustration of the damage that has been done and which, regrettably, because of the nature of football, will be done by some fans on some occasions. A school of thought exists which states that the fewer fans there are the better things will be and that the best way to avoid violence is to have nobody inside football grounds who can cause violence.
But the Minister must understand that part of the joy and passion of football is non-violent confrontation, passion and partisanship between two sides. That is what it is all about. At one time there was no violence at football matches, but regrettably today there is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we should not press this amendment at this stage. But if the kind of flesh that is to be put on the bones is the kind of thing that we have heard tonight, or very little more, I can see that at a future stage we shall have to ask what course is open to us. Although we in this Chamber are very limited in our powers, and although the other place is very limited in its powers, as the Government have a majority and certain intentions, we still have a duty not only to ourselves but also to people outside to raise these kind of questions.
The Minister did little more than sketch in the possible details of the scheme. That was all he could do tonight. But what would happen if the FMA came up with a scheme of its own designed to ensure that Wembley remained a designated ground and therefore had to comply with the arrangements? Is the Minister saying that he and the Government will accept a scheme worked out by the Football Association, the Football League and those bodies that compose the FMA? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised the very valid point that

449
we have a long way to go before we discuss who appoints bodies, the powers of those bodies and their composition, and who those bodies arc responsible to, not least Parliament.
I should be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee at this stage by answering some questions. Has Wembley been consulted? What are its views? Once the Bill becomes an Act, will the FMA and the administrator have the power to devise their own scheme, or is the Minister really saying that at every turn of events although people will be free to do what they like, they will be advised by the Government as to what will be acceptable to the Government? At the end of the day we know that the scheme, in whatever form it may appear, must be accepted by the Secretary of State. It has to be not only acceptable to him but also be capable of amendment by him.
If these good people produce a scheme which they think is workable and the Secretary of State does not agree and says that he is going to amend it, what is the purpose of Parliament in effect? We are here as parliamentarians trying to do our job. But if the Minister rests his case on the words of the Bill as it is drafted at the moment, that the Secretary of State has power not only to appoint the administrator but also to remove him, and not only to call for a scheme but also to amend it, reject it and to dismiss the FMA, what powers are left to parliamentarians?
We understand the political realities of this Chamber. But we are saying to people outside the Chamber who are involved in football that their house must be put in order. We are telling them that we want them to put it in order as they are in charge of it. But before they do, they can do nothing of their own volition that is not approved by the Minister. Can the Minister and his colleagues accept that there may be some circumstances where people who run football know more about football than the Minister and his colleagues? I am not talking about law and order alone. Although this is a law and order issue, it is also a football issue. So I think the Minister could help the Committee in its intentions if he answered some of those points.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister replies, there is one question that I should like to put to him in connection with the debate which we have just had, to which I have been listening very carefully and with growing concern and bewilderment. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked as parliamentarians to pass a measure which distinguishes the treatment of one citizen of the United Kingdom from another citizen of the United Kingdom, in that if you are Scots you may very well be able to get into a football game at Wembley without an admission card, but if you are English you will not be able to do so. I further understand that the Scots will be able to buy their football tickets, presumably in Scotland, and it is only a ticket that they will need for admission.
We hear a great deal about such persons as ticket touts. Let us suppose that the ticket touts are able to get hold of a number of tickets which they then bring down to England, south of the Border, to sell to the Sassenachs outside Wembley football ground. What
450
then? If the English are able to buy a Scottish ticket then they will be able to get into the match, even though they are not members of the football admission scheme. What measures are we to expect the Government to take about that circumstance? The Minister will not, of course, wish to see the law circumvented in such a way. Does that mean that the Government will now bring forward a Bill to forbid the selling of Scottish football tickets outside Wembley football stadium?
It seems to me that this Bill has not been thought out. I hope the noble Lord will take note of everything that has been said in this debate and take very seriously the request—indeed the plea, the entreaty—that was made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to think very carefully about this Bill, about this clause and about this amendment. He would be well advised to do so. He would not just be helping Parliament and the people of this country, but he might very well be helping the Tory party as well.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, sits down, does he not agree that an unfortunate precedent has already been set for discriminating between citizens of different parts of the United Kingdom in the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed.
Lord Mishcon: I promise the Committee that I shall say only one sentence and it is this. In relation to what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said in regard to football ticket touts, will the Minister consider making all the activities of football touts a criminal offence? Indeed he may get a lot of support in the House if he does.
Lord Carter: It is not just the football tout. It is the Scottish supporter who comes down with a spare ticket which he sells in the pub on the way to the ground.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I ask one very brief question? We have talked a great deal about the Scots, but some similar problems can be associated with Northern Ireland football supporters. No doubt the Minister will take that into account at the same time as he is considering the Scottish issue.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, accuses the Government of acting like a steamroller, but he has only to think of what happened earlier this afternoon to find that that is not entirely the case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You were run over.
Lord Hesketh: I have listened with interest to the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, and Lord Mishcon. I do not think my position entitles me to direct new legislation with regard to the abolition of ticket touts, desirable or not as that may be. We have always been aware that there would be difficulties when people, countries or groups who were outside of the scheme were coming into the scheme. Wembley stadium are

451
keen to see that sensible provisions are made and the discussions between them and my right honourable friend will continue with the formation of the FMA. I mention the FMA because the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, talked about the people who run football. The objective of the FMA is that it will be run by the people who run football, and that is why we believe that in this area, which is difficult, that is the best answer.
But perhaps I may add that if we exclude these grounds or particular games from Part I of the Bill, what effectively will happen is that we shall be declaring open season for a particular type of game. I have worries that if that happens we may be opening a very nasty Pandora's Box which we may come to regret at a later date.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister telling the Committee that the scheme divised by the FMA to deal with this matter, even though it is contrary to the views of the Secretary of State, will prevail?
Lord Hesketh: At the end of the day, I believe there will be a satisfactory and amicable agreement on this, because everyone at this moment wants an agreement. The point that I am trying to make is that we really do not think that we can have an open season at Wembley.
Lord Northfield: On the previous occasion I declared an interest as a director of Wembley. Although I am no longer a director, I have listened with some incredulity to the exchanges this afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord realises the problems created for Wembley by the sort of examples that have been bandied around the Committee this afternoon. The problems are enormous. It is not good enough to come to the Committee today and say to noble Lords that the Government really do not know what they want at this stage, and then to ask Parliament and this House to give a carte blanche to go ahead with all sorts of powers over the situation.
We are legislating here and Wembly stadium, like anybody else, will do its best to apply the Government's legislation. But it cannot be fair to ask Parliament at this stage to trust that this will all work out. We ought to be receiving guidance from the Government as to what they expect. We ought to be having answers to the sort of questions that have been asked today; for example—the noble Lord has not yet answered it—what is to happen to foreign visitors? Will they get a special card? Will Wembley have to issue that card? Will they have to make two trips to the stadium to get that card?
We cannot go on with legislation of this kind on a very important national basis and with a national institution, respect for which will be at risk throughout the world if it is forced into a ridiculous set of provisions. I plead with the noble Lord before Report stage to come some way to make some announcement about what is expected. Otherwise Wembley stadium dirctors will need very much to reserve their position, much though they want to co-
452
operate with the Government. I find the exchanges absolutely disheartening and almost incredible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I say to the Minister, with great respect, that substantial questions have been asked that he has failed to answer to our satisfaction. He has given answers, but I hope that when he and his colleagues reflect after this stage he will see that this House will not be satisfied with the answers that it has had. What powers we have, and how we can seek to support our premises in these matters, remain to others and myself to consider between now and the next stage.
The Minister has a great responsibility because there are people inside and outside this House who will try to make the law work. I beg the Minister to consult meaningfully with the people outside the House who know more about football and its administration than I do. If the scheme causes a problem that is not of our doing or of theirs. They dislike the scheme, but if there is to be a scheme they say, "How can we make it work?" The scheme may fall down in any event because it cannot be made to work. We believe that we can demonstrate that it cannot work, but those are major political considerations.
The Minister has tried to do his best. He has failed to satisfy the Committee, but I certainly give him notice in withdrawing this amendment and the others related to it that it is not because we are satisfied but because we genuinely want to test the reality of the Bill and the scheme in the spirit that I have described. He has failed to satisfy us so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("2A) No football match falling within section (Community Football Schemes) shall be a designated football match within the terms of subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: I venture on this amendment for two reasons which I shall state before referring to the wording of the amendment itself. First, I wish to seek to show to the Committee that the Government have not used the authorities available to them when trying to think through the problem of football hooliganism. Secondly, I want to draw attention to what many local authorities and many football clubs which will be designated if the Bill goes through have done to deal with football hooliganism and the improvement of facilities for football on their grounds and for the patrons of the various football clubs.
It may be astonishing to many Committee Members that, although the Football League has been mentioned as having been consulted with regard to voluntary schemes and been found wanting, with the result that this Bill has become necessary, no mention has been made—I ventured humbly to draw attention to this point on Second Reading—of any consultation with the local authorities, which know so well the population in their midst and the football clubs in their areas. I remember well, as I said on

453
Second Reading, the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, from the Benches opposite. He was not only a distinguished Minister of a Conservative Government, but a distinguished leader of the opposition in a place that I used to frequent; namely, County Hall in London. He drew attention—not on Second Reading but on another occasion—to the Government's dismal way of not allocating to local authorities the responsibilities and respect that they deserve if local government is not to perish completely in this country after a long and honourable tradition and history.
This amendment states—I hope that I put it in simple terms—that there should be exempted from desgnation any football club that has gone into a community football scheme which is to be submitted to the authorities after consultation between the club, the local authority in which area the club is situated and the police, and then submitted to those who would have jurisdiction if the Bill were passed.
It may be asked: what have local authorities and clubs done? They have had all the time in the world. Football hooliganism has been with us in a tragic degree for quite a time; a degree so tragic that I believe all of us carry almost a feeling of shame regarding the way in which we have as a result been banned from international events of a certain character. That shame attaches to the whole of the membership of Parliament, whether in the House or the other place, wherever we may be sitting. The Government have made almost an allegation: here are the Football League and football clubs. They had all the time in the world. There were the local authorities. When did they speak? Why was their voice silent?
I hope that I shall not bore the Committee and I promise to deal with the matter as briefly as possible. I mention it because otherwise not only is the public misled as to what has been done and what could be done with regard to the very matters that the Bill is designed to fight, but we too could be misled. From what the Government have said, we would not have been aware of efforts that have successfully been made.
I turn first to Millwall, a club that has been mentioned in our discussions. What has Millwall done? And what has Lewisham done? After all, Millwall comes within the bounds of Lewisham as a local authority. They signed a contract in June 1987. The cost to the council in 1988 was £70,000. That is what Millwall had done by way of co-operation between a club and a local authority. I again stress the fact that a local authority knows its club and its people. What we are doing here—Heaven knows why we are doing it!—is to introduce a supposedly uniform national scheme in which the administrators do not even know the local problems or benefits.
What has been the benefit of the co-operation between local authority and club with regard to Millwall and Lewisham? What have they done? They issue 150 free tickets for every home game. Do we know where they go? They go to children's homes, people with disabilities, the homeless, schools—so that youngsters are trained in the way to behave at a
454
football match—and to youth groups. The pitch and stadium are used for council events. There are schools' and women's football festivals. There is a club involvement in the council's holiday programmes for young people, again to train them how to behave and to show them what debts they owe—so to speak—to the local authority and their football club. Local schools are encouraged to visit the club and to do research work as part of a project to illustrate the changing face of football. There are schemes to tackle racist chanting on the terraces.
What about violence? I shall tell the Committee what the club and the local authority have done about violence directly; I have said what they do indirectly. Violence at home and away has declined. They have recruited John Stalker to advise on police matters. They have reduced entrance fees for pensioners, students and the unemployed, a creche which operates during Saturday games and a family enclosure. All those measures are designed, thought out and carried out between a local authority and a football club—a situation not provided for in any way under this Bill.
I could go on. Sheffield Wednesday has similar schemes although I shall not detail them. Luton Town, Coventry City, Manchester City and Stoke City football clubs have similar arrangements, as has Barnsley Football Club, which was unnecessarily vilified in a joking way by one Committee Member. Its reputation was immediately championed by another whose title contains the name of Barnsley. I am as yet unaware whether that was done for personal advancement or from loyalty to the Barnsley Football Club.
In the Third Division, Southend United and Preston North End have such a scheme. In the Fourth Division, Doncaster Rovers and Halifax Town have such a scheme. Let it not be said that the football clubs individually have not taken this matter seriously and have not tried to do a creative job. Let it not be said that local authorities have universally been absent-minded in these matters and have not co-operated where possible with the clubs in their areas.
It is astounding that the Government's investigation of this problem should result in a diktat about a national scheme, as we have just seen, that was not thought through. Vital details were left out of consideration. In tackling this problem, nobody has said to local authorities, "Try to put a scheme forward in consultation with the police and your local football clubs and we shall look at it at government level to see whether it meets the case in your area." I have moved this amendment in order that the Committee and the Government may consider whether these schemes of co-operation between local authorities and clubs in their area can be given a chance. If the clubs take advantage of that chance and opportunity, they could cease to be designated under this Bill or brought within this national membership scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek to exclude from the scheme matches at those clubs operating a community football scheme. The proposed new clause tells us what the noble Lords have in mind as

455
constituting a community football scheme. I am entirely unaware that we have ever held local authorities responsible in any way for the problems. I make that absolutely clear. I should like to make it clear straight away that the Government fully support the concept of community football schemes. I applaud the success of those clubs which are developing community involvement schemes. Nothing but good can flow from clubs getting closer to the community of which they are part. However, we must remember the sad fact that hooliganism is indiscriminate. A successful community scheme, laudable though it is, is no guarantee against the threat of crowd disorder. As with other amendments seeking to exclude certain matches from the scheme, these amendments would also bring with them practical difficulties.
The more one moves away from the Government's basic premise that, to be effective and capable of being operated efficiently, the scheme should be applied across the board to all football matches qualifying for designation under the Bill, the more complicated and less effective one makes the scheme, and the more difficult one makes life for the clubs and the supporters.
I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to do. However, I know that he understands that the central tenet of the Government's position is the principle of universality. It is for that reason that I hope noble Lords will agree to withdraw this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Although the Minister does not dismiss the schemes—he welcomes them—I am sad that he is not prepared to accept what we suggest: a substitute for the application of a national scheme in certain circumstances. Let us bear in mind that this is not a cosy relationship between the club, the local police and the council. It has to be a pretty good scheme to get all three to work together. It then has to be submitted to the FMA. That is the body which has yet to he created under this Bill. That body has to look at the scheme, which has to be supported by the Secretary of State. The Minister seems to be saying time and again that the reason the Government cannot accept sensible proposals is because they have already decided to exclude anything other than what is already in the Bill. If that is the situation, why does he not tell us that we are wasting our time?
We wish to eliminate bad behaviour. One of the charges against the football fraternity by other Ministers is, "Your have had your chance. You have failed to put your house in order. Now Parliament will make you put your house in order." Against that background, there are clubs with these schemes where the incidence of violence pro rata is lower than in other clubs. That is part of the evidence. The Minister has not taken it into account. Much difficulty is being built up for the Government. That does not displease me but it is unnecessary. I can name one or two chairmen of clubs who I know do not share my political views. They are aghast that the Government are not prepared to give credence to
456
what the clubs are doing. It is costly, time consuming, and it works.
I visited Millwall. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, knows more about Millwall Club than anyone here. He has made reference to it earlier. I can honestly say that where I was sitting—and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will know where that was—there was an atmosphere and ambiance on the terraces created by that club. Millwall has had nasty problems caused by some groups of people over the years. However, the problem has been reduced.
We are asking the Minister to recognise the genuine efforts by groups of people which ought to be rewarded. Otherwise, the Minister is simply saying, "We hear what you say. We do not intend to do anything about it".
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may say two things briefly. There is a real difference of view between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about the principle of universality. The noble Lord also referred to the lack of flexibility by the Government. I draw his attention to the fact that we have reached only Amendment No. 10.
Lord Mellish: Will the Minister answer this question? Amendments have been passed earlier today by the Committee which do not agree with the universality about which the Minister speaks. Will the Minister say what the position now is, or does he not know?
Lord Carr of Hadley: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to give some further thought to this principle between now and Report stage. I draw an analogy from experience in another field. For the greater part of the last decade until a year ago I have been intimately involved in helping to form local business partnerships in an attempt to tackle in the first place youth unemployment, and then adult unemployment also and inner city problems. That was first in my capacity as chairman for about four years of the CBI Special Programmes Unit, and, for three years ending just over a year ago, as chairman of an organisation called Business in the Community.
We have had considerable success although there is a long way to go. However, the fundamental lesson that we learned after the first year or two is that in making progress with these problems—and they are social as well as economic—one must build from the bottom up and not from the top down. I am desperately nervous that the Government are tackling this entirely from the top down. I realise that because of the awful situaton that has arisen with hooliganism at football it may be necessary to start that way. However, I beg the Government to consider at least providing a way out. We cannot go on in a free country in this way for the next hundred years. There must be a moment when people can escape from the system that will unfortunately be forced on them because of the record of troubles we have to deal with.
One must provide local clubs and local communities with the opportunity to escape from this system as soon as possible. Therefore if, for reasons that I think I can understand, the

457
Government are not prepared to allow such provision from the beginning, I hope that at the next stage the Government will be able to say to us, "Yes, but we are going to put forward provisions which will allow local clubs, local grounds, to work their way out of the straitjacket into which unfortunately necessity forces us to put them to begin with." I beg the Government to give consideration to that point.
Lord Northfield: I wonder whether I could add a point in support of the noble Lord, with particular reference to Wembley. One of the problems that Wembley has—it must be easily understood by the Committee—is the immense impact of Wembley on its local community. When hundreds and thousands, and tens of thousands, of people begin to turn up at Wembley games there is an enormous disadvantage for the local community in terms of the clogging of roads, the danger of hooliganism outside and so on. But in the past couple of years, Wembley has built up a very good ongoing relationship with its local authority. It now has a very good understanding of the importance to the community of Wembley and the importance of community relations.
The better way to have solved the Wembley problem was to build on that and to give that opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has said, so that Wembley, under Amendment No. 69, can escape at a crucial point from the net that the Government are trying (not very successfully) to erect. I think the complications will be hideous for Wembley. I hope that Wembley can agree a scheme with its local authority, the local people and the local police that satisfies everybody. I have to keep saying this to the Committee: Wembley has hardly had any violence in its years of history. Why should it not eventually—if not now—be able to escape from the clutches of the Bill?
This is the right way to tackle the problem. If the door is closed by refusing to listen to this kind of amendment, I fear for the worst when the time comes to implement this complicated Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am much encouraged by the speeches that have been made on the amendment, and I am deeply grateful for the way in which they have appeared from various parts of the Committee. To encourage the Government to adopt that spirit I ask for the view of the Committee to be taken.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 80.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Banks, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Barnett, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

458

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Foot, L.

Nelson, E.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Jay, L.

Stedman. B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mais, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mellish, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Camden, M.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Onslow, E.

Croft, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Dormer, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

Knights, L.

Young, B.

Knutsford, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to both orders. These orders require parliamentary approval under provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982. The Construction Board Levy is in exactly the same format as that approved by the House last year. The only change is in the per capita levy rates which for most occupations have been raised in line with wage rates in the industry.
The levy proposals should raise about £56 million. They have been approved by the board and are strongly supported by the employers associations in the industry. They have also been approved by the training commission.
With regard to the Engineering Board, they propose for mainstream engineering establishments a total levy of I per cent. of an employer's payroll. Of that levy 0·07 per cent. will be non-exemptible, a reduction of 0·01 per cent. on last year's rate. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible.
Additionally, firms employing 40 workers or less will be excluded totally from paying levy. Some 68 per cent. of firms will be excluded by this provision because of their size.
For the engineering construction sector the levy proposals are the same as approved last year. The Board anticipates that it will raise some £18·7 million from the levy after allowing for exemptions. This will fund its operating costs and a wide range of training initiatives.
I commend both the orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for presenting the orders to the House. I am aware that orders of this kind are not controversial and that what is being proposed has already been the subject of consultation with all interested parties. However, training is very much on the agenda, not least because there is a Government White Paper on the subject which has yet to be debatedin full by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about industry training boards and the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board in particular.
In my view, both those bodies are an advertisement for the tripartite ideal. Both consist of an equal number of industrialists and trade unionists with a number of educationists. Both have had considerable impact on their particular industrial fields. We often voice concern about the bad record in Britain of training and of skill shortages. How much worse the situation would have been had we not had statutory bodies such as the industry training boards?
460
The Engineering Industry Training Board needs to collect the levy—as does the CITB—in order to carry out the functions it performs. The EITB has done a great deal to change the image of engineering and to ensure, for example, that women are beginning to look to the industry for a career. It has worked with the Equal Opportunities Commission and in particular with that commission's campaign for Women into Science and Engineering (the WISE Campaign) to persuade women and girls that engineering is a suitable career. It has introduced its own Women and Technician Training Programme.
The provision of recommendations, specifications and support material for training in transferable skills, and the formal recognition of the completion of training to national standards, has always been an important part of EITB work. Engineering employment has declined over the years, but the decline to April 1988 was the lowest for a decade. It is hardly the fault of the EITB that increasing numbers of engineering graduates are entering commerce rather than industry. Unfortunately there has been a rapid rise in the proportion of first-class engineers entering financial and management services rather than engineering proper. That is because the rewards are so much greater but the EITB can hardly be blamed for that.
The Government now envisage a non-statutory role for industrial training boards. That is foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper and I understand that discussions are already proceeding on that basis. I believe that no evidence has been produced that they will fare better. It is important that there should be national co-ordination and that may well be lost if the roles are changed.
In my view, the Government should be careful about uprooting everything in their zeal for so-called radical reform. The bodies which are working well should be left to continue with their task and given additional support and encouragement.
I support the orders now before your Lordships' House. I wished to make those few remarks in support of the industry training boards on whose behalf the orders are laid.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the orders. They follow the usual pattern and my noble friends and I have no objection to them.
Much more significant than the orders is the fact that the Government have published their White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has pointed out. It is plain from the White Paper that the Government's plans for sector training organisations have radical implications for the industrial training boards which remain, including the engineering and construction boards. The Government are looking to the boards to put forward proposals for moving as quickly as possible towards becoming independent, non-statutory training organisations fully supported by employers in their sectors. Such boards will not have the power to impose levies by statute.

461
I recognise the fact that this is not the time to enter into an argument about whether training is best organised on a statutory or voluntary basis. No doubt that issue will be discussed in next week's debate on the White Paper which will be introduced by the noble Baroness. I should like to join her in complimenting the Engineering Industry Training Board in particular on its achievements over the past 25 years.
It is significant that the Construction Industry Training Board considers that the arrangements proposed by the Government will not be effective in that industry unless they are underpinned by a statutory levy through which the costs of training to meet the industry's needs can be collectively shared. In its view, voluntary arrangements would result in reduced investment in training by employers with a consequent increase in skills shortages and spiralling wages costs.
For their part the Government have acknowledged that special considerations may apply in the construction industry. They have also acknowledged that there are particular training problems connected with a highly mobile labour force with many small firms involved in labour only sub-contracting.
On that subject, the key statement in the White Paper is that the Government will enter into consultation with each of the statutory industrial training boards and organisations representing employers in their sectors with a view to drawing up an agreed programme and timetable for becoming independent non-statutory bodies. I know from what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said in a debate last week that those discussions are now taking place. However, I should be glad to learn this evening when we may expect to hear the outcome of that process in the case of the construction and engineering boards.
In particular, it would be helpful if we could be given an indication of whether further levy orders of the kind we are now discussing are likely to be needed before successor bodies are in a position to take over the work of the present boards, presumably, when their term of office comes to an end in, I believe, 1991. Any further relevant information of that kind will be most welcome. Meanwhile, on behalf of my noble friends, I am happy to approve the orders now before us.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships. Indeed, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in the tribute she paid to the work of the ITBs, especially to the EITB. She mentioned how that board had very successfully increased the number of women who have been encouraged to become engineers.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the theme of the recent White Paper and rather questioned the advisability of shifting from a statutory to a non-voluntary basis, as proposed in the White Paper. Of course I do not believe that any useful purpose would come from discussing the matter now as it is not germane to the orders at which we are looking. However, I simply
462
make the comment which is obvious from the White Paper, that the kernel of it is to shift responsibility for training to employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked at what date matters will have developed to a more concrete form. I cannot give him a precise date but I understand that we shall have made substantial progress with consultations by July. He also asked whether, during the transition and before we have made a complete change, further similar orders to the one at which we are now looking will he necessary. I do not know the answer to that but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
With regard to the orders under discussion, I thank your Lordships for your approval of them and indeed they will help facilitate the work of the boards for the time being so that we can sensibly plan for a transition to more effective arrangements.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 8.20.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.33 p.m. to 8.20 p.m.]

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page I. line 17, at end insert ("Provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the clubs taking par: in the match or matches designated has had a substantial problem of violence or disorder on the part of spectators in the previous three years.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment was debated with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8 and I indicated then that it would be worth spending just a little further time on it because it is slightly different from the amendments grouped with it. In effect, Amendment No. 11 is specific that clubs can be excluded from the scheme. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that:
"One or more of the clubs taking part in the match or matches designated has had a substantial problem of violence or disorder on the part of spectators in the previous three years".
Where two clubs have a record of, if not no violence very low violence, that, prima facie, should be sufficient for the match between those two clubs not to be a designated match. However, where one of the clubs—the away club—has a poor record I realise that the Secretary of State may well ask how one defines a good or a poor record.
The Minister and his advisers rested heavily on the number of arrests in a ground as being the yardstick. As we have said on more than one occasion, arrests are only the beginning. My noble friend Lord Carter referred to Southampton where the list showed 208 arrests in a season. However, on examination it transpired that of the 208 arrests, which looked horrendous, 108 applied to an event on one day at a railway station miles from the ground. Of the 108 arrested on that occasion only four people were charged by the police and none of them was convicted.
I understand very well that once we get to this kind of nitty-gritty difficulties arise. However, we are seeking to remove from the full rigours of the Bill the impact especially on small grounds. We have the benefit of the league table which the Minister produced. I make no point about its complete accuracy because I understand that if there is anything wrong with the league table it is not the fault of the Minister. He accepted the figures from police sources and the police have been under some pressure. I make no point other than it is clear that at some matches it is virtually certain there will be no violence.
Amendment No. 11 therefore asks the Minister to consider very carefully whether he is prepared, through a list of variations, to consider making some matches non-designated matches. This would be where the two clubs are able to demonstrate good records not for just one season or the previous season but for three seasons. That would be a very good test. If the two clubs can produce records showing that for the past three years their grounds have been virtually free from violence then the proposed match should not be a designated match. That would mean that casual spectators who do not have an ID card can be admitted. I hope the Minister can be of assistance. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As I explained earlier, we do not believe that Amendment No. 11 presents a workable proposition. It would mean that the Secretary of State, in designating matches, would need to satisfy himself that one or both clubs had not had a substantial hooligan problem for the previous three years.
That would appear to require the Secretary of State to consider each individual match played throughout the year to see whether one of the participants had had hooligan problems within three years. As I said, a major difficulty with suggested exemptions of this kind is that they would make the scheme far more complicated and, we believe, less effective.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord says that there would be complications. I do not believe that looking at a complete record will cause much difficulty and trouble. There would be an incentive, a carrot, held out to clubs to maintain violence-free records which would lift them from the burden of this Bill. That is a powerful incentive. Nothing that the Minister said so far—the night is young and our impact into the Bill is short—will encourage clubs to
464
get themselves out of the Bill. The Minister has given us all or nothing at all—all 92 clubs or none. I am not being unkind to him; it is the way things have happened.
We are looking for flexibility from the Government. Perhaps that will come on later amendments—I certainly hope so. My point is that whether it be a small club or a big club, badly behaved supporters or well behaved supporters, it makes no difference—all are treated alike. None is able to be promoted out of the identity card nexus.
Does the Minister appreciate that, in general, whether by incentive, reward, or whatever it is, people respond? By working hard and diligently clubs and supporters can deal with the unruly elements. I do not raise the question of cost—the £5 or £6 involved in becoming a member—but I am told, and I can sense, that there will be a bureaucratic overlay on clubs which is disproportionate to the necessity.
I can understand the Minister saying that the amendment is not desirable from his point of view but I cannot accept that it will be onerous. The Secretary of State, by asking for figures, produced the league tables which he did. He did not seek to make a point, but some elements of the media used the statistics and produced misleading headlines which was not the Minister's fault. The figures were produced simply by asking the police authorities to let him have their records.
Perhaps the Minister is saying that it is difficult to decide the cut-off below which a record is a bad record but he does not have to do it. We have yet to come to the powers and influence of the FMA. It may decide in its scheme to lay down that a club with an arrest ratio of less than 10 per 10,000, or one in 1,000, whatever it may be, for three years is deemed, ipso facto to be a club with a record good enough to exclude it.
If they are treated in the same way as a club with an arrest record of 25 per 1,000, someone will ask, "why are we spending all this money because it makes no difference? We still have the overlay". I am sure that the Minister is not going to accede or to give on this matter. It is another instance where he has missed an opportunity of demonstrating particularly to small clubs that there is a way in which they can escape what they tell me is going to be a financial burden that they cannot afford. In the light of what the Minister has said, I may very well return with this amendment in another form on this precise issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from (-instrument") to end of line 30 and insert ("but no order under that subsection shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: This is the affirmative resolution amendment. We often have discussions in Committee as to whether the affirmative procedure should be used. On many occasions it may reasonably be said that the Executive is often right to

465
resist the over-use of this procedure. But I cannot think of any case since I have been in this Committee where it has been more obviously desirable to have it in a Bill. As I said at Second Reading, what we are debating is an empty shell rather than a piece of carefully considered legislation. We had only to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, just before we rose for the dinner adjournment to realise how ill thought out this entire scheme has been.
He has a most unenviable task in defending a badly thought through Bill. I believe that he has done the very best he can with considerable difficulty. Perhaps I may direct the Committee's attention to why the case for the affirmative resolution is self-evident as regards this piece of legislation. When we look at the Bill it is quite obvious that the whole scheme is to be decided as a result of a discussion between the administrator and the Secretary of State. At the moment what the Bill tells us about the outcome of their discussions is that the Secretary of State will graciously be pleased to lay a copy of the final scheme before both Houses of Parliament. Frankly, that is totally unsatisfactory.
We have heard already in a series of debates today who is going to be in and who is going to be out of the scheme. Undoubtedly some of these issues will be debated later this evening and some on a subsequent occasion. They are central to the Bill. Let us look at some of the questions that are involved. At this stage I am discussing only Part I of the Bill. Will the disabled be in or out? We do not know. Admittedly we still have to discuss it. But that matter is a question for Parliament to determine and not for some form of private dialogue between the administrator and the Secretary of State. Will old age pensioners be in or out? The number of rioting old age pensioners is fairly limited.
I believe that one of the most sensible things that the Government can do as quickly as possible is to make it absolutely clear that this particularly ridiculous idea of making everybody enter the scheme whether 75, 85 or 15 years old is manifestly absurd. That is a matter for Parliament to determine and not the subject for a private dialogue between the administrator and the Secretary of State. We have had discussion about foreigners. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will not mind me returning to the Irish passport holders in Manchester and Liverpool. I believe that they are going to figure in our debates a good deal in the future. It is a matter of some considerable importance as to whether all EC residents are going to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill and will be able simply to show a passport and get into a ground.
Parliament will want to know about that matter before it finally approves the scheme. For that reason Parliament should be invited to make the final decision. There was also the question that we debated just before dinner of the Scots and the Northern Irish. How can matters of this kind be left totally to an administrator who is responsible to nobody except the Secretary of State—he can be dismissed at his pleasure—and a Member of the Government, with Parliament having no rights in the matter whatever. It seems that that would be wholly improper.
I am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is in the Committee. For a whole series of reasons I am not going to press this matter whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, says. BA I am sure that he will pay attention to some of these really serious issues. I believe that if the Government were minded to move on these matters they would reassure a great number of sensible people who at the moment are filled with great concern about this measure. If the noble Lord were able to influence some of his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to accept this amendment and others at later stages of the Bill, it would quieten some of these fears.
I wish to emphasise the importance of the questions that I have just put. They raise matters of principle and of EC law. They also raise matters of public order. They are essentially issues for Government and Parliament. They should be required to receive the support of Parliament itself. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to a very interesting series of exchanges that took place during the Report stage of the Children Bill when a former Secretary of State for the Environment, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, was dealing with some issues in this general area. In the Official Report of 16th February at col. 362 the noble Lord is referring to the Local Government Finance Bill. He said:
"My concern then was that so many Bills were coming forward which gave quite extraordinary powers, permitting governments in effect to make new law as they go along".
Subsequently at col. 364 he said:
"I feel that the time has come when we ought to look very carefully at the way these powers are being exercised. It is true that the provision is in a fairly common form, but it is now being attached to Bills which I have said are in skeletal form".
That is precisely the issue as regards this Bill. The noble Lord continued:
"I do not now know what is the composition of Cabinet committees, but I recall when in my time the legislation committee was chaired by the Lord Chancellor and the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (Viscount Dilhorne as he became), was most careful to scrutinise the legislation. Where these powers were slipped in he would ask on every occasion 'Why can't you put it in the Bill? That is what you must do so go away and redraft it'. I hope that in future we shall not let these clauses pass without a debate of this kind and that we will seize upon an opportunity to debate the whole problem which is arising now in Bill after Bill".
I believe that is overwhelmingly the view on all sides of the Committee. There is no detail in this Bill. It confers massive powers on a Member of the Cabinet and it is not subject to any form of parliamentary approval.
We then come to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he came to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. He said at col. 367:
"I believe that in regulations of this kind the Government seek as far as possible to obtain consensus out of consultat on".
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, who always pays very strict attention to his responsibilities to this Chamber, can be relied on to honour that obligation. I wonder whether we are really prepared to allow a Secretary of State to have powers of this sort conferred upon him creating a framework of law which, if ignored by the private citizen, will subject him to severe criminal penalties. How can it possibly be right for us to agree to this hole in the corner

467
negotiation between the administrator and the Secretary of State and not have final approval in both Houses of Parliament? I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord's explanation of the amendment brought the Committee's attention to a serious aspect of the Bill. I believe that what he said is correct. He said that the Bill as it stands will allow someone from Ireland who holds a British passport to enter this country and go to a designated football match without being covered by any of the strictures which apply to people living over here. If that is correct, how can we justify allowing people who may want to attend a large gathering with evil intent a privilege while those who live in the area are deemed to be potentially involved in a criminal activity? It is complete and utter nonsense. Those people have never been involved in such activity, but that is what the Bill suggests.
The Government will have to answer why people who hold a different passport and who may have evil intent can be privileged above the normal person from this country who because of the Bill is deemed to be a potential troublemaker. If one takes the Bill to its logical conclusion such people are deemed to be potential criminals. The Government must answer that question in detail. If that is the case ordinary people will not easily swallow it, bearing in mind what has happened in the past.
The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support the Government because there is great merit in the universality principle. One should certainly outlaw rioting old-age pensioners. Judging by the hysterical giggles from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, she could be the one and only rioting old-age pensioner.
When we complain about the amount of delegated legislation and say that there should not be delegated legislation we are in grave danger of allowing not delegated legislation but a hob-nob agreement between the Secretary of State and this new mythical football administrator. That is not good law. I agree with the Government and I want their Bill to be a success. I know that there are nasty people in football. The principle has to be universal. But this provision is not sensibly thought out. As a supporter of the Government, it pains me to see them coming along with ill thought out provisions of this kind. I agree with the substance of what they are doing, but will my noble friend go back to the department and say, "We do not have it totally right. The universal principle is right but somehow we are doing things which are not quite right. We are messing about with the legal system and with Acts of Parliament"?
Lord Airedale: I have never understood why Ministers tend to resist affirmative resolutions and do not welcome them. In a case like this, where the Home Secretary is likely to become extremely unpopular with members of the public over whatever he decides to put into his statutory instrument, would it not be a matter of strength for him to be able to say, "Don't put all the blame on me. This is not entirely my work. I had to get Parliament's affirmative approval for this. If you do not like it, don't blame
468
me, blame Parliament, because it agreed to this affirmatively"? The Minister should welcome being put in that position.
Lord Underhill: Everyone will agree that the facts given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, are convincing. I remind the Committee and the Minister that the amendment with which we are concerned is related to Clause 1(2), which deals with the designated football match. At this stage we do not know who will designate it. All the Bill says is that an administrator will do it. The Minister has said that it will be in the hands of the football authorities—the League and the FA—but we have not yet reached that stage. We are dealing now with the important decisions of how a match is to be designated. That is the most vital principle in the Bill.
To carry this amendment will in no way affect the universality of the Bill. The amendment says that this important issue should be the subject of a debate in Parliament on an affirmative resolution. Time and again I have endeavoured to move amendments for the affirmative procedure to be adopted. The Government have usually resisted. But in this case it is extremely difficult for the Government to resist it. We do not know what the FMA is. We do not know what the designated authority is. We do not know how it will arrive at its decision on what are designated matches.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Bill as drafted provides for the Secretary of State to designate those football matches to which the national membership scheme and the licensing requirements of the Bill would apply. Designation would be by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that it is the Government's intention to designate all matches involving Football League clubs and the English national team in England. The Secretary of State for Wales is consulting on which matches he should designate there. We have already debated today the importance which the Government attach to including all these matches within the scheme. If Members of this Chamber or another place take objection to the Secretary of State's proposal for designation, the Bill as drafted allows for them to resolve that the order be not made and to prompt a debate upon it. It seems to me that this approach protects Parliament's position fully. I am afraid that I cannot see that it is essential that we should require both Houses to debate the designated list whether they wish to do so or not—as the amendment would require.
It is already clear that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book we will have debated at length the question of which matches should be covered by the scheme. We have been specific from the outset as to what the Government's intentions in relation to designation are. There certainly can be no argument that the negative resolution procedure will allow the Secretary of State to sneak through a list of matches which Parliament has not discussed. The affirmative resolution procedure would require yet another debate on a subject already fully debated.

469
If on some future occasion it should be necessary for the Secretary of State to add further matches to the first list of those designated—for example, because serious problems are developing at a category of matches outside the designated list—he will lay an order to do so. The Bill will then allow Parliament to debate that order if Members wish to do so but it will not require such debates if there is no opposition to the Government's proposals. It seems to me clear that this strikes the right balance. It allows noble Lords to have a debate if they want one; it does not waste their time if none is necessary. I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I indicated in advance that I was not going to press the matter whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, and therefore he will not be surprised that that is precisely what I propose to do. However, with the utmost possible respect to him, I must say that I found it a little odd that he should ask what the point of all this was. All these grave issues would have been debated in Parliament and everyone would know exactly the position.
However, everything that we have heard so far in today's debate indicates that the Government do not even know how to do it themselves. For example, as regards the Wembley stadium argument which we had earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, in a most agreeable way, that of course these were very difficult issues, the Government had not really made up their mind and it was a matter for the Football Membership Authority. Indeed, he said that it was the first time that I had mentioned the name of the Football Membership Authority and he seemed to draw some comfort from that fact.
However, what he said in that debate made it totally clear that the Government do not know what to do on the central question of international matches played at Wembley.With the greatest respect, it is quite impossible for him to come along to this place and say that all those issues will have been totally satisfactorily debated and that therefore there is no need for the scheme.
As I have already indicated, I shall not press the matter to a Division. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will bear in mind not only what people on this side of the Committee have said but also the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is a total supporter of the Bill, as he has made clear on many occasions. So far as concerns this issue, we are not asking for massive changes; we are just asking for the Government to be sensitive for once on an issue which affects the direct interests of Parliament. With that, unless any other noble Lord is especially keen to speak further on the matter, I shall sit down.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise just to make this point to the Minister. If, at the end of the day, the scheme is in a form which is acceptable to the Minister, and it is sensible, what is wrong with putting that before Parliament and saying, "This is the scheme; take it or leave it"? I refer not to the bits of the scheme which will be subject to statutory instruments, but to the whole of the scheme.
470
Is not the Minister aware that there are literally millions of people who will be affected by this proposal. In effect what we are asking for is some parliamentary time, about which a great deal of agitation will be displayed in both places. I think that the Minister must be very unsure of his ability to carry a simple resolution of that kind through this place, if he is not prepared to accept the proposal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris said, this is not the time to press the matter because, regardless of the strength of the argument, it is a thin Committee and we need a lot more debate on the matter. However, I really think that the Minister ought to reflect that, on something which is as important as this, perhaps the Government ought to have the courage to put their proposals before the Committee in a form about which we can say, "Take it, or leave it". By then the FMA will have been formed, the consultations will have taken place, the wrinkles will have been ironed out and the Minister will be much happier. He cannot be happy, nor can his colleagues in another place, at what we have been able to do in the last four or five hours. We wish, in a reasonable way, to raise questions which need to he answered.
I assume that at some stage all of the questions will be answered to the satisfaction of the Minister. Indeed, Mr. Colin Moynihan—his Ministerial colleague—has said that these matters will not be proceeded with until he is satisfied that they can work. We are saying that of all the people who should say, "Yes, you are right"—that is, the supporters, the clubs, the FMA and the police—should not Parliament therefore have the opportunity to say, "We agree" or "We disagree". That is all that the amendment proposes. The matter is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I imagine that there will be another occasion upon which it may be raised.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has made his position clear, as indeed have I. There is a whole series of unresolved questions which must be answered. Given the stance of the Government at the moment, I am not persuaded that such questions will be answered while the Bill goes through Parliament, unless there is an absolute sea-change in the Government's position. That being so, the scheme should be put before Parliament for affirmative resolution. As I said, I have made my position clear on the issues of principle and we shall wait to see, with some hope, whether the Government will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to unauthorised attendance at designated football matches]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is taken by itself. In order to get the matter into context, I think

471
it would be helpful to Members of the Committee if I were to read Clause 2(1). It reads:
"If a person who is not, in relation to the match, an authorised spectator enters or remains on the premises as a spectator during the period relevant to a designated football match"—
of course those are defined earlier in the Bill—
"that person commits an offence and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
This Bill is in fact saying that the person who attempts to enter a football ground without a ticket clearly commits an offence. In other words, it is an offence if he tries to do so. When we look at Amendment No. 14 which follows, we find the astounding proposal that a person who is not a hooligan, and who is not a convicted criminal, commits a crime if he attempts to get into a match without being a member of the scheme, and ipso facto a term of imprisonment "not exceeding one month" can be visited upon him.
We think that whatever the crimes of people who are found guilty of violence, they deserve to be dealt with by the courts. However, we cannot believe that we are entering into a state of society where a person—be it a man or a woman, a young boy or a young girl, or an old man or old woman—who because of his love of football, or perhaps because of his lackadaisical attitude in applying for membership, and so on, shall have visited upon him in the full panoply of the law a term of imprisonment in such circumstances.
We want the Minister to justify how in his Britain of 1988–89 we have come to a state where it is possible for a person who attempts to get into a football match—he has committed no other crime—without a ticket ipso facto to be sent to prison. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It is important that we should make any attempt to enter a ground for a designated match an offence. By doing so we introduce a powerful deterrent against those refused membership or whose membership has been revoked who might otherwise attempt to gain entry to a designated match, for example, by using a stolen or borrowed card. I must emphasise to the Committee that by this provision we have no wish to catch the genuinely innocent spectator who unknowningly attempts to enter a ground without a membership card in circumstances where one is necessary.
Let us take a look at how this might work in practice. Suppose that a genuinely innocent spectator without a membership card joins a queue to a turnstile. If he has not realised beforehand and turned away, by the time that he reaches the head of the queue he will be asked to present his card. And, if he is not deliberately attempting to enter the ground when not authorised to do so, he will explain that he does not have one. He will not of course be able to get into the match, but that will be the end of the matter. There would be no question of prosecution in such circumstances because he is not attempting to commit an offence, which is the test required by the wording of Clause 2.
It will of course be essential that the introduction and subsequently the operation of the scheme should be given extensive publicity, including clear signs at
472
football grounds. But it is essential that attempting to enter a match except as authorised by the scheme should be an offence if we are to avoid the risk that large numbers of non-members turn up at grounds and attempt to gain entry. We must have an adequate deterrent.
I hope the noble Lords will agree to withdraw this amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister explain the practicalities of attending a football match? I went to a match recently. A number of young spectators were sitting on the hoardings outside the ground. They could see the whole of the match although they were not in the ground. Would they be committing an offence under the new scheme?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They were sitting on one.
Lord Hesketh: I did not hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. Was the hoarding inside or outside the ground?
Lord Carter: At a number of football grounds young men clamber on the hoardings around the ground. They look into the ground and can see the match. Are they inside or outside the ground? Will they be committing an offence under the new scheme?
Lord Hesketh: I assume that they will not be committing an offence if they are on hoardings outside the ground.
Lord Carter: Oh, oh, that is interesting!
Lord Wigoder: Will the Minister please help me? I am sure that I have missed this point in the Bill. Is there a definition of "person", prescribing a minimum age; or does the clause apply to a child of four, five, six or whatever it may be, who is trying to get into a ground?
Lord Hesketh: The clause applies to two classes of people. It applies to those who are liable to be members of the scheme. But the law will see it in a different light with regard to age because the law is different for various ages regarding certain offences.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That was not what my noble friend Lord Wigoder asked. He asked how a "person" is defined in respect of this matter. Does it include five, six and seven-year olds? We are entitled to a clear answer. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give us the benefit of his advice.
The Earl of Onslow: I am certain that there is a decent precedent for the use of the word "person". I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, knows it well.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What is it?
The Earl of Onslow: I do not know, but I bet the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does. I support my noble friend. If we create an offence, we should make it illegal to attempt to commit that offence. It does not matter whether it is cheating at tiddlywinks, getting into a football match or stealing horses—I accept that none of those is a serious offence—but if something is made an offence, it is reasonable to make it an offence to attempt to commit that offence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The genesis of the amendment is that the punishment for committing or attempting to commit the offence is a term of imprisonment. I am asking the Minister to explain—so far he has not done so—why it is so heinous a crime that committing it deserves a term of imprisonment. There are many things for which people deserve to go to prison. This is a new crime. We shall have a new category of "person". More people will be sent to prison. The Minister has explained what he understands will happen; but that is not what the Bill says. It provides:
"and so does a person who attempts to commit an offence under this subsection of entering premises".
There is a range of possibilities. After a match has started, there may be people outside the ground who may, in the eyes of the police, be a nuisance and who may or may not have cards. Because they are hanging about and refusing to disperse, it will be relatively simple under the Bill to charge them with attempting to enter the ground. They may refuse persistently to move away. With this amendment we are having an early debate on the attack on civil liberties that runs throughout the Bill. I want the Minister to justify how a person attempting to enter a football ground, innocently or provocatively, deserves to be sent to prison. That is what the Bill says. I genuinely want the Minister to justify that point.
Lord Hesketh: Clearly someone standing outside a football ground is not attempting to gain entry to that football ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It depends upon what the policeman says.
Lord Hesketh: I disagree with the noble Lord. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. This is not the first offence ever to appear on the statute book. There are plenty of other examples of where people can attempt to commit a crime. Imprisonment is the maximum sentence and not the standard sentence.
Lord Underhill: We should have a thorough understanding of what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that if someone without a card goes up to a turnstile to pay his £3·80, £4·80, or whatever it might be, to enter the ground then he is endeavouring to enter the premises and that is an offence? That is what the clause says. Is the Minister genuinely saying that that is the position, or will he qualify the statement?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may put a practical problem to the Minister. A foreign visitor comes here from a country within the European Community. None of those countries has legislation remotely similar to that proposed in the Bill. He reads about a football match in the newspapers and decides to go to see it. He queues up. He is attempting to commit an offence under the Bill. He is committing a criminal offence which could cause him to be sent to prison. Does the Minister suggest that that is a sensible way to proceed? I shall be interested to know what precedents there are. Whatever the precedents may be, I find that approach astonishing and beyond what is necessary to deal with the problems that the Minister defined when he spoke on Second Reading.
Lord Carter: We learn that the boys on hoardings outside the ground are not trying to enter the ground and so are OK. We saw a demonstration of the Smartcard technology and we discovered that no one is kept out. Even if someone has an invalid card, in he goes. The turnstile always works. Even if they are in error because they have the wrong card, under the use of the Smartcard technology everyone gets into the ground. Everyone who happens to have the wrong card with them or whose card is out of date will be committing an offence. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: There are two parts to that question. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other noble Lords, referred to someone arriving—a foreigner or a resident—at the turnstile and asked whether they would be committing an offence. That is not the case. I outlined in the reply I gave to the Committee that the person arriving at the gate, particularly in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which would be relevant, might be a foreigner who was not aware of the law in this country. He might arrive at the turnstile and be asked, "Where is your card?" to which he replies, "I do not have a card", at which point the gatekeeper says, "You cannot enter the ground". That foreigner has in no way committed an offence, but if he then tried to assault the gatekeeper to get into the ground—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to say, with great respect, that he is misunderstanding the criminal law of this country. In my view there is little doubt that a person who carries out the act which the noble Lord has described is attempting to enter the ground. There can be little doubt about that. There is little point in the noble Lord saying that it is not an offence because, as we all know, statements by Ministers cannot be taken into account in proceedings before the courts.
Lord Jay: Surely the weakness of the Minister's case is this. He now tells us that the individual concerned is not committing an offence unless he knows that it is an offence to try to enter that ground. That means he is not committing an offence unless he regards it as an offence. But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that it is illegal to attempt to enter the ground. It is perfectly possible, without knowing that one is attempting to commit an offence, to attempt to commit what is in fact an offence. Therefore it does not seem to me that the Bill coincides with the defence which the Minister is now making for it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does the Minister mean that it is not an offence unless the person doing it comes from the United Kingdom? The noble Lord, Lord Harris, makes a very valid point when he talks about people from other parts of the EC not understanding our laws.
Like some Members of the Committee, I happen in the morning to travel on a bus. One might ask, "What is the relevance of that? It is about people understanding our laws. When the No. 24 bus bowls up at Victoria station in the morning, because of the pressure on that bus route usually both doors are opened and people are allowed on at the front and also at the back, provided there is an inspector

475
present to check that people have tickets. Only a matter of two or three weeks ago some people from Germany got on at the back because they thought that was the thing to do and they were allowed on. The bus driver refused to drive off because those foreigners were in breach of the regulations of London Regional Transport. That could happen here. What is the Minister suggesting? Is he suggesting that because they come from other countries in the EC such as Germany or France the provision would not apply to them but if they came from over here it would?
The Bill is a mess. The Minister must do a little better in explaining what the Bill is about and not suggest that there are two standards—one for people indigenous to the country and one for people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, have come over from the Continent to watch a football match. They might quite accidentally commit an offence according to the Bill as it stands. It does not matter what Ministers say or what the Secretary of State says; it is what is in the Bill that matters. I think this should be cleared up.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may try to help my noble friend. I do not think that this is the poisoned chalice. Surely it will be known perfectly well that to attend a League football match without a card will be an offence. That will be known perfectly well—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: By everybody?
The Earl of Onslow: By everybody.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Everywhere?
The Earl of Onslow: Everywhere. All right, it may not be known by some Tadjek tribesmen in Outer Mongolia, but they are not likely or may not be likely to go to see the Arsenal v. Liverpool match. But the people who go to football matches will know that it will be illegal to do so without a card.
It seems to me to follow, as night follows day, that if somebody attempts to do something that is wrong the same punishment is attracted as if they were actually doing something wrong. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will confirm this. He is a legal expert, a Queen's Counsel; he knows perfectly well that if a person attempts to do something wrong the punishment is the same as for doing something wrong. That surely is the core of my noble friend's case.
Lord Wigoder: I leave aside the fact that some very good football is played in Outer Mongolia! I shall revert to the perfectly clear position and I hesitate to put myself forward as an authority, as has been suggested. However, under the first three lines of Clause 2 it is perfectly clear that mens rea is not an ingredient of the offence. If a supporter of Outer Mongolia United or whatever it was came to this country to watch his team in a cup tie of some sort, if he were not an authorised spectator and he entered or remained on the premises he would be committing an offence. It does not have to be proved that he knew it was an offence at the time or that he knew he was doing wrong. He commits an offence and it is an
476
absolute offence. If the principal offence is an absolute offence, I should have thought it must follow that attempting to commit the offence is equally an absolute offence. Therefore my noble friends are right in the contentions they have made about this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Some of us are rather intrigued on one particular issue. I hope the Minister will be able to help us on that. He rightly said that the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Let us therefore assume that someone of the age of 10½or 11 attempts to commit the offence as dealt with in Clause 2(1). The only penalties referred to are a fine or imprisonment for a maximum period of one month. But of course as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will confirm, 10 year-olds are not sent to prison in this country. What happens to them?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I shall deal first with the offence of attempting to commit an offence. This only arises when someone tries to get into a ground without being authorised to do so. If that person is told that he cannot get in without a card and he accepts that advice, he commits no offence. The offence arises if he tries to get in deliberately without a card.
I fear that a difficulty has arisen so far because no mention has been made of the people this offence is designed to catch. We are dealing with very nasty people who will try and gain entry to a football ground. We are dealing with the hooligans who are the object of this Bill. We need to give some thought to why this provision is in the Bill. It is in the Bill as a deterrent because a substantial deterrent is required when one is dealing with hardened soccer hooligans.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like an answer to my question on imprisonment.
Lord Hesketh: Between the ages of 10 and 14 one has to have guilty knowledge. But the one-month sentence is the ultimate sentence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, the Minister has not totally taken the point. What is the maximum sentence on a 10 year-old—the person who has passed the age of criminal responsibility? What is the maximum penalty for such a person? The Bill states that the maximum sentence is one month's imprisonment, but 10 year-olds cannot be sent to prison in this country. That being so, what is the Government's intention on this matter? That is a very clear question and I very much hope the Minister will help us.
Lord Hesketh: One cannot go to prison under the age of 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be well aware. A fine would presumably be imposed on people under 18. That fine is clearly defined in the Bill as:
"not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: So the noble Lord is saying that if one of these nasty people, as he has rightly described some of them, many of whom are teenagers, commits this thoroughly nasty offence, he will not be sent to any form of incarceration. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord is well aware, the minimum age for a custodial sentence is 14. There will of course be a difference between how the law applies to those who are under the age of 18 and how it applies to those above the age of 18. It will obviously apply more severely to those over the age of 18.
Lord Wigoder: That means that this measure is merely aimed at senile hooligans.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Government often wonder why they are accused of being authoritarian. This is one of the reasons why that happens. But the Government cannot even do that properly. Judging by the debate we have had so far, there is here an Alice In Wonderland situation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, just asked some questions about 10 year-olds. The people concerned may be 12 year-olds or 14 year-olds. It is quite true that 14-year olds can be hooligans. So if they present themselves at the gate without their ID cards, they are hauled away and brought up before the Juvenile Bench, which then fines them a certain sum because they cannot go to prison. But who is to pay their fine? Presumably it will be their parents.
So we shall have in this country a situation in which the simple act of endeavouring to get into a game of football involves people in all kinds of penalties. They can be fined, or if they are over the age of 18 they can be sent to prison. What kind of country are we living in?
We are not talking about some heinous offence. We are not talking about thieving from other people. We are not even talking about direct attacks on individuals by individuals. We are talking about people going to a game of football and, because the authorities are apparently unable or unwilling to deal with the problem of hooliganism, as they should do by methods outside football grounds, the people of this country having imposed on them a series of measures which, if they were not so serious, would be entirely laughable. I cannot help feeling that the Government over this issue have lost their way, because the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister, who has many admirable qualities—
Lord Carter: Name one. Speak for yourself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is a challenge which I will not accept. My noble friend asked me to name the admirable qualities, but I will not go into them at this moment. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was brought forward as an immediate reaction to a particular event and that is never a good way of preparing legislation. Because of that immediate reaction and because of the speed with which this legislation has been brought forward as we see from this clause, it has not been properly thought out. It is not good legislation and it will land the Government in great trouble, because it will affect a large number of people and in the last analysis it will be treated with contempt by the electorate whom it is supposed to protect.
Lord Hesketh: I have to take issue about this Bill suddenly arriving in your Lordships' House. This Bill is the result of 20 years of building frustration in the general public about the problems of soccer
478
hooliganism. That is a fact and that is why this Bill is here.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to be a bore to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, but let me just put this point to him again so as to get his absolutely clear answer. As I understand it, at over 18 the maximum sentence is one month's imprisonment. Is that correct? The noble Lord nods his head. What is the maximum penalty for young men and women under the age of 18? Is it imprisonable or is it custodial, which is the term I should use? Is it custodial in any circumstances? If it is, why is it not in the Bill? If it is not intended, then, given the Government's general attitude, I am mildly surprised that it is not.
Lord Hesketh: Under the age of 14, of course it is not custodial.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Eighteen?
Lord Hesketh: I am sorry, under the age of 18. Under the age of 14 it cannot be custodial in any shape or form. The alternative to that is a fine not exceeding level 3.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: From the age of 14 to the age of 18 the maximum penalty is a fine? Is that right?
Lord Hesketh: For the sake of absolute clarity, I should like to be able to write to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this point.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have demonstrated once again not that here has been any evil intention on the part of the Minister or his colleagues, but that the words on the face of the Bill are capable of being misused, abused and misinterpreted not: merely by those who read it now but by the courts and other tribunals.
The Minister has it within his gift to take away these amendments for consideration and come back to us again in the light of what has been said. I ask him whether he is willing to do that given that I do not intend to press the matter to a Division this evening. We are not in the business of delaying the progress of the Bill as a Division lasting 10 minutes would do. When the Minister reads the exchanges in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see just how unhappy are Members on the other side as well as those on this side of the Committee.
The Minister says that the purpose of the measure is to catch the villain, not the innocent person. But that is not what the Bill says. As we have shown, innocent people will be caught under the Bill. The Minister says that that will not happen because innocent people or those who say that they are innocent even if they are not will be given an opportunity to get out of the problem by the authority and the police.
I should like to feel comfortable that there would be that second opportunity for the innocent person. That would be a second chance for the villain who will have attempted to get in although he may not have committed an offence and may have no record. I understand that some people will attempt to get in in order to cause mayhem and they will be given the

479
opportunity to get away. That is not what the Bill says.
The Minister has failed to take on board any suggestions other than the notion that we want a deterrent that will deter the potential one in 10,000 spectators. We shall write that on the face of the Bill. The Minister and his colleagues should reflect on the fact that—I have used this phrase before—in his Britain, in 1989, we have reached the sorry state that we need to threaten the one person in 10,000 who, without being a member of a scheme, seeks to go to a football match. If he attempts to get in and appears to be someone who is likely not be innocent and could be potentially dangerous, he will face the possibility of a custodial sentence.
I have strayed from Amendment No. 13 into Amendment No. 14 because they are linked together. I shall not repeat myself because we have dealt with all the issues. But, in the light of the comments made, I ask the Minister, before I withdraw my amendment, whether he is prepared to take the issue away and look at it again.
Lord Hesketh: We have reached a slightly confused situation by dealing with Amendment No. 14 as well. We have considered carefully whether imprisonment should be available as a penalty in the event of offences relating to unauthorised attendances at designated matches. It will not be used in all cases. That will be for the courts to decide. We have concluded that there must be an effective deterrent, sufficient to deter professional hooligans—hooligans who may have been banned from the scheme already, perhaps for violent behaviour, and to whom a fine is not a sufficient deterrent. We cannot forget the fact that the Bill is designed to protect the innocent. If we are to protect the innocent, there must be a deterrent for the guilty.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord says that there must be a deterrent. He says that imprisonment is the only answer, yet that, as regards teenagers, there is no custodial penalty despite the fact that a great deal of violence is committed by teenagers. What is the sense of the Government's position? Have they considered any of these issues before putting this ill-considered Bill before Parliament? This is one the strangest debates that I have attended in the 14 years that I have been a Member of this House.
Lord Hesketh: The clear fact of the matter is that there is a system of law in this country and we do not intend to interfere with that. We are simply trying to introduce a deterrent with regard to this Bill. The fact that a person under the age of 18 will not be imprisoned is a fact of the law of this land.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With the greatest respect, the noble Lord is not right. I am sorry to bring in again the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There is a range of custodial penalties for people under the age of 18, as the noble Earl will tell his noble friend if he bothers to consult him. I hope that the noble Lord takes some advice from the Home Office because, with great respect, I doubted in the first instance whether it was sensible for the Department of the Environment to be in charge of this Bill. Everything that has happened so far has confirmed that view.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been given the opportunity to take away these amendments for consideration. One of the objectives of my noble friends on this side of the Committee is to provide people outside the House and those in another place with the arguments that I hope will be used in both places. The more that people outside the Chamber have reported to them faithfully by the media what a nonsense the application of the Bill is—I am not talking about the principle of whether there should be ID cards—and the more that people who share the views of the Minister that something must be done see what it means in practice, the angrier they will be.
The anger of those people outside will not be channelled through Members. It will be channelled through friends of the Minister and colleagues in another place, through their constituencies and at local levels. I hope that they will be made very unhappy indeed. It will also mean that when the Bill reaches another place the Government's inability to satisfy the points that have been raised will be considered very carefully indeed.
The point has been made by many Members on this side of the Committee that one does not need a custodial sentence to deal with the problem. The Minister has elevated to a crime the charge, the guilt—it is laughable—of going into a football match. It is not a matter of being previously convicted or of having a record: it is simply a question of going in in order to transgress. Clause 2(3) states:
"A constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1) … may arrest him without a warrant".
It provides not only that a constable reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence but that he has attempted to commit it. The powers that are being given to various people by this Bill, not least the police, are absolutely horrendous and unacceptable. I have attempted to persuade the Minister to come some way on this point. He has failed to do so. I do not intend to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [National membership scheme: the administrator etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Harris, that if either Amendments Nos. 15 or 16 are agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 17, which is also their amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line I, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Football Membership Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") consisting of seven persons appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association, which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme.").
The noble Lord said: if I have the option I shall settle for moving Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. However, I understand what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees has said.
We move to a part of the Bill which contains one of the major elements—the question of the Football Membership Authority. The Minister will be aware that apart from a passing reference in a part of the Bill to the Football Membership Authority, it is remarkably silent on this new creature. When one considers Clause 3, at the top of page 3 one can see that we are not talking about a Football Membership Authority but about an administrator.
I move Amendment No. 15, and for the record—in order to demonstrate that it is not our intention to impede the progress of the Bill—I speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25 to 28, 30, 35 to 37, 40, 42, 60, 68, 72 and 94. They relate to the generality of what the FMA is and the powers that relate thereto. At one time the Minister gave great authority to the FMA and at other times he appeared to us not to decry it exactly, but he is not giving it the powers that it ought to have to do its job. Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that the Bill is much more precise. In the Bill the FMA is not only the creature of but is subservient to the Secretary of State—not to Parliament, not to one or both Houses, but to the Secretary of State. The key amendment in this group attempts to give some shape to the FMA.
We know from correspondence to which I have been privy but which are not secret or confidential that the premise rests upon the league and the association forming the FMA. They need to collaborate. My understanding is that, although they have gone on record in a letter to the Minister dated 1st February that they still have grave reservations about the efficacy of the scheme (if there is to be an Act and an FMA), they are willing to collaborate with the Government in carrying out the functions and dealing with the powers. However, they make the point that that position has not yet been reached.
One has to look at the interesting question. It is all wrapped up with earlier amendments, even with Amendment No. 1. There seems to be somewhere a hidden agenda concerning speed or timing which is driving the Minister for Sport and, by inference, others to decide that the scheme must be in place, up and operating by an imprecise time. We have heard Ministers talk of the spring of 1990. But if the Minister accepts the guidance of the consultants, Arthur Young, who have been commissioned by the league and the FMA to consider its application with all the best will and good luck in the world, the earliest the scheme can be up and running will be later in 1990.
We want the Minister to tell us what is the constitution of the Football Membership Authority. We give him an opportunity to put some flesh on the bones which he may or may not like: but we are thinking in terms of seven people simply appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association.
In Amendment No. 16 we introduce what to the Minister and his colleagues must be a novel idea, that the supporters of football clubs are entitled to a slice
482
of the action. Besides the authorities we are saying that there should not only be the FMA but that peopling the FMA should be done by consultation. The Minister may ask what is the point of consulting them if they are not to be part of a body—
Lord Hesketh: I was under the impression that Amendment No. 16 was in the next group.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I apologise. Amendment No. 16 is separate. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to correct that impression. Amendment No. 18 is the amendment to which I am referring. Many of the amendments in this group are consequential to our original amendment, and so are Amendments Nos. 20, 29 and 38, which we shall be discussing separately.
We are inviting the Minister to be precise. We want to know from him how, when and comprising what the FMA is seen in the minds of the Minister and his advisers. On page 3 of the Bill we notice a number of interesting things. Is the term "the administrator" another name for the FMA? If that is so, why do we not call a spade a spade and talk in terms of the Football Membership Authority?
Under Clause 3(2) is the draconian power that:
"The administrator may at any time resign from office by notice in writing to the Secretary of State".
Clause 3(3) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
If the administrator is the FMA, and if the FMA is the league and the association, are we being told that it can be removed or that its function shall cease at the whim of the Secretary of State? If the administrator is not to be the league and the association, who can it be? It is unthinkable that the administration of such a scheme will not be in the hands of the football authorities. The Committee needs to be told precisely about that matter.
Under Clause 3(5) we are told that if the performance of the administrator, or of the FMA, is not to the liking of the Secretary of State, he can remove it from office because he believes that it has failed in carrying out its duties. That is a wide-ranging introduction to approximately 20 amendments, many of which are consequential. It is the first opportunity that the Committee or another place has had to understand better what the Government have in mind in setting up the important body which will take enormous decisions affecting and influencing football for a long time.
Can the Minister tell us a little more about that and say why he considers that, regardless of the good men or women appointed to carry out the duties, the Secretary of State requires the ultimate sanctions contained in Clause 3(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)? I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I also find it difficult to understand what the Government are trying to achieve. It may be that I am being dense but I hope that that is not true. In the explanatory memorandum we read:
"Clauses 3 to 5 provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a body to run the scheme".

483
Clause 3(1) states:
"There shall be a person responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme ('the administrator')".
The point is relatively simple. Is it one person or a body, or is there both an administrator and a body? We know nothing about the body; it is referred to in the report of the working party but not in the Bill. Therefore, can the Minister explain the apparent anomaly in the drafting of the explanatory memorandum and the clause?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Bill refers to the "administrator" who will draw up the scheme, submit it to the Secretary of State for approval and run it. "Administrator" is a neutral word. It does not mean that we have a secret plan to appoint a civil servant to run the scheme or that we are planning to keep the football authorities out of the scheme. It is simply a means of referring to the body who will administrate the scheme. We all know that the words used in legislation and in everyday speech are not always the same.
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill refers to t:'e administrator as the Football Membership Authority. This was the term used by the Minister of Sport's working party on the national membership scheme in its report published last November and it is the phrase we have used ever since.
It has always been the Government's wish that the football authorities should set up and run the FMA, in consultation of course with the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been discussing this with the chairman of the FA and the president of the league in the last two weeks. I am delighted to tell Members of the Committee that those discussions have gone well. The football authorities have set up a working party to prepare a scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. They have agreed that a senior official in my department should attend the meetings of the working party to provide them with advice and they are considering an offer from my honourable friend that the Government should share the costs of preparing the scheme for submission to the Secretary of State. My honourable friend has confirmed that the football authorities will have first refusal for appointment as the FMA. Only if they prove unwilling or unable to draw up an acceptable scheme on an acceptable timetable will the Government actively consider appointing anyone else.
In the face of all this co-operation, I do not think that any sensible person could continue to believe that there is any sinister significance to the use of the word "administrator" in the Bill. However, the Government are keen to dispel all such doubts about their intentions and to avoid wasting the Committee's time on further debate on this subject.
I wish, therefore, to propose to the Members of the Committee that if they will withdraw the amendments on this subject in their name, the Government will bring forward our own amendments at Report stage to see how we can provide in the Bill for the administrator to be known
484
as the Football Membership Authority. I also undertake to consider the possibility of adding a requirement that the FMA should consult the FA and the league in preparing the scheme. Such a requirement would hardly be necessary if the FA and the league are to set up the FMA themselves but I recognise that it may be desirable for this to be spelled out in case they do not form the FMA. I do not see, in fact, how anyone could draw up and run a national membership scheme for football spectators without consulting the FA and the league.
I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to accept my offer to bring forward alternative amendments to their own. I could not advise the Committee to accept the amendments proposed. It does not seem to me appropriate to lay down at this stage the number of members which the FMA should have nor to spell out details of its constitution. The Government are perfectly happy to discuss these matters with the football authorities. Indeed that is one of the purposes of the working party that will draw up the scheme, but I do not think it is helpful to pre-empt these discussions now. I invite the Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments in view of what I have said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that my noble friend will take the same view of the matter as I. We shall not press the amendment today but we shall want to see what the Government suggest. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said. I believe that it is far better to have a membership authority specified in the Bill. I believe that it is necessary to say what the maximum number of members should be because that is a normal statutory approach, if I may so describe it. I also hope that the authority will be required to publish an annual report, which is an important matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will take that into account when he is considering with his officials what form of words to use in the amendments which he will bring forward.
I very much hope that he will also consider the question of independent members on the authority. It is all very well to say that it is a good idea to have the football authorities' co-operation in this matter. Certainly if this Bill goes on to the statute book I would welcome that. However, it is also necessary to consider the public interest in the matter, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will agree. I believe that there should be at least one independent member of the authority. However, speaking for myself, I welcome what he said and look forward to seeing what he proposes on Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister who has been forthcoming and has met the thrust of these amendments; namely, the uncertainty. However it is right that two points should be raised. First, the Minister said that he hopes that the FMA will be peopled by the league and the association and that they need to come forward with an acceptable timescale. I assume the Minister is saying "acceptable to the Secretary of State". Is he aware that in a letter addressed to the Minister for Sport, the league and the Football Association said:
"We are aiming to begin the scheme in August 1990, although Arthur Young have warned that it may be impractical to begin at so

485
early a date. We are sure you would not wish us to commit ourselves to a timetable that meant we had to cut corners and risk an inoperable scheme."
The best professional advice—not political judgment—is that to try to implement a scheme to give effect to the Bill starting earlier than August 1990 (a later date is hinted at) would mean cutting corners and risking an inoperable scheme.
I appreciate that discussions are going on all the time in a spirit of attempting to look at problems and solving them. However, if at the end of the day we have such a situation, I want the Minister to say what he can about not being tied—I use the term clumsily—to a hidden agenda. The Minister and his colleagues have a date in their minds when they want to be able to say that the scheme is up and running. I want the Minister to tell me that that is not so. They may have a date when they would like it to run but the people who have to run it are saying that, given all the good will in the world, they still need time to put it into operation.
Secondly, is the Minister saying that during the passage of this Bill, perhaps in another place, these further details about precision that we are asking about will be made known? His announcement was welcome, but it is the first time he was able to make it as this is the first Committee day and it was done in response to initiatives from this side of the Committee. Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding that the way in which this scheme will work will be made known, if not in this House—I realise that that may not be possible—at some stage during the passage of the Bill and that Parliament will be told about the agreement which the Minister wants to reach?
Lord Hesketh: By its very nature the situation with the league and the FA is fluid. The Government clearly must have a target and I am well aware of the Arthur Young letters to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the present discussions is to see how quickly the scheme can be implemented. The overriding feature to which the noble Lord referred is the workability of the scheme. As he knows from debates earlier today we are very much committed to the scheme working in order for it to be implemented. I wish I could give the noble Lord the precision that he requires but at the moment I cannot do so in quite the way that he wants it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I have an answer to the questions I asked, particularly about the annual report? I am not asking the noble Lord to commit himself finally on the matter but I should be grateful if he could say that the matter will be looked into.
Lord Hesketh: The matter to which the noble Lord refers is the subject of a later amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but I assume that the noble Lord was hoping to make more rapid progress and we will not have to move the amendment if he can give an indication now that he is prepared to move on the question.
Lord Hesketh: I think I can be positive on that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In the light of the Minister's offer we shall not press the amendments. He fairly indicated that it may not be possible to be more precise. I do not expect the Minister to answer now but, as fluid as the discussions are with the league and the Football Association and as helpful as the league, the association and the government appointee who is discussing how it would work are, I very much hope that there will not be an imperative from some other quarter which says, "We know you have not reached agreement but we intend to implement the scheme" from a date which is seen by the league and the association as raising all sorts of problems.
I realise that the Minister has to make progress in the discussions. I hope that the Committee and another place will take up the point that it will be nonsense for a scheme that may or may not work and that has been worked on by many people to be imposed on the two organisations whose good will is absolutely essential—the Football League and the Football Association. They have the good name of football at stake and they will be seen afterwards if matters go disastrously wrong. It will be said that they should have stuck out against the Government. I happen to know how difficult it is for nongovernmental people to stick out against the Government. They are under pressure. They recognise the political realities as much as we do. They recognise the determination of the Government to get their Bill.
What I am saying is not addressed just to the Minister but also to the Football League and the Football Association. I hope that they will not be forced into agreeing to a scheme which not only in their heart of hearts they say is not workable but which their advisers tell them is fraught with danger. The Minister has been very helpful to us on a series of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (I) and insert—
("(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Football Membership Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the authority") consisting of seven persons appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Football League and the Football Association in consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be responsible for the administration of the national football membership scheme.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment speaks in terms of the composition of the FMA. It relies very heavily on the fact that it should be drawn from the Football League and the Football Association. We are talking in terms of consultation with the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. At Second Reading I was proud to say that I was wearing the Millwall Football Club tie. For those who cannot read the small print of the badge that I wear, it says:
"Football Supporters Association. Fans say 'No' to ID cards.".
It does not pretend to speak for half a million football fans and makes no pretence of its authority or power. There should be some mechanism to involve this body among those which should be consulted.
Not every club has a football supporters' club. I know that Peterborough and Northampton have. Most clubs have and some are well organised. Some of them work very closely with the clubs. I ask the Minister, if I withdraw the amendment will he say something to indicate that in the grand scheme of things there is a place for the views of the supporters' clubs or associations in this country? I am not asking for a commitment. The fact is that if their lives are going to be affected by the Bill and by the FMA, then I believe that somehow or other they should be brought in. This amendment does not suggest that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs should be members of the FMA. That is a possibility but I am not asking for that. They should be consulted in some way, however.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to sympathise with the thrust of the amendment though he may not necessarily be able to say that he is prepared to look at it. People outside this Committee are trying to get a sense of the Government's reactions. I appreciate that this is the very first time that the nitty gritty of the Bill can be examined. This may be a clumsy way of introducing the supporters' clubs and the supporters, but there are people outside who dislike the ID card scheme intensely. That is what I am told by most supporters. It would be helpful if they could feel that their views will have some channel into the machinery. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on building up the need for football supporters to be involved in an official capacity. If we try to do that we may make the system unwieldy. Supporters' clubs are essential to the
488
success and good health of their football clubs. We also know of the little rivalries and different points of view among these supporters clubs as distinct from the football clubs, which are responsible for paying the bills and which at the end of the day are responsible for the clubs' good running.
The point of view of football supporters should be taken into account but not in the way suggested in the amendment. It is up to the Football Association and the Football League to take into account what they think their supporters think. They can use the sieve of their special knowledge and can then pass on the good part of what the supporters want, having rid it of some of the acrimony that so often goes on. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in wanting to give any more specific powers within the Bill to the supporters' clubs. I want their views to be taken into account but that should be done through the clubs themselves.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If there is to be an authority I would prefer the football industry, if I may so describe it, to be involved in the running of the scheme. On balance, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that there is a place for the spectators. But there is a problem if the authority consists of people with economic interests. I prefer to have a representative or representatives of the supporters, or, as I indicated earlier when the noble Lord was perhaps not in the Chamber, an independent member. I am slightly nervous about calling an organisation an authority when it represents exclusively the football clubs. They are perfectly entitled to have clearly defined economic objectives which are not necessarily shared by supporters and the general public. I would not want to make a final decision on the matter. It is a difficult issue and I shall wait to see what the Government do when they come forward with the new clause. Then we shall be able to see the matter rather more clearly than we can this evening.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment introduces a new concept—that of requiring the FA and the Football League to consult the representatives of football supporters in nominating members to the FMA. For the reasons which I have given I do not think we need to go into the question of the detailed composition of the FMA at this stage or make decisions on how many members it should have. However, I have sympathy with what I take to be the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment that football supporters' representatives should be involved in the preparation of the national membership scheme and in the running of the FMA. The football authorities are now working on the preparation of the scheme. I very much hope that they will consult both the Football Supporters' Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs in the process. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport met both parties just before Christmas to discuss the Government's proposals. I venture to suggest that the football authorities should do no less. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been more than fair and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("for a period of three years.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to give a period of life to the FMA. I say that in the light of the Minister's comments that we shall get more detail in his amendments at a later stage. What we are proposing is that there ought to be a specified period of appointment for those people who are appointed. We do not like the sword of Damocles which is contained in Clause 3(3), which states that:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
In our view it is sensible that people should know how long they are appointed for, or that the bodies should know how long they will have to operate the scheme. That is not to say that the FMA ipso facto will always be acceptable. It may well be misguided, it may well do things, or wish to do things, but I can see the need for change. However, the purpose of the inclusion of the period of three years is so that the subsection will read:
"('the administrator') … shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for a period of three years".
I do not know whether the Minister or the Government have any views on the sense of what I have said. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I have indeed clearly understood the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Equally, I hope that my noble friend's previous comments on the Government's intentions in relation to the Football Membership Authority—to be appointed by the Secretary of State as administrator—and our willingness to amend the Bill to meet the noble Lord's concerns will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to withdraw the amendment. The effect would be to limit the appointment of the Football Membership Authority to a three-year period. We take it that the thought behind the amendment is that if the football authorities do not take the role of the Football Membership Authority at once, they should have another chance.
We have emphasised the Government's wish that the football authorities should set up the Football Membership Authority and we have described the progress we are making to that end. We cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose to put a three-year limit on the appointment of the Football Membership Authority. The Bill already provides for the administrator to resign, for the administrator to be removed by the Secretary of State, and, where the two parties agree, for the scheme to be modified. This seems to cover all necessary circumstances. If the initial appointment is working well, there is no good reason to bring it to an arbitrary end after three years.
490
It is for those reasons that I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What the Minister said is perfectly fair. We put amendments down in the absence of any clue as to what might happen. We have drawn from the Minister—I do not mean that in an offensive way—and from his ministerial colleague that there is an intention, having withdrawn a raft of amendments, that we shall see a little more daylight at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. Certainly, in the light of that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("in consultation with the football authorities").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 20 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 and 38. All these amendments hang on the consultation which needs to be undertaken with the football authorities. In fact the amendment reads:
"In consultation with the football authorities",
and concerns page 3 line 7 which reads:
"The Secretary of State may at any time remove the administrator from office".
We are saying, now that we are better aware, that for all intents and purposes this will be the FMA. Indeed, it is unthinkable for the FMA to be other than the league and the association. I understand what is in the Government's mind. Although it is not unthinkable, it is their strong wish that there should be the FMA. Therefore, let us assume that that is so. We are saying that if the exercise in Clause 3(3) is that the Secretary of State may at any time remove the league and the authority and thus prevent them from fulfilling the functions of the FMA, surely that should only be done after consultation with the people concerned.
I fully understand that a relationship will develop once the scheme operates, that it is in the best interests of the FMA to make it work and that it is in the Government's best interests to keep it working. We want to ensure that nothing is done to the FMA without collaboration or consultation with the football authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendments provide for consultation with the football authorities, if the FMA, as administrator, is to be removed when the scheme is drawn up and when it is modified. I have already said that the Government accept completely the need for the football authorities to be consulted about any proposed national membership scheme and that I am happy to consider amending the Bill to spell out that point. We need to look at how the amendments might be made in the context of the administrator of the scheme being known as the

491
Football Membership Authority. I do not believe that the amendments as drafted are right. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my undertaking to consider the matter further and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what the Minister has said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He has eased our minds and we understand that there is no intention to do other than have full consultation with the authorities in respect of the life and functions of the FMA. I look forward, as does my noble friend Lord Harris, to seeing what the Government have in mind and the amendments that they will bring forward. We will examine them closely. From what the Minister has said, I believe that this side of the Committee will accept the amendments if we understand from the football authorities that they meet their desire to be in charge of their remit under the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert
("(7) No order under subsection (6) above shall have effect until a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I dealt with the earlier amendment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments again. We shall come back to the amendment on Report. There are other amendments in the same category with which we shall deal on Report, as I said earlier. I therefore do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [National membership scheme: making, approval, modification etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS FOR WALES: POLICY REVIEW
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS FOR WALES: POLICY REVIEW
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF ENGLAND: POLICY REVIEW
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF ENGLAND: POLICY REVIEW
  MISS LUCY STEVENS
  MISS LUCY STEVENS
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT REPORT
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT REPORT
  NHS HOSPITALS: USE OF FRESH EGGS
  NHS HOSPITALS: USE OF FRESH EGGS
  CANCER DEATH STATISTICS
  CANCER DEATH STATISTICS
  SEAT BELT OFFENCES
  SEAT BELT OFFENCES
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: PUBLICATION AND CONSOLIDATION
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: PUBLICATION AND CONSOLIDATION
  PRISON SANITATION REPORT
  PRISON SANITATION REPORT